View allAll Photos Tagged Introspection
NIKON D70s F3.5-4.5 18-70mm
Q1: What kind of a place is Lo-Sheng Sanatorium?
In 1927, the General Governor of Taiwan started to build Losheng Sanatorium for the quarantine and treatment of leprosy patients. With the force of sanitary police and the medical officers, the general investigation, quarantine, and imprisonment of the leprosy patients were conducted thoroughly in the period from1934 till the end of colonial governance of Japan. As a result, Losheng Sanatorium became the institution of compulsory quarantine as well as life-long imprisonment for the leprosy patients. Now, we consider Losheng Sanatorium as the epitome of the hundred-year sanitary history in Taiwan. It is the only historical mark that can testify the epidemic prevention history of Taiwan, and it is also the best place for us to do the introspection of the human rights of the patients.
Q2: What is the Hansen's disease?
Leprosy, also called the Hansen's disease，is a chronic bacterial disease infecting the skin and nerves in the hands and feet and, in some cases, the respiratory system. In 1873, a Norwegian doctor, Hansen, discovered the pathogenesis of this disease, hence the name Hansen's disease. Leprosy virus is hard to cultivate even in the lab, so the contagiousness is extremely weak. Almost everyone (90% of the human beings) has the natural immunity against leprosy virus. Human is the main infection source of the Hansen's disease, and the upper respiratory tract is the major route of infection. The latent period is spans from three to five years, but could be as long as 40 years. The Hansen's disease is easier to spread in the environment with poor public sanitation facilities. Currently, the good sanitary condition in Taiwan ensures that the Hansen's disease almost has no contagiousness, and there is also effective cure for the disease.
Q3 Why was there a compulsory quarantine policy in the past?
At the beginning of the 20th century, because of the improvement in sanitary condition, the Hansen's disease was almost extinct in Europe and America. However, the Japanese government desired to imitate the militarism of German government, so when they faced the large amount of the domestic leprosy patients, they regarded those patients as "the national humiliation", and began to draw up "the prevention law of Leprosy "in 1907. They planned to isolate the leprosy patients from the society, trying to create the illusion in which the Hansen's disease was extinct.
Q4 What is the influence of the compulsory quarantine policy?
In order to justify its compulsory quarantine policy, the Japanese government exaggerated the contagiousness of the Hansen's disease, and propagandized it to the society with force. They educated people that leprosy was extremely horrible, and used the police force and the spy system to "arrest" the patients and put them in hospitalization. This discriminating experience of being arrested in front of their families, friends, neighbors as well as the ingrained infamy of this policy prevented the Hansen's patients from going back to the society even after the compulsory quarantine policy was relieved. It was a tragedy for those patients to have homes they dared not return to.
Q5 Why is Taiwanese government tearing down the Losheng Sanatorium？
In 1994, Taipei City's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System has planned to build a depot on the site where now the Sanatorium is. Chen Jing-Chuan, (陳京川) the ex-director of Losheng was opposed to this decision, and did three surveys among the patients to see what they thought and needed, shortly before he got demoted and reprimanded. Ever since then, the patients had no access to the MRT construction plans and its related discussions.
Q6 Why is it a mistake to build the depot on the Losheng site？
The MRT depot was originally planned to be built on the mountains behind Fu-Jen Catholic University(輔仁大學), but the plan was changed by local politicians. This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Waste of money: 3/5 of the depot site needs to be built on flatland; therefore $90 million (USD) will be spent on flatting and improving the soil.
2. Disaster for the environment: What comes after flatting the mountains is a ten-story-tall retaining wall, which destroys the natural environment.
3. Safety concern: the future depot will be situated upon earth faults.
4. Ravaged historical site: the Losheng Sanatorium is an important cultural asset for people in East Asia. The depot construction will turn all this treasure into dust.
5. Ordeal for patients: the patients are forced to leave the place they spent their lives, suffering mentally and physically from the displacement.
6. Autocratic decision-making: the MRT Department never inquired the needs of Losheng patients--the 'residents' of the site—which is a violation of fundamental human rights.
Q7 Why should the Losheng Sanatorium be a World Heritage?
1. The Losheng Sanatorium has witnessed the inhumane treatment (such as discrimination and compulsory quarantine) the leprosy patients had undergone through 70 years of governmental oppression. It is a live showcase of Taiwan's colonial past, history of public health and suppressed human rights.
2. The Losheng Sanatorium is one among the few leprosy sanatoriums left. Its architecture has a mixture of Japanese and Gothic style, along with houses and Buddhist shrines built by the patients. The Sanatorium retains its painfully organised structure as an embodiment of its colonial past.
3. The Losheng Sanatorium has met many requirements for World Heritage. One UNESCO committee member who visited Losheng has commented that the Sanatorium is qualified at a World Heritage site. He mentioned one World Heritage site, the Robben Island, where Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years, to exemplify the value of human rights.
4. The international trend of cultural assets conservation emphasizes an 'organic' perspective of preserving, which means not only the architecture is preserved, but also its relationship established by people who lived in it. The Losheng Sanatorium is embedded with history and lifelong memory of the patients, therefore partial preservation would tarnish the integrity of its value. Moreover, the Losheng Sanatorium is a reminder of inhumane quarantine and mistaken political measures for the world to see. Forced displacement is nothing less than another persecution for human rights.
Q8 How does the Taiwanese government plan to settle the patients?
In 2002, the new housing projects was initiated, but instead of 'houses' which were earlier promised to the patients, the new director gave them two tall buildings with modern hospital facilities. It became clear that the new administration team intended to run a hospital business and make money. The patients had no choice but to be removed to another place designed for quarantine.
The skyscraper-ish hospital buildings were designed mainly for housing short-term patients; therefore it has inadequate space for residents to move around freely. Moreover, the hospital management team forbids the patients from bringing with them personal belongings, from cooking, and from coming over to the front building—a discriminative policy.
Q9 How are leprosy patients treated in other countries?
In 2001, the Japanese government formally apologised to the maltreated leprosy patients, and devised reimbursement laws to give them the justice and honor they long missed. Take the example of National Sanatorium Nagashima Aiseien (日本長島愛生園): it retains its old architecture and natural environment for educational purposes; the patients live in well-organised houses; intercom facilities were implemented in the sanatorium for patients who have lost their sight. Every patient has nearly two nurses to take good care of them.
