Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Avoiding “Controversy”? In-Between the Silences on Abortion and Family Planning at the G8 and Beyond

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Unfortunately, when women’s health and bodily autonomy are at stake in public policy, silences can speak louder than words. 

At a February 2010 news conference, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon made it clear that Harper’s G8 pledge to “harness funds and resources from G8 countries and non-government organizations to reduce millions of preventable maternal and child deaths in the developing world” would exclude any discussion of abortion, contraception or funding for women’s reproductive choice. Cannon stated that the G8 initiative “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning.”

Jane Cawthorne characterized this position on maternal health succinctly, writing, ”the Conservative government is effectively saying only women who become mothers are worthy of complete health care. They are expressing a deep disregard for women who don’t conform to their image of the ‘good’ woman and doing so in a public policy initiative that will negatively affect women globally.”

In the following Op-Ed, Marcy Bloom explains how, when it comes to womens’ rights,  ”‘neutrality’ leaves no choice”.

Image via photobucket.com

Health Inequality: Gates Foundation Bans Abortion

By Marcy Bloom, On the Issues Magazine, Summer 2010

Melinda French Gates, philanthropist, co-founder and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was greeted with great applause on the first day of the Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C. earlier this summer. But the hand clapping was temporary. As a reproductive health advocate, I was not the only one who began to raise questions about her comments and her foundation’s capacity  to set the worldwide agenda for global health priorities. Gates announced that the foundation with her name on it, known for its important work on the prevention of poverty and the development of vaccines for HIV/AIDS and malaria, will designate $1.5 billion over the next five years to assist developing nations with integrated women’s health care services.

She explained that this new priority will add to the empowerment, education and equality of women and girls. She described the services: nutrition, pre- and post-natal care, infant care, the training of women’s health workers and obstetrical services.

Yes, this is impressive, and will do much good to help women and girls, and to save their lives. But it is silent on a central and fundamental issue for women: access to safe abortion and protection from unsafe abortion.

This is so despite the fact that access to safe abortion was one of “three core strategies to save women’s lives” on the agenda of the Women Deliver conference, which was titled Invest in Women. It Pays. In attendance were 3,500 advocates from 140 countries. The goal was to seek out strategies to prevent maternal mortality so that “no person should die giving life.” It’s critical to note that if you believe in investing in women and girls, no woman or girl should ever die preventing life either. The statistics are stark: approximately 350,000 women lose their lives each year giving birth, from childbirth complications and injuries, and from illegal and unsafe abortions. All are preventable tragedies.

Let Women Live

At the conference, the Guttmacher Institute shared the significance of emphasizing the need for both family planning and maternal and newborn health services.

Tragically, only one-half of the 123 million women and girls each year who give birth receive the full range of prenatal, delivery and post-natal care that they need. If women’s equality were recognized, and this care were prioritized and funded, women’s lives would be vastly improved. Unintended pregnancies around the world would decrease by more than two-thirds, dropping from 75 million (2008) to 22 million per year (still disgracefully high, but certainly an improvement). Seventy per cent of maternal deaths would be avoided. Unsafe abortion rates would decline by 73 percent.

The reality is that these critical needs cannot — and should not — be separated. All represent a continuum of women’s lives and their reproductive health concerns. Women who have abortions become mothers; mothers have abortions. Safe abortion can help women become better mothers in the future. These are the same women making different choices at different times in their lives.

Illegal, unsafe abortion is a reproductive health crime and a form of violence against women. Ignoring abortion, siloizing abortion, denying its significance as a fundamental public health need for women, is absurd and unrealistic.

As reported in 2006 in the public health journal, The Lancet, abortion is “a pandemic — an urgent public health and human rights imperative.” Nearly 68,000 women and girls die as a result of botched abortions — this is 13 percent of all maternal deaths. Twenty times that number of women and girls will experience abortion-related complications that threaten their lives. Nearly all (97 percent) of these preventable deaths and injuries are in developing nations. “Access to safe abortion improves women’s health,” according to The Lancet authors. “Access to competent care” is a critical need, they state.

While the Gates Foundation said that it is interested in funding access to contraception for the 200 million women and girls around the world who are unable to obtain birth control, The Lancet authors underscored: “(T)he availability of modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion.”

“Neutrality” Leaves no Choice

So why is the Gates Foundation ignoring the abortion care needs of women?

When asked on NPR by reporter Michele Norris, Melinda Gates said, “We don’t want to be part of the controversy.”

In response to a request for comment to the Gates Foundation, a response was emailed from “Deborah Lacy (Independent Contractor)” who said: “While the foundation is making new investments in maternal and child health, our position on funding abortion services has not changed. Specifically, the foundation does not fund abortion and does not take a stance on the issue. We focus on improving access to the tools women need to prevent unintended pregnancy, by supporting organizations that provide voluntary family planning information and services for women in developing countries. Family planning services are critical to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce abortions.”

Does she fear that the image of the foundation will be affected? Fear anti-choice boycotts of Microsoft products? Does she have security concerns? Fret about the moral complexity of women’s decision-making? Or does she view women’s lives as controversial?

Gates seems unable to understand that the true moral issue is allowing women and girls to die because of lack of access to a safe medical procedure. By trying to avoid the “controversy” surrounding abortion, Gates has created another: it is impossible to work on maternal mortality issues and ignore abortion.

The clear and well-documented reality — one I have witnessed and experienced for 40 years in my work as an abortion counselor, feminist clinic director and fundraiser for international reproductive rights — is that safe and legal abortion preserves the dignity and saves the lives of women and girls. Contraception fails. Women change their minds about their pregnancies. Sexual activity is often unexpected, involuntary and unprotected. The misogyny and control demonstrated in sexual violence are part of the lives of far too many women and girls in the world. Without access to safe abortion, women suffer.

Bill and Melinda Gates are undoubtedly aware of these realities of women’s unequal lives. The end result of their “neutrality” is but one choice for women and girls who become pregnant. That one choice equals no choice.

Allowing the further stigmatization of abortion validates and strengthens the belligerent anti-choice movement.

But the power and influence of the foundation go further. Because of its prestige, size and assets, the foundation is central to “setting the sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda around the world,” in the words of policy researcher and writer Brook Elliott-Buettner in Gender Across Borders.

Whatever the intent, the Gates Foundation is establishing, even distorting, the direction of investments by other foundations, individuals and even governments. Although Bill and Melinda Gates have the right to spend their money as they wish, it is also true that their inordinate power in determining universal health agendas demands accountability.