Q10 How come we did not speak out in the initial stages of planning? Why stand out now?
In fact, the depot plan has received severe critiques through the decade, from scholars and social groups alike. In 1994, the Taiwanese Bureau of Health has decided the project would brutally disrupt the patients' lives, or even pose life threatens. In the same year, the Losheng residents started their perpetual war against the violence.
Long before the depot construction was initiated, Loshen's ex-director and history professionals have demanded a large-scale inspection of Losheng's position as a historical site. The scholars appealed to the MRT Department that they should spare the Losheng Sanatorium, while they unanimously agreed the entire site should be preserved. However, the officials were rough enough to terminate the process of inspection, and decided the Sanatorium should be torn down entirely.
It was not until 2004, when Prof. John K.C. Liu (劉可強教授) came up with a symbiosis plan, and when the Concil of Cultural Affairs (文建會) has deemed the Sanatorium a historical spot, that the MRT Department was pressured to rethink the possibilities of preservation.
We sincerely appeal to the governmental officials that they should take the problems seriously. People have eyes to see and ears to listen; we will not be fooled or threatened for life.
Q11. Will MRT Shin-Jhong line not able to function if Losheng sanatorium is not torn down?
A11: Liu, Ko-Chiang, a professor in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning in National Taiwan University (NTU), has long proposed a "Concurrent Construction Program of Losheng Sanatorium and MRT" in December, 2004. This plan not only proposes to preserve the whole area in Losheng, but let the MRT function well. It achieves the four-win situation for the historical site, the MRT, the patients in Losheng, and the HuiLong community. Also, this plan has been evaluated by the Taipei MRT bureau as "technically applicable". However, after the resignation of the whole Cabinet, no more committees were to be hold, the government commissioner in charge of this plan denied it with an official document without any negotiation, and the concurrent construction program has been put aside ever since.
In 2006, the 90% reserve plan proposed by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) was evaluate as applicable by Mott MacDonald Group. (欣陸工程顧問公司) However, the Executive Yuan turn down this proposal from CCA without any explanation in less than one month.
If we reserve Losheng sanatorium, it will not necessarily be the obstacle which hinders the MRT service. What we are upset about is the governmental monopoly of technical resources and legal rights behind the curtain, and they blame the Losheng patients for delaying the MRT. If the government keeps ignoring its flawed policy, sweeping things under the rug, and putting off its own political duty, the government will wipe out the entire historical Losheng sanatorium. Such unwise arrogance from our government only damages the rights of patients in Losheng and every citizen.
Q12. According to the Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), curved rail in the 90% plan will cause derailment, is it true?
A12: The altered curvature in 90% plan has no connection with the commuters. What the 90% plan affects is the allocation of the workshop; more specifically, the plan only changes the curvature of rails which vacant carriages may go in and out. Unless the DORTS intends to make carriages enter the workshop with a high speed, or they want some passengers to participate parties held in the workshop occasionally; otherwise security is not the issue in this plan. In fact, this is exactly why the government does not want to discuss the 90% plan openly. Besides, when Frank Chang-ting Hsieh (謝長廷) was the minister of Executive Yuan, the 90% was evaluated as an applicable plan.
Q13. According to the media and Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), the 90% preservation plan will delay the construction of MRT for two to three years and result in a two to three hundred billion NTD (approx. 760 million USD) increase in budget, is that true?
A13. In the press release issued by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) in Jan. 23, 2007, it was mentioned: "according to recent news, some local representatives and organizations in Taipei City and Taipei County claimed that the 90% Losheng preservation plan proposed by CCA will severely delay the MRT construction. Hereby CCA reiterates that the 90% preservation plan, evaluated by Hsin-Lu cooperation, will lengthen the construction period for about four months, and appends a three billion budget to it. It is not true to say the MRT construction will be delayed for two to three years."
Q14. The Losheng sanatorium has its own value to be preserved, and the human rights of the patients are also important; but what about the rights of other citizens?
A14. The Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局) constantly uses phrases such as "Significant National Construction", "Asserting the Public Interests", and "One Million People's Rights of Using MRT", all of which portray the Losheng sanatorium as a troublemaker consisting of a tiny group of people, who aim at obstructing the construction of MRT. Such tactics downplay the issue of Losheng, simplifying the problem here as "the majority matters." However, we are surprised that our ruling party, who has been proud of its concern about human rights, should say such things.
If we acknowledge that the Losheng sanatorium is an important asset that not only belongs to people in Taiwan, but also to all other countries where quarantine on Hanson disease was ever imposed. The Losheng sanatorium, therefore, becomes heirloom for the entire humanity. If the Taiwanese government is willing to change its attitude and positively promote human rights, then Losheng sanatorium can not only provide another greenbelt for the citizens, but also help transform the HuiLong community into an emblem of human rights.
History repeats itself. If today we turn a deaf ear to the plights of Losheng patients, tomorrow we might ourselves experience governmental violence. In democratic countries, such as Japan, the society would usually wait till all-round plans are devised, so that the disadvantaged minority could be attended of their needs. Likewise, we urge the government in Taiwan to be responsible enough to handle the Losheng dispute with due respect to culture, history, and human rights; not only those of the patients, but also of us people.
www.coolloud.org.tw/news/database/Interface/Detailstander...
Losheng Sanatorium(Traditional Chinese: 樂生療養院; pinyin: lèshēng liáoyǎngyuàn) is a hospital for lepers, which is located in Sinjhuang, Taipei County. During 1930s, this hospital was the only public sanatorium for leprosy patients in Taiwan and also the first leprosy hospital in Taiwan.
Losheng, named Rakusei Sanatorium for Lepers of Governor-General of Taiwan (臺灣總督府癩病療養樂生院, Taiwan Sōtokufu Raibyō Rakuseiin?) originally, was built in 1929 during Japanese colonial period and served as an isolation hospital for leprosy patients at that time. The Japanese government forced leprosy patients to live in this hospital. The first 5 buildings can offer more than 100 patients.
In 2001, due to the construction of Taipei Rapid Transit System, the authorities planed of Xinzhuang (Sijhuang) Line to transform Losheng to a community hospital, thus put an end to its dedicated hospitalization and care for leprosy patients. Many students, urban planners and NGO tried to protect this sanatorium from that time.
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%e6%a8%82%e7%94%9f%e7%99%82%e9%a4%8...
ces grands voyages vers nos mondes intérieurs...
là où n'existe aucune frontière.
Les Hemmes de Marck , près de Calais
un matin glacial de l'hiver dernier
FUJIFILM NATURA BLACK F1.9 24mm XTRA400
Q1: What kind of a place is Lo-Sheng Sanatorium?
In 1927, the General Governor of Taiwan started to build Losheng Sanatorium for the quarantine and treatment of leprosy patients. With the force of sanitary police and the medical officers, the general investigation, quarantine, and imprisonment of the leprosy patients were conducted thoroughly in the period from1934 till the end of colonial governance of Japan. As a result, Losheng Sanatorium became the institution of compulsory quarantine as well as life-long imprisonment for the leprosy patients. Now, we consider Losheng Sanatorium as the epitome of the hundred-year sanitary history in Taiwan. It is the only historical mark that can testify the epidemic prevention history of Taiwan, and it is also the best place for us to do the introspection of the human rights of the patients.
Q2: What is the Hansen's disease?
Leprosy, also called the Hansen's disease，is a chronic bacterial disease infecting the skin and nerves in the hands and feet and, in some cases, the respiratory system. In 1873, a Norwegian doctor, Hansen, discovered the pathogenesis of this disease, hence the name Hansen's disease. Leprosy virus is hard to cultivate even in the lab, so the contagiousness is extremely weak. Almost everyone (90% of the human beings) has the natural immunity against leprosy virus. Human is the main infection source of the Hansen's disease, and the upper respiratory tract is the major route of infection. The latent period is spans from three to five years, but could be as long as 40 years. The Hansen's disease is easier to spread in the environment with poor public sanitation facilities. Currently, the good sanitary condition in Taiwan ensures that the Hansen's disease almost has no contagiousness, and there is also effective cure for the disease.
Q3 Why was there a compulsory quarantine policy in the past?
At the beginning of the 20th century, because of the improvement in sanitary condition, the Hansen's disease was almost extinct in Europe and America. However, the Japanese government desired to imitate the militarism of German government, so when they faced the large amount of the domestic leprosy patients, they regarded those patients as "the national humiliation", and began to draw up "the prevention law of Leprosy "in 1907. They planned to isolate the leprosy patients from the society, trying to create the illusion in which the Hansen's disease was extinct.
Q4 What is the influence of the compulsory quarantine policy?
In order to justify its compulsory quarantine policy, the Japanese government exaggerated the contagiousness of the Hansen's disease, and propagandized it to the society with force. They educated people that leprosy was extremely horrible, and used the police force and the spy system to "arrest" the patients and put them in hospitalization. This discriminating experience of being arrested in front of their families, friends, neighbors as well as the ingrained infamy of this policy prevented the Hansen's patients from going back to the society even after the compulsory quarantine policy was relieved. It was a tragedy for those patients to have homes they dared not return to.
Q5 Why is Taiwanese government tearing down the Losheng Sanatorium？
In 1994, Taipei City's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System has planned to build a depot on the site where now the Sanatorium is. Chen Jing-Chuan, (陳京川) the ex-director of Losheng was opposed to this decision, and did three surveys among the patients to see what they thought and needed, shortly before he got demoted and reprimanded. Ever since then, the patients had no access to the MRT construction plans and its related discussions.
Q6 Why is it a mistake to build the depot on the Losheng site？
The MRT depot was originally planned to be built on the mountains behind Fu-Jen Catholic University(輔仁大學), but the plan was changed by local politicians. This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Waste of money: 3/5 of the depot site needs to be built on flatland; therefore $90 million (USD) will be spent on flatting and improving the soil.
2. Disaster for the environment: What comes after flatting the mountains is a ten-story-tall retaining wall, which destroys the natural environment.
3. Safety concern: the future depot will be situated upon earth faults.
4. Ravaged historical site: the Losheng Sanatorium is an important cultural asset for people in East Asia. The depot construction will turn all this treasure into dust.
5. Ordeal for patients: the patients are forced to leave the place they spent their lives, suffering mentally and physically from the displacement.
6. Autocratic decision-making: the MRT Department never inquired the needs of Losheng patients--the 'residents' of the site—which is a violation of fundamental human rights.
Q7 Why should the Losheng Sanatorium be a World Heritage?
1. The Losheng Sanatorium has witnessed the inhumane treatment (such as discrimination and compulsory quarantine) the leprosy patients had undergone through 70 years of governmental oppression. It is a live showcase of Taiwan's colonial past, history of public health and suppressed human rights.
2. The Losheng Sanatorium is one among the few leprosy sanatoriums left. Its architecture has a mixture of Japanese and Gothic style, along with houses and Buddhist shrines built by the patients. The Sanatorium retains its painfully organised structure as an embodiment of its colonial past.
3. The Losheng Sanatorium has met many requirements for World Heritage. One UNESCO committee member who visited Losheng has commented that the Sanatorium is qualified at a World Heritage site. He mentioned one World Heritage site, the Robben Island, where Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years, to exemplify the value of human rights.
4. The international trend of cultural assets conservation emphasizes an 'organic' perspective of preserving, which means not only the architecture is preserved, but also its relationship established by people who lived in it. The Losheng Sanatorium is embedded with history and lifelong memory of the patients, therefore partial preservation would tarnish the integrity of its value. Moreover, the Losheng Sanatorium is a reminder of inhumane quarantine and mistaken political measures for the world to see. Forced displacement is nothing less than another persecution for human rights.
Q8 How does the Taiwanese government plan to settle the patients?
In 2002, the new housing projects was initiated, but instead of 'houses' which were earlier promised to the patients, the new director gave them two tall buildings with modern hospital facilities. It became clear that the new administration team intended to run a hospital business and make money. The patients had no choice but to be removed to another place designed for quarantine.
The skyscraper-ish hospital buildings were designed mainly for housing short-term patients; therefore it has inadequate space for residents to move around freely. Moreover, the hospital management team forbids the patients from bringing with them personal belongings, from cooking, and from coming over to the front building—a discriminative policy.
Q9 How are leprosy patients treated in other countries?
In 2001, the Japanese government formally apologised to the maltreated leprosy patients, and devised reimbursement laws to give them the justice and honor they long missed. Take the example of National Sanatorium Nagashima Aiseien (日本長島愛生園): it retains its old architecture and natural environment for educational purposes; the patients live in well-organised houses; intercom facilities were implemented in the sanatorium for patients who have lost their sight. Every patient has nearly two nurses to take good care of them.