When they slam the doors to safe abortion initiatives, the impact is felt around the world. The result? These reproductive health crimes against women are permitted to continue, unchecked. The Gates Foundation has chosen to sweep abortion off the charts of women’s health and lives. And that is yet another crime against women.

Marcy Bloom worked as an abortion counselor and clinic director in New York, and for more than 18 years served as the executive director of Aradia Women’s Health Center in Seattle. In 2006, she received the William O. Douglas Award, the Washington State ACLU’s lifetime achievement award. She is currently the U.S representative for the Mexico City-based GIRE~Grupo de Informaci?n en Reproducci?n Elegida (The Information Group on Reproductive Choice), Mexico’s leading for for reproductive justice and access to legal abortion. 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Featured, Gender and Sexuality, Health, The Real Issues | 13 Comments »

Stopping the Flow: Quebec Climate Action Camp takes on the Enbridge Trailbreaker project

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

by Cameron Fenton

DUNHAM, QC—From August 7 to 23, the Quebec Climate Action Camp took root in Dunham, QC—an hour drive southeast of Montreal. The camp aimed to continue to build opposition to the construction of a pumping station in Dunham, a key piece of infrastructure in the Enbridge Trailbreaker project.

The Trailbreaker pipeline project would reverse the flow of existing pipleline infrastructure, moving tar sands oil from Alberta through the United States, Ontario, and eventually crossing through Montreal and Quebec’s Eastern Townships region. It would then be piped to Portland, Maine, to be loaded onto tankers destined for Texan refineries.

Community organizers from Dunham joined the Climate Camp to build momentum in a growing local movement against the pumping station. On August 15 over 100 people marched from Parc L’Envol, down Dunham’s Rue Principal to Town Hall. Dunham Mayor Jean-Guy Demers ended the march by voicing his support for the camp and for the campaign opposing the pumping station.

Over the two weeks of the Climate Camp, over 300 people visited the camp from across Quebec, eastern Canada, the northeastern United States and coming from as far as California and Austria. The visitors came not only to take action themselves, but also to work towards building a broad, empowering climate justice movement. The camp, powered by solar, wind and kinetic energy, was organized as an exercise in collective self-management.

Climate Camp ended with a march to the site of the proposed pumping station, and the launch of the Trailbreaker Pledge of Resistance. The pledge states that “because of the grave threat the Trailbreaker project poses to the climate, the community and all others in its path, we pledge to engage in non-violent direct action to stop the pumping station should they ever attempt to follow through with its construction without community consent.”

This article appeared in The Dominion on September 6, 2010.

Photo by Allan Cedillo Lissner

Tags:, ,
Posted in Corporate Globalization, Environment, Featured, The Real Issues | No Comments »

It’s the class struggle, stupid!

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010
ott0121-city6.jpg

Organized labour’s confused response to the McGuinty Liberals’ attack on Ontario’s working-class

By Ajamu Nangwaya and Alex Diceanu

Appeared in the Linchpin, on September 6, 2010

Organized labour in Ontario will continue to put forth a weak and ineffective response to attacks from the ruling class as long as it continues to ignore the reality of class struggle. A perfect example is its current response to a proposed two-year wage-freeze that the Dalton McGuinty-led Ontario government plans on imposing on unionized public sector workers. The provincial Liberals would like to save $750 million per year from a wage-freeze, so as to help manage the $19.3 billion budget deficit. Readers need not be reminded that this deficit is the result of the risky financial speculations of the captains of finance, industry and commerce that created the Great Recession of 2008.

But it is the 710,000 unionized members of the working class and 350,000 non-unionized managers and other employees who draw pay cheques from the government[1] and the users of state-provided services (and private sector workers) who are being asked to bear the burden of paying for the actions of the corporate sector. At the same time as this attempt to take income from the pockets of government workers, the McGuinty Liberals’ have granted a $4.6 billion tax-cut to the business sector.

The leader of the Ontario New Democrats, Andrea Howarth, has signaled her support for public sector workers’ acceptance of a pay cut. She asserts, “I’m quite sure when they get to the bargaining table they will do their part like everyone else does … there is a collective bargaining process that has to be respected.”[2] Wow! Who said that the working-class needs enemies with “friends” like the New Democratic Party (NDP) and its leader Andrea Horwarth?

However, it is the tame and even puzzling reaction of some of Ontario’s major labour leaders that should be of concern to workers in the public sector. The government called labour leaders and employers from the broader public sector to “consultation” talks on the wage freeze on July 19, 2010. Coming out of the talks, this was what CUPE-Ontario president Fred Hahn had to say, “This is not like the early ’90s, this is not about sharing the pain. That’s all just not true”.[3] He was referring to former NDP premier Bob Rae’s unilateral opening of public sector workers’ contracts and the imposition of public sector wage-cuts accompanied by tax increases for the corporate sector. Was Brother Hahn implying that a wage-freeze would be tolerable, if accompanied by the cancelation of the $4.6 billion corporate tax-cut?

No credible union or union leader should contemplate a zero-wage increase over two years – even if the government rescinds the $4.6 billion tax-cut. There should not have been a tax-cut for the capitalist class. Restoring the tax should not be used as a bargaining chip to escape a wage-freeze on public sector workers.

Not to be outdone was the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, Warren (Smokey) Thomas. We will leave it to you to decipher the implicit message in the following statement by Smokey Thomas. “Just because he [Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan] wants something doesn’t mean he’s going to get it. It’s not a social contract. He can propose (a wage-freeze) but he has to bargain it. He can’t legislate it. He’ll lose.”[4] Is it just us or does that sound like a labour leader who is not really in a fighting spirit and just wants to make a deal?

A simple matter of misguided policy?

However, the critical issue for Ontario’s public sector workers is the extent to which many of our labour leaders seem to be completely unaware of the state and employers’ motives for disciplining labour through wage concessions. Ismael Hossein-zaded of Drake University made the following observation, which is quite applicable to the posturing of labour leaders in Ontario:

Quote:

Viewing the savage class war of the ruling kleptocracy on the people’s living and working conditions simply as “bad” policy, and hoping to somehow—presumably through smart arguments and sage advice—replace it with the “good” Keynesian policy of deficit spending without a fight, without grassroots‟ involvement and/or pressure, stems from the rather naïve supposition that policy making is a simple matter of technical expertise or the benevolence of policy makers, that is, a matter of choice. The presumed choice is said to be between only two alternatives: between the stimulus or Keynesian deficit spending, on the one hand, and the Neoliberal austerity of cutting social spending, on the other.5

Based on some of the statements coming from labour leaders, they may not have gotten the memo that the attack on the working-class (through the slashing of social programme spending, attacks on private sector pensions and wage freezes) is not about good or bad economic policies. Hossein-Zedad must have been inspired to write his paper after reading the following Keynesian-inspired comment by Ontario Federation of Labour president Sid Ryan; “From a policy perspective, it makes no economic sense whatsoever. You’ve got a government saying we need to stimulate the economy. The best way of stimulating the economy is through public-sector workers who spend every single penny of their disposable income in their local communities,”[6] But it’s not about the economy, per se. It’s the class struggle, stupid!

Canada’s economic and political elite have clearly given up the ghost of Keynesian economics, which calls on government to either stimulate or restrict the demand for goods and services based on the state of the economy. In the case of the 2008 crisis in capitalism, these neoliberal players felt forced by the magnitude of the impending financial collapse to pump money into the economy. A not-too-insignificant fact was lost on many observers and commentators who gleefully cheered on the capitalist class’ “Road-to-Damascus” moment. The capitalist state in Canada and other imperialist countries will do everything within their power to maintain a business environment that facilitates the accumulation of capital or profit-making, as well as legitimize the system in the eyes of the people. That is all in a day’s work for the state…no surprise here for class conscious trade unionists and other activists!

Labour’s “Response”

We ought to note that the recent crisis in the economy caught organized labour off-guard and ill-prepared to mobilize the working-class against that monumental failure of capitalism. For decades, Western corporations and governments have been force-feeding the public a steady diet of tax-cuts. Lower taxes on businesses, high-income earners and the wealthy, the widespread slashing of social services and income support programmes, a massive reduction in state oversight and regulation of corporations and the enactment of anti-union policies and legislation have been the all rage since corproations and Western governments abandoned their class-collaborationist pact with organized labour in the 1970s. Yet at the very moment when capitalism experienced a crisis of confidence resulting from a set of policies that had been hailed as perfect ingredients for economic and social progress, organized labour was caught with its pants down. Its leaders didn’t have a class struggle alternative to Keynesian economics – an economic tendency that was never intended to be used as a tool to end wage slavery and the minority rule of bankers, industrialists and the managerial and political elite.

Presently, the labour movement is ideologically and operationally ill-prepared to effectively face down the two-year wage-freeze demand from the McGuinty Liberals. Unfortunately, labour’s leaders have, in the main, focused on narrow economic demands rather than seeking to politically develop union activists and their broader membership behind a class struggle labour movement platform. Union members have been politically deskilled and demobilized in favour of a social service model of trade unionism. These labour leaders have failed to use their unions’ courses, workshops, week-long schools, publications and other educational resources to educate members of the fact that they are a part of a distinct class with economic and political interests that are different from that of the rulers of capitalist society.

Even the most casual of observers understand that organized labour’s raison d’être is to champion the material concerns of the working-class. And yet, ideologically-speaking, most labour leaders in Canada have cast their lot in with capitalism – albeit a more Scandinavian version. This is why a coherent critique of capitalism is notably absent from most union-organized workshops and events. It should therefore not come as a surprise that many union members have swallowed the employers and politicians’ message that Canada is a largely middle-class country and that our collective aspiration should be to remain a member of this class. If the labour leaders, academics and the media say that the majority of Canadians are a part of the middle-class, it must be so. The development of a working-class consciousness becomes very difficult (but not impossible) in this kind of political environment.

The great majority of Canadians are members of the working-class. They sell their labour, exercise little to no control over how their work-life is organized, have no say over how the profit from their labour is distributed and are so alienated from work that the aphorism “Thank god it’s Friday” has its own acronym. One should never define middle-class status as one’s ability to purchase consumer trinkets, live in a mortgaged home or even own a summer cottage. Middle-class status ought to be defined by one’s exercise of power and control and/or the possession of high levels of human capital found among administrative/managerial elites in the private and public sectors, academic elites and independent professionals.

Labour’s Credibility Crisis

The narrow economic obsession of labour leaders was on plain display when Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan revealed the March 2010 Budget. When it became known that the McGuinty Liberals would be seeking a two-year wage-freeze from public sector workers, this news was all that consumed the attention of most labour leaders. Many labour functionaries scrambled around in search of external and internal legal opinions, requesting briefs from senior staff on the impact of a wage-freeze on bargaining in specific sectors and sending out correspondence to members assuring them to “just act as if nothing had happened”, because they’re “already covered by a collective agreement”. Many labour union offices’ and unionized workplaces’ anxiety was centred entirely on the desired wage-freeze by the McGuinty Liberals. Nothing else!

But today we hear labour leaders talking about keeping money in workers’ pockets to stimulate the economy and that their primary concern is maintaining public services at adequate levels. Why didn’t organized labour deploy its resources to educate and mobilize the public against the $4.6 billion corporate tax-cuts, slashing of $4 billion in transportation infrastructure spending from Metrolinx’s $9.3 billion budget7] and the scrapping of the special diet allowance that benefitted over 160,000 members of the working-class for the unprincely sum of $250 million per annum and a mere monthly average of $130 per person[8]? The provincial government anticipates that the two-year wage-freeze across the public sector will net a savings of $1.5 billion – yet the previous $8.6 billion effectively stolen from the working class failed to push organized labour into action.

The leaders of organized labour did not have the imagination to energize their members and the broader citizenry in alliance with other social movement organizations over the Budget. They could have exposed the class priorities of the McGuinty Liberals. The government’s main concerns clearly have nothing to do with those of us who are poor, live from pay cheque to pay cheque and do not patronize the golf courses where McGuinty and his friends hang out when they are not screwing the public. Listen up public sector labour leaders: the people will not be fooled by your claims to be advocating for the general interest. The broader working-class just have to simply see where you direct the labour movement’s resources and they will clue into the issues that are being prioritized. Take a look at the poor, working-class and/or racialized areas that are likely to be affected by the $4 billion cut to Metrolinx’s budget:

Quote:

…the austerity moves could affect five planned projects: rapid transit lines for Finch Ave. W., Sheppard Ave. E. and the Scarborough RT, along with the Eglinton Ave. cross-town line and an expansion of York region’s Viva service.[9]

Are we to believe that a class-struggle and anti-oppression informed public education, organizing and mobilization campaign in defense of public services, the social wage and a livable wage would not have had some level of traction with the people of Ontario?

An alternative economic plan or a different labour movement?

In some quarters of the trade union sector, there are talks of presenting an alternative plan to the slash-and-burn neoliberal policies of the provincial government. But, the presentation of Keynesian economic proposals by labour leaders is useless in a climate where the ruling class doesn’t feel threatened by a politically mobilized population, especially without “compelling grassroots pressure on policy makers”.[10] We implied earlier that labour unions have a credibility gap with the broader public if they now assert a desire to “broaden the debate, educate community members and local politicians with a view to engaging in actions that protect public services and build strong communities” as outlined by one union. What would be the purpose of the alternative plans of these labour leaders? The status quo of the 1930s to the 1960s that gave rise to the welfare state is not a transformative option.