Q10 How come we did not speak out in the initial stages of planning? Why stand out now?
In fact, the depot plan has received severe critiques through the decade, from scholars and social groups alike. In 1994, the Taiwanese Bureau of Health has decided the project would brutally disrupt the patients' lives, or even pose life threatens. In the same year, the Losheng residents started their perpetual war against the violence.
Long before the depot construction was initiated, Loshen's ex-director and history professionals have demanded a large-scale inspection of Losheng's position as a historical site. The scholars appealed to the MRT Department that they should spare the Losheng Sanatorium, while they unanimously agreed the entire site should be preserved. However, the officials were rough enough to terminate the process of inspection, and decided the Sanatorium should be torn down entirely.
It was not until 2004, when Prof. John K.C. Liu (劉可強教授) came up with a symbiosis plan, and when the Concil of Cultural Affairs (文建會) has deemed the Sanatorium a historical spot, that the MRT Department was pressured to rethink the possibilities of preservation.
We sincerely appeal to the governmental officials that they should take the problems seriously. People have eyes to see and ears to listen; we will not be fooled or threatened for life.
Q11. Will MRT Shin-Jhong line not able to function if Losheng sanatorium is not torn down?
A11: Liu, Ko-Chiang, a professor in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning in National Taiwan University (NTU), has long proposed a "Concurrent Construction Program of Losheng Sanatorium and MRT" in December, 2004. This plan not only proposes to preserve the whole area in Losheng, but let the MRT function well. It achieves the four-win situation for the historical site, the MRT, the patients in Losheng, and the HuiLong community. Also, this plan has been evaluated by the Taipei MRT bureau as "technically applicable". However, after the resignation of the whole Cabinet, no more committees were to be hold, the government commissioner in charge of this plan denied it with an official document without any negotiation, and the concurrent construction program has been put aside ever since.
In 2006, the 90% reserve plan proposed by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) was evaluate as applicable by Mott MacDonald Group. (欣陸工程顧問公司) However, the Executive Yuan turn down this proposal from CCA without any explanation in less than one month.
If we reserve Losheng sanatorium, it will not necessarily be the obstacle which hinders the MRT service. What we are upset about is the governmental monopoly of technical resources and legal rights behind the curtain, and they blame the Losheng patients for delaying the MRT. If the government keeps ignoring its flawed policy, sweeping things under the rug, and putting off its own political duty, the government will wipe out the entire historical Losheng sanatorium. Such unwise arrogance from our government only damages the rights of patients in Losheng and every citizen.
Q12. According to the Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), curved rail in the 90% plan will cause derailment, is it true?
A12: The altered curvature in 90% plan has no connection with the commuters. What the 90% plan affects is the allocation of the workshop; more specifically, the plan only changes the curvature of rails which vacant carriages may go in and out. Unless the DORTS intends to make carriages enter the workshop with a high speed, or they want some passengers to participate parties held in the workshop occasionally; otherwise security is not the issue in this plan. In fact, this is exactly why the government does not want to discuss the 90% plan openly. Besides, when Frank Chang-ting Hsieh (謝長廷) was the minister of Executive Yuan, the 90% was evaluated as an applicable plan.
Q13. According to the media and Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), the 90% preservation plan will delay the construction of MRT for two to three years and result in a two to three hundred billion NTD (approx. 760 million USD) increase in budget, is that true?
A13. In the press release issued by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) in Jan. 23, 2007, it was mentioned: "according to recent news, some local representatives and organizations in Taipei City and Taipei County claimed that the 90% Losheng preservation plan proposed by CCA will severely delay the MRT construction. Hereby CCA reiterates that the 90% preservation plan, evaluated by Hsin-Lu cooperation, will lengthen the construction period for about four months, and appends a three billion budget to it. It is not true to say the MRT construction will be delayed for two to three years."
Q14. The Losheng sanatorium has its own value to be preserved, and the human rights of the patients are also important; but what about the rights of other citizens?
A14. The Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局) constantly uses phrases such as "Significant National Construction", "Asserting the Public Interests", and "One Million People's Rights of Using MRT", all of which portray the Losheng sanatorium as a troublemaker consisting of a tiny group of people, who aim at obstructing the construction of MRT. Such tactics downplay the issue of Losheng, simplifying the problem here as "the majority matters." However, we are surprised that our ruling party, who has been proud of its concern about human rights, should say such things.
If we acknowledge that the Losheng sanatorium is an important asset that not only belongs to people in Taiwan, but also to all other countries where quarantine on Hanson disease was ever imposed. The Losheng sanatorium, therefore, becomes heirloom for the entire humanity. If the Taiwanese government is willing to change its attitude and positively promote human rights, then Losheng sanatorium can not only provide another greenbelt for the citizens, but also help transform the HuiLong community into an emblem of human rights.
History repeats itself. If today we turn a deaf ear to the plights of Losheng patients, tomorrow we might ourselves experience governmental violence. In democratic countries, such as Japan, the society would usually wait till all-round plans are devised, so that the disadvantaged minority could be attended of their needs. Likewise, we urge the government in Taiwan to be responsible enough to handle the Losheng dispute with due respect to culture, history, and human rights; not only those of the patients, but also of us people.
www.coolloud.org.tw/news/database/Interface/Detailstander...
Losheng Sanatorium(Traditional Chinese: 樂生療養院; pinyin: lèshēng liáoyǎngyuàn) is a hospital for lepers, which is located in Sinjhuang, Taipei County. During 1930s, this hospital was the only public sanatorium for leprosy patients in Taiwan and also the first leprosy hospital in Taiwan.
Losheng, named Rakusei Sanatorium for Lepers of Governor-General of Taiwan (臺灣總督府癩病療養樂生院, Taiwan Sōtokufu Raibyō Rakuseiin?) originally, was built in 1929 during Japanese colonial period and served as an isolation hospital for leprosy patients at that time. The Japanese government forced leprosy patients to live in this hospital. The first 5 buildings can offer more than 100 patients.
In 2001, due to the construction of Taipei Rapid Transit System, the authorities planed of Xinzhuang (Sijhuang) Line to transform Losheng to a community hospital, thus put an end to its dedicated hospitalization and care for leprosy patients. Many students, urban planners and NGO tried to protect this sanatorium from that time.