There is no such thing as a “contextless” context. Where is the necessary political environment that would force the state to make concessions to the working-class out of fear that they maybe inclined to embrace revolutionary options? When some labour leaders are loosely talking about coming up with an alternative (Keynesian economic plan?) stimulus proposal, they would do well to understand the political implications of the following statement:

Quote:

Keynesian economists seem to be unmindful of this fundamental relationship between economics and politics. Instead, they view economic policies as the outcome of the battle of ideas, not of class forces or interests. And herein lies one of the principal weaknesses of their argument: viewing the Keynesian/New Deal/Social Democratic reforms of the 1930s through the 1960s as the product of Keynes’ or F.D.R.’s genius, or the goodness of their hearts; not of the compelling pressure exerted by the revolutionary movements of that period on the national policy makers to “implement reform in order to prevent revolution,” as F.D.R. famously put it. This explains why economic policy makers of today are not listening to Keynesian arguments—powerful and elegant as they are—because there would be no Keynesian, New Deal, or Social-Democratic economics without revolutionary pressure from the people.[11]

However, when labour leaders shy away from speaking openly about class-struggle and the nature of our economic system, we have a serious problem. It means that they are not in a position to facilitate a class-struggle, democracy-from-below and self-organizing form of trade unionism.

In order fight this attack on the working-class of Ontario, the labour movements’ rank-and-file activists, progressive leaders and principled labour socialists must engage in shop-floor education, organizing and mobilizing that is centred on a class-struggle, anti-racist and anti-oppression campaign. This approach to labour activism must be done in alliance with progressive or radical social movement organizations among women, racialized peoples, indigenous peoples, youth, students, LGBT community, climate/environmental justice, independent and revolutionary labour organizations, anti-authoritarian formations, and radical intellectuals. It must be an alliance based on mutual respect, sharing of approaches to emancipation and resources and a commitment to the value that the oppressed are the architect of and the driving force behind the movement for their emancipation. It is essential that organized labour open up and transform its leadership and decision-making structures to accommodate the full inclusion of its membership, in all their diversity.

In most of our unions and locals, this means starting from the beginning and we can use this current crisis to take those first steps. There is a lot of frustration among union members and community activists over the inaction of labour’s leadership in the face of this attack – and a desire to do something about it. That frustration and desire can be channeled into building cross-union “fight back committees” that bring together trade union and community activists in a city or town, such as members of the Greater Toronto Workers Assembly have already begun to do in that city. The “fight back committees” can give us a capacity to act independently from organized labour’s leadership. And probably our first acts should be to organize general assemblies in our locals and town hall meetings in our communities to promote a working-class view of the economic crisis and to mobilize our fellow workers and neighbours around militant, grassroots resistance to the McGuinty government and all the forces promoting a new round of austerity for the working-class.

Nothing less than a self-organizing, class-struggle approach to trade unionism will put labour in a position to fight in the here-and-now, while building the road we must travel on our way to the classless and stateless society of the future.

Alex Diceanu is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3906 and a graduate student at McMaster University. Ajamu Nangwaya is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals 3907 and 3902 and a graduate student at the University of Toronto. Both authors are members of the Ontario anarchist organization, Common Cause.

________________________________________
[1] Walkom, T. (2010, March 26). Liberals aim at easy targets. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/ontariobudget/article/785616–walkom…
[2] Brennan, R. J. & Talaga, T. (2010, March 26) Hudak cut wages deeper. Toronto Star. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/ontariobudget/article/785343–hudak-cut-wages-deeper
[3] Benzie, R. (2010, July 20). Dwight Duncan’s wage-freeze pitch gets frosty reception. Toronto Star. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/837872–dwight-duncan-s-wage-freeze-pitch-gets-frosty-reception
[4] Benzie, July 20
[5] Hossein-zaded, I. (2010, July 23-25). Holes in the Keynesian Arguments against Neoliberal Austerity Policy—Not “Bad” Policy, But Class Policy. Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh07232010.html
[6] Benzie, July 20.
[7] Hume, C. (2010, March 29). Transit still not a priority. Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/ttc/article/787317–transit-still-not-a-…
[8] The Canadian Press. (2010 April 1). Ontario asked to restore special diet allowance. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/01/diet-allowance.html
9] Goddard, J., Rider, D. & Kalinoski, (2010, March 26). Miller outraged as budget sideswiped GTA transit. Toronto Star. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/785573–miller-outraged-as-budget-sideswipes-gta-transit
[10] Hossein-zaded, I, Holes in the Keynesian arguments against neoliberal austerity policy.
[11] ibid

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economic policies, Featured, Labour, The Real Issues | 2 Comments »

400,000 police, 3 ‘floating islands’ to grace November G20 summit

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

BLOG POST posted on Toronto Media-Cop site on August 23, 2010 by Andrew Mindszenthy

The Korea Times reports that South Korea’s National Police Agency will mobilize 400,000 police when the G20 comes to Seoul this November.

Already, “Ministry of Justice, police and other government offices have teamed up for months to “wipe out” unauthorized street vendors and homeless people spotted around meeting venues … [and] have launched large-scale crackdowns on unregistered migrant workers nationwide, deporting many”, reports the Times.

The summit will be hosted on three new artificial “floating islands” in the Han River in Seoul. The islands, several square kilometers in size and featuring convention halls, restaurants, parks and walking paths, will cost 94B Won ($85M Cdn) to build, reported the Korea Times in January 2010.

Tags:,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Featured | 1 Comment »

A Brief note on the origins of Labour Day

Monday, September 6th, 2010

Canada – The Origins of Labour Day Labour Day is celebrated on the first Monday of September. It is a statutory holiday throughout Canada. The Canadian labour movement can justly claim the title of originator of Labour Day. Peter J. McGuire, one of the founders of the American Federation of Labour has traditionally been known as the ‘Father of Labour Day’. Historical evidence indicates that McGuire obtained his idea for the establishment of an annual demonstration and public holiday from the Canadian trade unionist.

Earliest records show that the Toronto Trades Assembly, perhaps the original central labour body in Canada, organized the first North American ‘workingman’s demonstration’ of any significance for April 15,1872. The beribboned parade marched smartly in martial tread accompanied by four bands. About 10,000 Torontonians turned out to see the parade and listen to the speeches calling for abolition of the law which decreed that trade unions were criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade.

The freedom of 24 imprisoned leaders of the Toronto Typographical Union, on strike to secure the nine-hour working day, was the immediate purpose of the parade, on what was then Thanksgiving Day. It was still a crime to be a member of a union in Canada although the law of criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade had been repealed by the United Kingdom parliament in 1871. Toronto was not the only city to witness a labour parade in 1872. On September 3, members of seven unions in Ottawa organized a parade more than a mile long, headed by the Garrison Artillery band and flanked by city fireman carrying torches.

The Ottawa parade wound its way to the home of Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald where the marchers hoisted him into a carriage and drew him to Ottawa City Hall by torchlight. ‘The Old Chieftain’, aware of the discontent of workers with the laws which made unions illegal, in a ringing declaration from the steps of the City Hall, promised the marchers that his party would ‘sweep away all such barbarous laws from the statute books’. Parliament passed the Trade Union Act on June 14 the following year, and soon all unions were demanding a 54-hour work-week. The offending conspiracy laws were repealed by the Canadian government in 1872. The tradition established by the Toronto Trades Assembly was continued through the seventies and into the early 1880′s.

In 1882, the Toronto Trades and Labour Council, successor to the TTA, decided to organize the annual demonstration and picnic for July 22. The council sent an invitation to Peter J. McGuire of New York requesting his services of as a speaker for the occasion. McGuire was the founder and general secretary of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters which had organized the previous year. It was in the same year, that McGuire proposed at a meeting of the New York Central Labour Union that a festive day be set aside for a demonstration and picnic. Labour Day was first celebrated in New York on September 5,1882. It is apparent, however, that the custom had developed in Canada and the invitation sent to McGuire prompted his suggestion to the New York labour body.

Soon pressure for legislation to declare a national holiday for Labour Day was exerted in both Canada and the United States. In 1894 the government of Sir John Thompson enacted such legislation on July 23, with the Prime Minister piloting the bill through Parliament against the opposition of some of his Conservative followers. Canadian trade unionists have celebrated this day set aside to honor those who labour’ from the 1870′s on. The first Labour Day parade in Winnipeg, in 1894, was two miles long. There can be little doubt that the annual demonstrations of worker’s solidarity each Labour Day in North America owe their inspiration to small group of ‘illegal’ members of the Toronto Trades Assembly.

This post was originally circulated through the Kingston Labour list-serve, Sept 3rd, 2010

Tags:, ,
Posted in Featured, Labour, The Real Issues | No Comments »

Canadian Military Seeking Lessons From Israeli Occupying Army

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

Canadian military officials have undertaken a comprehensive effort with their Israeli counterparts to “pursue deeper relationships,” to borrow from Israel’s weapons, war training, and counter-insurgency strategies, and to strengthen diplomatic ties, according to documents obtained through access to information (ATI) requests.

The documents from the Department of National Defence (DND) detail an October 2009 visit to Israel by General Walter Natynczyk, chief of the Canadian Forces (CF).

“Your trip to Israel…will also offer you insight into broader regional issues, the multitude of threats facing Israel, the lessons learned from IDF [Israeli Defence Force] operations, and Israeli strategic thinking and military equipment,” states one briefing note.

Although Israel has found itself increasingly isolated diplomatically in recent years, support from successive Canadian governments has grown.

“It is harder to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days,” ultra right-wing Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on a trip to Canada last year. “No other country in the world has demonstrated such a full understanding of us.”

Photo: Tim McSorley

Canadian government and military officials appear ready to disregard what critics like South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu refer to as Israel’s apartheid practices in order to maintain, as the documents put it, a “robust and rich” bilateral relationship.

The DND refused repeated requests for an interview.

The series of formal high-level meetings between figures in the Canadian military and the IDF have gone under the name of “Strategic Dialogue,” according to the disclosed documents. The first of these meetings, described in the documents as being “very successful” took place in Tel Aviv in February 2008.

“Overall, the trip solidified existing friendships, uncovered further opportunities for military-military cooperation, and, perhaps most importantly, revealed that DND/CF is well situated to pursue deeper relationships,” states a memo written after the meetings. Since February, 2008, there have been a number of formal “staff talks” between the upper echelons of Canada and Israel’s defence establishments.

Comprised mostly of briefing notes and backgrounders, the documents explain contentious issues, outline strict talking points, and, under heavy redaction, disclose “future considerations” for improving Canadian bilateral relations with Israel and the IDF. Several briefing notes deal exclusively with particular issues of cooperation, such as Science and Technology Cooperation, Military Medical Cooperation, and Defence Material Relations.

Documents prepared for Natynczyk’s trip in October, 2009, note that one of the “key objectives” was to “examine IDF equipment, tactics, doctrine, procedures, that might have operational benefits for the Canadian Forces.” To that end, Natynczyk met with a host of IDF senior generals, as well as Defence Minister Ehud Barak. The meetings focussed on gaining access to Israeli areas of “expertise,” including gaining insights into Israeli military strategies and tactics.

While meeting Brigadier General Harel Knafo, Natynczyk received a briefing on “the lessons learned from [2008’s] Gaza War.” Knafo commanded Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground invasion during the Gaza War that killed more than 1380 Palestinians, 400 of them children, according to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.

The visit came on the heels of the Goldstone Report, a UN investigation into the Gaza War by former South African Supreme Court judge Richard Goldstone.

In his report, Goldstone criticized both Hamas and Israel for crimes of war during the conflict, but the report singled out Israel for the most serious condemnation. Goldstone documented the IDF’s use of Palestinians as human shields – itself a war crime – and warned that the Israeli blockade of Gaza amounted to “collective punishment intentionally inflicted by the government of Israel on the people of the Gaza Strip.”

Israel’s war, according to Goldstone, was designed to “punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population.”

Natynczyk also discussed counter-insurgency operations with top Israeli General Gabi Ashkenazi.

“[Ashkenazi] suggested further military-military cooperation with Canada, including regarding doctrines and tactics that enable forces to switch conduct both asymmetric and conventional operations and switch between the two,” recounts a summary note of the meeting.

The switch between “asymmetric” and “conventional” operations is a reference to Israel’s special brand of counter-insurgency: the unconventional, often urban warfare Israel engages in against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Presiding over one of the longest military occupations in modern times, Israel is an acknowledged leader in innovating new tactics of urban warfare. As Israeli scholar and architect Eyal Weizman has documented, the Israeli military reshape the battleground to meet their objectives in the densely populated and often impenetrable cities and refugee camps of the West Bank: rather than fight in the streets, for instance, they blast holes through the walls and ceilings of houses, moving in this manner often through entire streets.