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%e6%a8%82%e7%94%9f%e7%99%82%e9%a4%8...
FUJIFILM NATURA BLACK F1.9 24mm XTRA400
Q1: What kind of a place is Lo-Sheng Sanatorium?
In 1927, the General Governor of Taiwan started to build Losheng Sanatorium for the quarantine and treatment of leprosy patients. With the force of sanitary police and the medical officers, the general investigation, quarantine, and imprisonment of the leprosy patients were conducted thoroughly in the period from1934 till the end of colonial governance of Japan. As a result, Losheng Sanatorium became the institution of compulsory quarantine as well as life-long imprisonment for the leprosy patients. Now, we consider Losheng Sanatorium as the epitome of the hundred-year sanitary history in Taiwan. It is the only historical mark that can testify the epidemic prevention history of Taiwan, and it is also the best place for us to do the introspection of the human rights of the patients.
Q2: What is the Hansen's disease?
Leprosy, also called the Hansen's disease，is a chronic bacterial disease infecting the skin and nerves in the hands and feet and, in some cases, the respiratory system. In 1873, a Norwegian doctor, Hansen, discovered the pathogenesis of this disease, hence the name Hansen's disease. Leprosy virus is hard to cultivate even in the lab, so the contagiousness is extremely weak. Almost everyone (90% of the human beings) has the natural immunity against leprosy virus. Human is the main infection source of the Hansen's disease, and the upper respiratory tract is the major route of infection. The latent period is spans from three to five years, but could be as long as 40 years. The Hansen's disease is easier to spread in the environment with poor public sanitation facilities. Currently, the good sanitary condition in Taiwan ensures that the Hansen's disease almost has no contagiousness, and there is also effective cure for the disease.
Q3 Why was there a compulsory quarantine policy in the past?
At the beginning of the 20th century, because of the improvement in sanitary condition, the Hansen's disease was almost extinct in Europe and America. However, the Japanese government desired to imitate the militarism of German government, so when they faced the large amount of the domestic leprosy patients, they regarded those patients as "the national humiliation", and began to draw up "the prevention law of Leprosy "in 1907. They planned to isolate the leprosy patients from the society, trying to create the illusion in which the Hansen's disease was extinct.
Q4 What is the influence of the compulsory quarantine policy?
In order to justify its compulsory quarantine policy, the Japanese government exaggerated the contagiousness of the Hansen's disease, and propagandized it to the society with force. They educated people that leprosy was extremely horrible, and used the police force and the spy system to "arrest" the patients and put them in hospitalization. This discriminating experience of being arrested in front of their families, friends, neighbors as well as the ingrained infamy of this policy prevented the Hansen's patients from going back to the society even after the compulsory quarantine policy was relieved. It was a tragedy for those patients to have homes they dared not return to.
Q5 Why is Taiwanese government tearing down the Losheng Sanatorium？
In 1994, Taipei City's Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System has planned to build a depot on the site where now the Sanatorium is. Chen Jing-Chuan, (陳京川) the ex-director of Losheng was opposed to this decision, and did three surveys among the patients to see what they thought and needed, shortly before he got demoted and reprimanded. Ever since then, the patients had no access to the MRT construction plans and its related discussions.
Q6 Why is it a mistake to build the depot on the Losheng site？
The MRT depot was originally planned to be built on the mountains behind Fu-Jen Catholic University(輔仁大學), but the plan was changed by local politicians. This is wrong for the following reasons:
1. Waste of money: 3/5 of the depot site needs to be built on flatland; therefore $90 million (USD) will be spent on flatting and improving the soil.
2. Disaster for the environment: What comes after flatting the mountains is a ten-story-tall retaining wall, which destroys the natural environment.
3. Safety concern: the future depot will be situated upon earth faults.
4. Ravaged historical site: the Losheng Sanatorium is an important cultural asset for people in East Asia. The depot construction will turn all this treasure into dust.
5. Ordeal for patients: the patients are forced to leave the place they spent their lives, suffering mentally and physically from the displacement.
6. Autocratic decision-making: the MRT Department never inquired the needs of Losheng patients--the 'residents' of the site—which is a violation of fundamental human rights.
Q7 Why should the Losheng Sanatorium be a World Heritage?
1. The Losheng Sanatorium has witnessed the inhumane treatment (such as discrimination and compulsory quarantine) the leprosy patients had undergone through 70 years of governmental oppression. It is a live showcase of Taiwan's colonial past, history of public health and suppressed human rights.
2. The Losheng Sanatorium is one among the few leprosy sanatoriums left. Its architecture has a mixture of Japanese and Gothic style, along with houses and Buddhist shrines built by the patients. The Sanatorium retains its painfully organised structure as an embodiment of its colonial past.
3. The Losheng Sanatorium has met many requirements for World Heritage. One UNESCO committee member who visited Losheng has commented that the Sanatorium is qualified at a World Heritage site. He mentioned one World Heritage site, the Robben Island, where Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years, to exemplify the value of human rights.
4. The international trend of cultural assets conservation emphasizes an 'organic' perspective of preserving, which means not only the architecture is preserved, but also its relationship established by people who lived in it. The Losheng Sanatorium is embedded with history and lifelong memory of the patients, therefore partial preservation would tarnish the integrity of its value. Moreover, the Losheng Sanatorium is a reminder of inhumane quarantine and mistaken political measures for the world to see. Forced displacement is nothing less than another persecution for human rights.
Q8 How does the Taiwanese government plan to settle the patients?
In 2002, the new housing projects was initiated, but instead of 'houses' which were earlier promised to the patients, the new director gave them two tall buildings with modern hospital facilities. It became clear that the new administration team intended to run a hospital business and make money. The patients had no choice but to be removed to another place designed for quarantine.
The skyscraper-ish hospital buildings were designed mainly for housing short-term patients; therefore it has inadequate space for residents to move around freely. Moreover, the hospital management team forbids the patients from bringing with them personal belongings, from cooking, and from coming over to the front building—a discriminative policy.
Q9 How are leprosy patients treated in other countries?
In 2001, the Japanese government formally apologised to the maltreated leprosy patients, and devised reimbursement laws to give them the justice and honor they long missed. Take the example of National Sanatorium Nagashima Aiseien (日本長島愛生園): it retains its old architecture and natural environment for educational purposes; the patients live in well-organised houses; intercom facilities were implemented in the sanatorium for patients who have lost their sight. Every patient has nearly two nurses to take good care of them.