Battles in half-demolished living rooms, bedrooms and corridors of refugee camp homes have blurred the lines between civilian and military – or private and public – space.

This is the military laboratory in which the “doctrines and tactics” mentioned by Ashkenazi are studied and, as the memo indicates, exported to other urban environments.

Canadian military officials have clearly stated their strategy in Afghanistan has focused on developing stronger counterinsurgency tactics. Canada has said it will withdraw its military presence in the country in 2011, but Canadian Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie has said Canada’s military future is based on counterinsurgency measures.

“It’s not going to be peacemaking anymore, it’s going to be counter-insurgency because the odds of us doing peacemaking between two functional states are probably pretty low, ergo COIN (counter-insurgency),” he told the Toronto Star in 2009.

While clearly interested in borrowing from IDF technologies, briefing notes also indicate Canadian officials are eager to win recognition of their war-making capacities from both Israeli and U.S. authorities.

“In Israel, the IDF’s warm welcome and insistence [redacted] is open to Canada reflects both the deepening relations between our two militaries and the credibility and respect won by CF operations in Afghanistan,” says a briefing memo to Natynczyk.

In various notes, Natynczyk is reminded to highlight Canada’s military efforts in Afghanistan and stress Canada’s contributions to various U.S. and Israeli diplomatic initiatives.

In addition to advancing military cooperation through the Strategic Dialogue, documents reveal that Natynczyk’s trip is part diplomatic mission. An array of diplomatic initiatives are tied to the Strategic Dialogue, and Canada’s increased role in supporting a militarized international agenda premised on an aggressive and militarized Israel in the Middle East.

The Canadian military’s most significant operation in Israel is in support of US-led operations under the command of US Lieutenant-General Keith Dayton. Dayton, in close coordination with Israel, leads the United States Security Coordinator (USSC) program, initiated in 2005. It was created, according to then-US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, in order to oversee the training of a new integrated Palestinian police force and to referee problems between rival political parties Hamas and Fatah. Under Dayton’s leadership, the program is closely coordinated with the Israelis. Canadian members make up the bulk of Dayton’s training team – with 18 Canadian officers alongside 10 American.

The USSC program has come under scrutiny, though. A 2008 exposé by Vanity Fair revealed that these security forces attempted to overthrow Hamas and prop up Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party following Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

US forces face restrictions around their movement in the West Bank, though, that Candian forces do not. Due in large part to Canada’s reputation as a “trusted, impartial third-party,” the notes claim that CF personnel enter the West Bank daily allowing them to offer a useful window of intelligence on the West Bank to the American army. As briefing notes indicate, Dayton is “an enthusiastic advocate of Canada’s support to his mission” with the US government.

Canada plays a similar conduit like role in respect to facilitating communication between NATO and Israel. In this regard, the Canadian Embassy in Tel Aviv is serving as Israel’s NATO Contact Point Embassy until 31 December 2010.

Beyond the role as a NATO contact, the documents reveal a small glimpse into Canada’s behind-the-scenes role in lobbying for Israel’s inclusion into NATO.

Canada serves as “the liaison between Israel and NATO, assists with visits of NATO officials…to Israel.” Canada is also the first country to speak at NATO meetings that involve Israel, details one briefing note.

The documents show Canada has been working with Israel towards its goal of a stronger partnership with NATO. This includes helping Israel in its “pursuit of a Status of Forces Agreement, getting access to the NATO Maintenance Supply Agency, [redacted].”

The fundamental principle of the Cold War NATO alliance is that an attack against one party is equivalent to an attack against all parties of the alliance. Hence bringing Israel into NATO could mean that Canada would automatically declare war on an aggressor that attacked Israel, whatever the definition of aggression.

These sentiments were recently made public when junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent mused to the magazine Shalom Life that “an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.” Kent later apologized for the public comment but noted that Israel understood its substance.

The documents are only a small glimpse into the dialogue between the two nations’ militaries. A talking point laid out in a note to Natynczyk during his October 2009 visit confirm a strong commitment to increasing and future collaboration.

“I am pleased with the increased cooperation between Canadian Forces and the IDF and I am looking forward to future coordination and partnership between our armed forces.”

SIDEBAR: Recent Developments in Canada-Israel Relations

• Although Canada’s diplomatic support for an Israeli state predates Israel’s inception, policy toward the country became more friendly under Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, and veered further right under Stephen Harper.

• Among the long list of examples of Canada’s ardent pro-Israel turn was Harper’s response to the massive bombardment of Lebanon in 2006 following the Hezbollah abduction of two Israeli soldiers. While the international community decried Israel’s aberrant bombardment, Harper described it as a “measured response.”

• The conflict killed at least 1,500 people, mostly Lebanese civilians, and severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure. Among the accounts of widespread collateral damage was the death of Canadian soldier Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener.

• Kruedener was among four UN Military Observ­ers killed when the Israeli Air Force attacked a UN observation post in southern Lebanon. Brief­ing notes written for Natynczyk shed light on Canadian diplomatic actions in the aftermath of Kruedener’s death.

• The notes state Israel took responsibility for their deaths, but that the killings were unintentional. Unbeknownst to many, however, the notes mention that Harper subsequently wrote to Israeli Prime Min­ister Olmert accepting Israel’s account. While Harper presents himself as a defender of military personnel, it appears – in the face of widespread criticism of Israel following the attack on the UN position – that Canada was more inclined to defend the reputation of its ally than demand answers to uncomfortable questions on behalf of its soldiers.

• Revealing Israel’s sensitivity to the issue, Natynczyk is warned in the briefings: “Israel has made clear that it has answered all the questions it intends to with respect to the deaths of the four.”

Originally published in The Dominion. August 25, 2010.

Yavar Hameed is a human rights lawyer and sessional lecturer at Carleton University in Ottawa. Jeff Monaghan works with Books to Prisoners in Ottawa.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Featured, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | No Comments »

Did AbitibiBowater Settlement Create Private Water Rights?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

The Council of Canadians is demanding that the terms of the recent NAFTA settlement between pulp and paper company AbitibiBowater and the federal government be made public. The Council believes that within this settlement exist possible constitutional repercussions affecting provincial jurisdiction over regional water rights.

AbitibiBowater used Chapter 11 of NAFTA to sue Canada over the alleged illegal seizure of company property by the province of Newfoundland following the closure of the Grand Falls paper mill and ensuing bankruptcy of the company. The property was seized in response to the cancellation of severance packages worth thousands of dollars for 500 workers within the province as a result of the company filing for bankruptcy protection.