Q10 How come we did not speak out in the initial stages of planning? Why stand out now?
In fact, the depot plan has received severe critiques through the decade, from scholars and social groups alike. In 1994, the Taiwanese Bureau of Health has decided the project would brutally disrupt the patients' lives, or even pose life threatens. In the same year, the Losheng residents started their perpetual war against the violence.
Long before the depot construction was initiated, Loshen's ex-director and history professionals have demanded a large-scale inspection of Losheng's position as a historical site. The scholars appealed to the MRT Department that they should spare the Losheng Sanatorium, while they unanimously agreed the entire site should be preserved. However, the officials were rough enough to terminate the process of inspection, and decided the Sanatorium should be torn down entirely.
It was not until 2004, when Prof. John K.C. Liu (劉可強教授) came up with a symbiosis plan, and when the Concil of Cultural Affairs (文建會) has deemed the Sanatorium a historical spot, that the MRT Department was pressured to rethink the possibilities of preservation.
We sincerely appeal to the governmental officials that they should take the problems seriously. People have eyes to see and ears to listen; we will not be fooled or threatened for life.
Q11. Will MRT Shin-Jhong line not able to function if Losheng sanatorium is not torn down?
A11: Liu, Ko-Chiang, a professor in the Graduate Institute of Building and Planning in National Taiwan University (NTU), has long proposed a "Concurrent Construction Program of Losheng Sanatorium and MRT" in December, 2004. This plan not only proposes to preserve the whole area in Losheng, but let the MRT function well. It achieves the four-win situation for the historical site, the MRT, the patients in Losheng, and the HuiLong community. Also, this plan has been evaluated by the Taipei MRT bureau as "technically applicable". However, after the resignation of the whole Cabinet, no more committees were to be hold, the government commissioner in charge of this plan denied it with an official document without any negotiation, and the concurrent construction program has been put aside ever since.
In 2006, the 90% reserve plan proposed by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) was evaluate as applicable by Mott MacDonald Group. (欣陸工程顧問公司) However, the Executive Yuan turn down this proposal from CCA without any explanation in less than one month.
If we reserve Losheng sanatorium, it will not necessarily be the obstacle which hinders the MRT service. What we are upset about is the governmental monopoly of technical resources and legal rights behind the curtain, and they blame the Losheng patients for delaying the MRT. If the government keeps ignoring its flawed policy, sweeping things under the rug, and putting off its own political duty, the government will wipe out the entire historical Losheng sanatorium. Such unwise arrogance from our government only damages the rights of patients in Losheng and every citizen.
Q12. According to the Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), curved rail in the 90% plan will cause derailment, is it true?
A12: The altered curvature in 90% plan has no connection with the commuters. What the 90% plan affects is the allocation of the workshop; more specifically, the plan only changes the curvature of rails which vacant carriages may go in and out. Unless the DORTS intends to make carriages enter the workshop with a high speed, or they want some passengers to participate parties held in the workshop occasionally; otherwise security is not the issue in this plan. In fact, this is exactly why the government does not want to discuss the 90% plan openly. Besides, when Frank Chang-ting Hsieh (謝長廷) was the minister of Executive Yuan, the 90% was evaluated as an applicable plan.
Q13. According to the media and Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局), the 90% preservation plan will delay the construction of MRT for two to three years and result in a two to three hundred billion NTD (approx. 760 million USD) increase in budget, is that true?
A13. In the press release issued by the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA, 文建會) in Jan. 23, 2007, it was mentioned: "according to recent news, some local representatives and organizations in Taipei City and Taipei County claimed that the 90% Losheng preservation plan proposed by CCA will severely delay the MRT construction. Hereby CCA reiterates that the 90% preservation plan, evaluated by Hsin-Lu cooperation, will lengthen the construction period for about four months, and appends a three billion budget to it. It is not true to say the MRT construction will be delayed for two to three years."
Q14. The Losheng sanatorium has its own value to be preserved, and the human rights of the patients are also important; but what about the rights of other citizens?
A14. The Department of Rapid Transit System, Taipei (DORTS, Taipei, 台北捷運局) constantly uses phrases such as "Significant National Construction", "Asserting the Public Interests", and "One Million People's Rights of Using MRT", all of which portray the Losheng sanatorium as a troublemaker consisting of a tiny group of people, who aim at obstructing the construction of MRT. Such tactics downplay the issue of Losheng, simplifying the problem here as "the majority matters." However, we are surprised that our ruling party, who has been proud of its concern about human rights, should say such things.
If we acknowledge that the Losheng sanatorium is an important asset that not only belongs to people in Taiwan, but also to all other countries where quarantine on Hanson disease was ever imposed. The Losheng sanatorium, therefore, becomes heirloom for the entire humanity. If the Taiwanese government is willing to change its attitude and positively promote human rights, then Losheng sanatorium can not only provide another greenbelt for the citizens, but also help transform the HuiLong community into an emblem of human rights.
History repeats itself. If today we turn a deaf ear to the plights of Losheng patients, tomorrow we might ourselves experience governmental violence. In democratic countries, such as Japan, the society would usually wait till all-round plans are devised, so that the disadvantaged minority could be attended of their needs. Likewise, we urge the government in Taiwan to be responsible enough to handle the Losheng dispute with due respect to culture, history, and human rights; not only those of the patients, but also of us people.
www.coolloud.org.tw/news/database/Interface/Detailstander...
Losheng Sanatorium(Traditional Chinese: 樂生療養院; pinyin: lèshēng liáoyǎngyuàn) is a hospital for lepers, which is located in Sinjhuang, Taipei County. During 1930s, this hospital was the only public sanatorium for leprosy patients in Taiwan and also the first leprosy hospital in Taiwan.
Losheng, named Rakusei Sanatorium for Lepers of Governor-General of Taiwan (臺灣總督府癩病療養樂生院, Taiwan Sōtokufu Raibyō Rakuseiin?) originally, was built in 1929 during Japanese colonial period and served as an isolation hospital for leprosy patients at that time. The Japanese government forced leprosy patients to live in this hospital. The first 5 buildings can offer more than 100 patients.
In 2001, due to the construction of Taipei Rapid Transit System, the authorities planed of Xinzhuang (Sijhuang) Line to transform Losheng to a community hospital, thus put an end to its dedicated hospitalization and care for leprosy patients. Many students, urban planners and NGO tried to protect this sanatorium from that time.