Fred Wilson goes into further detail in an article from rabble.ca:

Danny Williams and the Newfoundland government were furious with the company and they proceeded to take back the company’s timber and water rights and expropriate their hydro-electric dam and power station.  After all, the hydro operation depended entirely on a water license issued by the province to provide power for the mill.

A negotiation then ensued over the appropriate compensation for the investments that the company had made in the hydro operation.  But just what is the value of a hydro station that is based on a license to provide power for a mill that the company has now closed?

Danny Williams was nicknamed “Hugo” over the expropriation of the assets.  Even though the government’s actions did not save their jobs, the mill workers have nothing but admiration for Williams.  A lesser known part of this story is that the Premier and the government then stepped in and paid over $30 million in severance pay that was owed to the people who lost their jobs at Grand Falls.  To my knowledge, this is unprecedented by any government in Canada.

Needless to say, any deal between the province and AbitibiBowater would have to take into account the millions of dollars of company obligations to workers already paid by Newfoundland.  The larger question is whether AbitibiBowater was using public resources to run a paper mill or to be a private power producer.  Put another way, are the licenses to use resources for economic development just another kind of private property that can be used or not used or sold regardless of the public benefit?

In any event, the NAFTA challenge was from day one a bargaining chip in these negotiations, and the NAFTA proceedings will now be just another bargaining table where the company thinks it will have a stronger hand.

The NAFTA suit also offends on another level.  AbitibiBowater is presumably still a Canadian company (although 51% of its shares are held by the former Bowater shareholders).  Its headquarters is a landmark in downtown Montreal and the majority of its mills are in Canada.  The company has a $100 million loan guarantee from the province of Quebec and it is negotiating with the federal government for further assistance to restructure and emerge from CCAA protection.

As it turns out, whether the company is Canadian or not doesn’t matter.  As long as there are US investors or shareholders, a Chapter 11 case can be brought.  In other words, this NAFTA provision is much less about trade between countries, and much more about the privileges of capital to trump the rights of citizens and governments.

So Newfoundland is in effect being dragged to the World Bank building and forced to defend the actions of its legislature before an unelected and non-judicial, unconstitutional NAFTA star chamber.  Of course, all that can be avoided by giving the company everything it wants.

The case was ultimately settled at the end of August of this year, with the federal government agreeing to compensate AbitibiBowater $130 million for the expropriated assets.

Originally published on cbc.ca

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams expressed happiness with the federal payout.

“We are pleased that the matter has been concluded and we appreciate the work of the federal government in resolving the issue,” according to a statement issued to CBC News by Williams’s office.

“The Government of Canada has agreed to make a payment of $130 million to AbitibiBowater upon the company’s restructuring. This payment represents the fair market value of the company’s expropriated assets,” said a statement from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

“AbitibiBowater has agreed to irrevocably and permanently withdraw its claim against Canada.”

The company said the federal payment forestalled an expensive legal case under NAFTA.

“We believe this is an acceptable settlement for our company, stakeholders and creditors, given the set of circumstances faced by the company at this particular time, as well as the inherent uncertainty of any judicial process,” stated CEO David Paterson.

“We are now able to move forward and focus on finalizing our restructuring process and plans to emerge from creditor protection in the fall 2010. AbitibiBowater would like to thank the Government of Canada for its efforts to reach this settlement and avoid a protracted and expensive NAFTA case.”

The settlement has not generated a solely positive response however, and has in fact set off warning bells in the offices of those charged with the task of safeguarding the public rights of Canadians.

The Council of Canadians released the following press release on August 25 in response:

The $130 million NAFTA settlement handed to pulp and paper company AbitibiBowater yesterday by the federal government could have constitutional repercussions affecting provincial jurisdiction and water governance according to the Council of Canadians. The organization is demanding that the terms of the deal be made public. “Water is a public resource to be managed by governments in the public interest,” says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians.

“If AbitibiBowater has in any way been compensated for the loss of water and timber rights, as the company is suggesting, the Harper government’s hundred million dollar buyout would turn water into private property. Imagine the consequences of handing oil and gas companies operating in the tar sands this same right to draw water or else be compensated,” says Barlow.

Unlike the United States and other countries, Canada rejected private property as an inalienable right when it signed a new Constitution into law in 1982. This NAFTA settlement with AbitibiBowater proves again how investment guarantees in free trade agreements have forced private property rights into Canadian law – with high costs for Canadians and few if any possible benefits to the management of Canada’s economy, natural resources in particular. If the company is telling the truth that not only its assets but its water and timber rights have been compensated for, the threat to water management in Canada will be high.

The Council of Canadians is also astonished that AbitibiBowater was let off the hook recently by a Quebec court from having to foot the bill of the needed environmental cleanup of its now inoperative plant in Newfoundland.

“This NAFTA settlement tells multinational companies around the world that Canada will pay them to eliminate jobs and to pollute the environment,” says Barlow. “NAFTA made these kinds of settlements inevitable by letting investors challenge even public health and environmental policy directly as indirect expropriations of their profits. The anti-democratic Chapter 11 dispute process should be gutted from NAFTA and a more balanced international investment regime put in place.”

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economic policies, Featured, Labour, The Real Issues | 1 Comment »

Project Samosa Anti Terror Arrests: A Spiced Up and Deep Fried Narrative

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

 

By No One is Illegal-Vancouver, August 29th, 2010

No One is Illegal-Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories is a grassroots anti-colonial migrant justice group with leadership from members of migrant and/or racialized backgrounds. As a movement for self-determination, we challenge the racist ideology inherent to the War on Terror that is intrinsically linked to repressive immigration controls. This past week four men were arrested, three in Ottawa, as part of a 2-year investigation entitled “Project Samosa” (cultural sensitivity training seems to have missed the fact that not many Pakistanis and Indians actually like samosas). According to reports, Misbahuddin Ahmed, Hiva Alizadeh, and Dr. Khurram Syed Sher have been charged; a fourth person has been arrested but not yet charged; while three to four others are overseas suspects and co-conspirators.

The men must be presumed to be innocent, both in the court process and in public consciousness. Media sensationalism, government statements, and public commentaries have revealed that the men are being considered and treated as guilty terrorists. This is despite the fact that defence counsel Anser Farooq has said that he knows almost nothing about the specifics of the case and that the charges are vague.

In a press conference, law enforcement official Mr. Juneau-Katsuya articulated high-tech detective skills: “We’ve got red flags everywhere and you can trip one of those flags anytime. If you’re traveling to Pakistan, that’s a red flag…When you’ve got enough red flags, then you become a person of interest. My understanding is they were caught from the Internet.” Juneau-Katsuya also stated that one of the alleged targets was the Montreal transit system. However Isabelle Tremblay, a spokeswoman for the Montreal transit authority, said there have been “no threats, and no information regarding this claim. If something like that occurs, we’re informed. On this matter, there’s nothing.” In an extensive Globe and Mail interview Rizgar Alizadeh, Hiva’s older brother, described the allegations against both him and his brother as “a pack of lies” and said he was neither angry nor fearful because his “conscience is clear”.