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%e6%a8%82%e7%94%9f%e7%99%82%e9%a4%8...
Fonte TDWP official webpage:
The Devil Wears Prada is the musical embodiment of a generational shift. Built on a diverse array of heavy, dark, melodic and genre-defying music; hardened and sharpened by putting in road work together since the days when they had to skip class to tour: The Devil Wears Prada is at the forefront of a movement that bridges the gap between Rockstar Mayhem and the Vans Warped Tour.
The passionately inspired band’s album for Roadrunner Records, cryptically titled 8:18, embodies an unflinching, uncompromising authenticity born from revelatory introspection and obsessive workmanship. The dichotomies are refreshing, invigorating and boundless. There’s an oppressive, suffocating darkness to their heavy music, counterbalanced by the hope within their collective faith. The most brutal of crowd-moving breakdowns ignite with friction, bristling against soaring melodies, progressive yet catchy riffing and keyboard soaked atmospheric esotericism. To put it simply: The Devil Wears Prada have developed the chops, the cred and the audience of a true-blue thinking person’s heavy metal band, while simultaneously welcoming fist-pumping hellraisers and youthful moshers alike. 8:18 continues the war against humanity’s dark urges, pointing the finger inward and outward through a medium that is itself both bleak and grand.
"Much of the heavy music around us suffers from a total lack of emotion. It's sort of losing an audible sense of sincerity," observes vocalist Mike Hranica. "The guitars, the drums, the songs themselves create that sorrow that I want the lyrics to tell on 8:18. And I made sure that my vocals created emotions that I have heard in post-hardcore, but that I rarely hear in breakdown-heavy metal bands like us."
The overriding theme on 8:18 is misery, exploring that mental and emotional state through its various guises, manifestations and interpretations. Tracks like Gloom, War, Black & Blue and Home for Grave spring forth from that foundation, exploiting concepts like mediocrity, existential angst and life's bigger questions under an atmosphere of musical dread, hostility and darkness.
Mike Hranica is blessed with a commanding roar, but infuses the proceedings with a literary sensibility, a commitment to self-evaluation and a painstaking modesty that levels the playing field between performer and listener beneath the surface.
Rhythm guitarist Jeremy DePoyster contributes the hook-laden underbelly to Prada’s brutal musical beast, handling the “clean” singing with a fine-tuned abandon to rival the pop stars dominating the charts. He grew up listening to Rob Zombie and Korn, but his iPod these days is packed with just about everything one can name. His singing vocals shine particularly on 'Care More,' a heavily electronics infused song with a dark mood. "There's so much of this crappy auto-tuned singing thing happening right now. It's disappointing to me because I've been singing since I was a kid," DePoyster says. "We all know what auto-tune is and we all use it to get things to work a little better, but when I hear things that are using it just as a crutch, that is extremely disappointing to me. Mike does a lot of passionate, raw, vibey screaming on this record, too. It's great."
Andy Trick has a Minor Threat-inspired tattoo that exhibits his early inclinations toward hardcore punk, an ethos and a mindset that still courses through the bass player’s veins even as he takes the stage playing guitar-driven metal music around the world. His bass playing anchors the theatrics and fluid, tasteful beats of Daniel Williams. Prada’s drummer carries the class and finesse of the indie crowd, while pummeling the drums with the power of metal's finest. "Since the beginning, we have liked breakdowns, we have liked heavy sounds, we have liked melodic singing, we have liked heavy metal in general," notes Hranica. "Those are the most basic fundamentals of what this band has been about."
The overseeing hand of executive producer and Killswitch Engage axeman Adam Dutkiewicz (August Burns Red, Shadows Fall, Parkway Drive) and producer Matt Goldman (Underoath, The Chariot, As Cities Burn) resulted in a sonic time capsule representing not only this present moment for TDWP, but a crossroads for heavy music itself. Progressive strains of experimental trailblazers Converge, Botch and Underoath seep beneath The Devil Wears Prada’s unique reverse-engineering of modern metal. 8:18 convincingly detours into Nine Inch Nails-isms, then comes full circle with some killer throwbacks to TDWP's earliest work.
"We love a lot of the records Matt has made and obviously we love Adam and he's a great friend," DePoyster points out. "Adam was very involved in doing the vocal stuff with Mike and I and had given us ideas when we were making demos. Both of those guys were great with us and were able to make contributions and make us think about things in different ways without making us uncomfortable.
With 8:18, The Devil Wears Prada cement their status as a band who have not only weathered the pressures of early, youthful popularity, but grown into masters of their craft. From album packaging to merchandising, from video production to stage lighting, The Devil Wears Prada are hands-on and pay excruciating attention to detail to ensure they always deliver their best, that their overwhelming passion will endure. They push themselves to create a lasting work that inspires, empowers and challenges, in equal measure.
"We're not kids who just want to hit the road and see where this goes," adds DePoyster. "We're making a conscious choice to do this because we love it."
The Devil Wears Prada are unwavering in their commitment to each other, their fans, their art, their higher calling toward truth and to their desire to engage. The emotion remains sincere, the musicianship supreme.
Mark Rothko, original name Marcus Rothkovitch, American painter whose works introduced contemplative introspection into the melodramatic post-World War II Abstract Expressionist school; his use of colour as the sole means of expression led to the development of Colour Field Painting.
In 1913 Rothko’s family emigrated from Russia to the U.S., where they settled in Portland, Ore. During his youth he was preoccupied with politics and social issues. He entered Yale University in 1921, intending to become a labour leader, but dropped out after two years and wandered about the U.S. In 1925 he settled in New York City and took up painting. Although he studied briefly under the painter Max Weber, he was essentially self-taught.
Rothko first worked in a realistic style that culminated in his Subway series of the late 1930s, showing the loneliness of persons in drab urban environments. This gave way in the early 1940s to the semi-abstract biomorphic forms of the ritualistic Baptismal Scene (1945). By 1948, however, he had arrived at a highly personal form of Abstract Expressionism. Unlike many of his fellow Abstract Expressionists, Rothko never relied on such dramatic techniques as violent brushstrokes or the dripping and splattering of paint. Instead, his virtually gestureless paintings achieved their effects by juxtaposing large areas of melting colours that seemingly float parallel to the picture plane in an indeterminate, atmospheric space.
Rothko spent the rest of his life refining this basic style through continuous simplification. He restricted his designs to two or three “soft-edged” rectangles that nearly filled the wall-sized vertical formats like monumental abstract icons. Despite their large size, however, his paintings derived a remarkable sense of intimacy from the play of nuances within local colour.
From 1958 to 1966 Rothko worked intermittently on a series of 14 immense canvases (the largest was about 11 × 15 feet [3 × 5 metres]) eventually placed in a nondenominational chapel in Houston, Texas, called, after his death, the Rothko Chapel. These paintings were virtual monochromes of darkly glowing browns, maroons, reds, and blacks. Their sombre intensity reveals the deep mysticism of Rothko’s later years. Plagued by ill health and the conviction that he had been forgotten by those artists who had learned most from his painting, he committed suicide.
After his death, the execution of Rothko’s will provoked one of the most spectacular and complex court cases in the history of modern art, lasting for 11 years (1972–82). The misanthropic Rothko had hoarded his works, numbering 798 paintings, as well as many sketches and drawings. His daughter, Kate Rothko, accused the executors of the estate (Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, and Morton Levine) and Frank Lloyd, owner of Marlborough Galleries in New York City, of conspiracy and conflict of interest in selling the works—in effect, of enriching themselves. The courts decided against the executors and Lloyd, who were heavily fined. Lloyd was tried separately and convicted on criminal charges of tampering with evidence. In 1979 a new board of the Mark Rothko Foundation was established, and all the works in the estate were divided between the artist’s two children and the Foundation. In 1984 the Foundation’s share of works was distributed to 19 museums in the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Israel; the best and the largest proportion went to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Mark Rothko, original name Marcus Rothkovitch, American painter whose works introduced contemplative introspection into the melodramatic post-World War II Abstract Expressionist school; his use of colour as the sole means of expression led to the development of Colour Field Painting.
In 1913 Rothko’s family emigrated from Russia to the U.S., where they settled in Portland, Ore. During his youth he was preoccupied with politics and social issues. He entered Yale University in 1921, intending to become a labour leader, but dropped out after two years and wandered about the U.S. In 1925 he settled in New York City and took up painting. Although he studied briefly under the painter Max Weber, he was essentially self-taught.
Rothko first worked in a realistic style that culminated in his Subway series of the late 1930s, showing the loneliness of persons in drab urban environments. This gave way in the early 1940s to the semi-abstract biomorphic forms of the ritualistic Baptismal Scene (1945). By 1948, however, he had arrived at a highly personal form of Abstract Expressionism. Unlike many of his fellow Abstract Expressionists, Rothko never relied on such dramatic techniques as violent brushstrokes or the dripping and splattering of paint. Instead, his virtually gestureless paintings achieved their effects by juxtaposing large areas of melting colours that seemingly float parallel to the picture plane in an indeterminate, atmospheric space.
Rothko spent the rest of his life refining this basic style through continuous simplification. He restricted his designs to two or three “soft-edged” rectangles that nearly filled the wall-sized vertical formats like monumental abstract icons. Despite their large size, however, his paintings derived a remarkable sense of intimacy from the play of nuances within local colour.
From 1958 to 1966 Rothko worked intermittently on a series of 14 immense canvases (the largest was about 11 × 15 feet [3 × 5 metres]) eventually placed in a nondenominational chapel in Houston, Texas, called, after his death, the Rothko Chapel. These paintings were virtual monochromes of darkly glowing browns, maroons, reds, and blacks. Their sombre intensity reveals the deep mysticism of Rothko’s later years. Plagued by ill health and the conviction that he had been forgotten by those artists who had learned most from his painting, he committed suicide.
After his death, the execution of Rothko’s will provoked one of the most spectacular and complex court cases in the history of modern art, lasting for 11 years (1972–82). The misanthropic Rothko had hoarded his works, numbering 798 paintings, as well as many sketches and drawings. His daughter, Kate Rothko, accused the executors of the estate (Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, and Morton Levine) and Frank Lloyd, owner of Marlborough Galleries in New York City, of conspiracy and conflict of interest in selling the works—in effect, of enriching themselves. The courts decided against the executors and Lloyd, who were heavily fined. Lloyd was tried separately and convicted on criminal charges of tampering with evidence. In 1979 a new board of the Mark Rothko Foundation was established, and all the works in the estate were divided between the artist’s two children and the Foundation. In 1984 the Foundation’s share of works was distributed to 19 museums in the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Israel; the best and the largest proportion went to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
of Introspection, Harmony, Beginnings, and Hope.
The Baughman Meditation Center at Lake Alice - University of FL.
remember when i said that sometimes i am only vaguely self aware? sometimes i am too hard on myself. i've always been driven, i know exactly what i want almost all the time. sometimes i find myself in this dismal state of self-introspection. where my current state or mindset doesn't accurately reflect the current issues in my life but the weight of these thoughts is incorrectly multiplied by an order of magnitude, affecting my perception. sometimes the melancholy can be a bit overwhelming, then it passes. renaissance after the new year. these are the thoughts that created this portrait and the subsequent post processing.
playing with textures, both flashes and overlays. right side of my face and background were shot high key for easier incorporation of textures and effects.
strobist info: i was holding an sb-600 flash @ 1/4 power above and to the right of my head giving the original highkey look. a second sb-600 @1/4 power is behind my head causing the white out of the wall and the hair highlights.
On July 21st in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, CANDIL and other organizations organized a peace rally denouncing aggressive Israeli tactics and Canada's support of the assault, emphasized by Prime Minister Harper's statement that Israeli aggression was merely a "measured response".
There has been widespread criticism of Canada's recent stance on Mideast politics that has seen a nation that prides itself on peacekeeping and honest peace-brokering more closely align itself with the Bush White House's policy and U.S. policy in general. The minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper is taking advantage of a weakened and leaderless main opposition party to dramatically alter Canada's domestic and foreign policies. As with many issues of injustice, widespread and vocal opposition to these policies is absolutely necessary to put pressure on our politicians.
The event was organized by CANDIL and the Muslim Council of Canada among others. For more upcoming events, check out the email lists and calendars listed on the Activist Network
More pictures of this event are available on Grant Neufeld's Flickr Page.
Just some fun with the phone.
Camera: ancient HTC Desire HD
Exposure compensation and blur: Photoshop + Pixeluvo