The mainstream corporate media has played a crucial role in stirring public frenzy by uncritically parroting government rhetoric such as “homegrown terrorists” and “Jihad generation” and that the suspects were “inspired by Al Qaeda”, without providing any evidence to substantiate such a claim. Such stigmatizing statements will have a permanent damaging effect on the men and their families and their “guilt” will surely continue even if the charges are dropped or the men are acquitted.

Seven years ago in 2003, over twenty South Asian- predominantly Pakistani-Muslim men were arrested in Toronto in a sweep called “Operation Thread” for allegedly being an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. None of the allegations were proven to be true and not one of the men was ever formally charged, let alone convicted. Yet most were deported and their lives destroyed by the unsubstantiated allegations linking them to terrorism. Four years ago, eighteen men and youth were arrested in the Toronto 18 terror plot. Seven subsequently had all charges dropped, while others were convicted or had to plead guilty under excruciating circumstances, including the pre-arrest existence of well-paid police informants pushing and heavily influencing activity amongst youth, and post-arrest the detainees having to endure conditions of isolation and segregation in high-security prisons for several years. These are reasons enough to remain vigilant. As Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International has said “the main lesson here is that there can easily be a great deal of hysteria. But there have been previous cases that have collapsed or proved not to be as advertised.”

Despite the fact that the men arrested are all residents and citizens of Canada, the questioning of their “Canadian-ness” reveals a shallow multiculturalism and reinforces the racialized national space. Stories about their Otherness abound: “the suspect with a full, long beard”, “there was nothing that seemed too out of the ordinary except neighbours noted the women wore a niqab or burqa”, or “she said the couple talked openly about their Muslim beliefs”. Profiling is a hateful double standard by which individual members of communities are judged and held responsible for acts or behaviours based on their culture, race, ethnicity, and/or religion. In contrast, white Christian middle-aged men aged 18-45 did not suffer the indignities of suspicion and stereotyping after the bombings of Oklahoma City. Their “ability to integrate” or their positioning within North American society was not challenged. In a media statement after the arrests, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews singled out immigrant communities to be ‘vigilant and to report any suspicious behaviour of homegrown extremism’. Of course he did not ask white people to be vigilant against the growing presence and extremism of white supremacists and neo-nazis who have brazenly been taking to the streets over the past few years.

These arrests will also provide further justification for the policing and security apparatus, which since 9/11, has already resulted in pervasive government and media censorship of information, the silencing of dissent, legislation granting intelligence and law enforcement agencies much broader powers of intrusion, and increasingly exclusionary and racist immigration policies. Over the year, $2 billion security budgets for the Olympics and G20 summit have led to increased law enforcement, coordinated operations of unprecedented mass arrests, and creeping surveillance technologies. Currently the Canadian government is strengthening the false association between migrants and terrorists in their dehumanizing treatment of 492 Tamil refugees, including women and children, who arrived to the coast and are all currently being incarcerated. [The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service] has recently revealed it is tracking more than 200 individuals in Canada with possible terrorist links.

The discourse of the War on Terror is rooted in a deliberately-cultivated fear and paranoia, which reduces our capacity to think and debate critically. In the past few years, Canada has re-invented itself as an aggressive and crusading Western imperialist power with an increasing presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan, while strengthening ties to the apartheid state of Israel. Meanwhile, Omar Khadr continues to languish in Guantanamo Bay, facing a military trial where evidence gained through torture is admissible. The historical and present reality is that Canadian state policies have been far from peaceful or benevolent. The foundational values of the Canadian state locally are self-evident through residential schools, the Komagatamaru incident, the Indian Act, Japanese-Canadian internment, forced sterilization, the Chinese Head-Tax, and countless other realities.

We commit ourselves to continuing to defend our communities against the demonization of being “The Enemy Within” that is justifying increasingly repressive and racist policies. We struggle for the elimination of all forms of oppressive violence waged against the peoples of the world, particularly the never-ending War on Terrorism which is bringing the greatest degree of terror and fear in the lives of the world’s majority. We place ourselves within the broader movement for global justice struggling against capitalism, homophobia, imperialism, occupation, patriarchy, poverty, racism and other forms of domination because we recognize that these are interconnected systems. We envision and actively strive for a humanity where everyone has the right to sustenance and the ability to provide it, where we are free of misery and exploitation, and are able to live meaningfully in relationship to one another and in reverence for Mother Earth that sustains us.

Image via NOW on pbs.org

Tags:, ,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Featured, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | No Comments »

G20 in the courts: Political battle continues with mass appearances of G20 defendants

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

By Megan Kinch and Justin Saunders, on August 25, 2010 at the Toronto Media Co-op

The legal prosecution of political activists continued on Monday as approximately 300 people appeared in court on G20-related charges. The courthouse at 2201 Finch Avenue was beyond capacity and began processing defendants outside the building amid a noticeable police presence and significantly increased court security.

Over 100 people had charges withdrawn, ‘diverted’ or accepted an offer of a peace bond. According to Vincent Paris, Lead Crown Attorney on the G20 prosecutions, a “number of offers are being made (to defence lawyers).” Paris gave a statement outside the courthouse but declined to comment on individual cases. Although diversion involves no on-the-record admission of guilt and cannot be used in future proceedings, as part of the process defendants typically ‘accept responsibility’ for actions in the form of a donation to charity or a court program involving education or community service. Many people refused to participate in the diversion process and elected to have their day in court. Mac Scott, a legal worker with the Movement Defence Committee, noted that it is highly unusual for people to be offered diversion at this point in the court process. “Police actions during the G20 were heavy handed and largely illegal. Many people were arrested indiscriminately and without evidence. This is why we are seeing withdrawals and diversions so early on.”

Natalie Gray’s arm and chest still bear marks from rubber bullet wounds. She is among several high profile G20 arrestees whose charges were dropped after evidence contradicting the police version of events was widely published. Gray’s arrest made headlines after she was shot while attending a support rally outside the temporary detention centre on Eastern Avenue. Police only admitted the use of rubber bullets against non-violent demonstrators when photo evidence emerged in the media. Gray is in the process of filing a lawsuit against the police. Also withdrawn were charges against Lacy MacAuley, an media activist and blogger from Washington DC; MacAuley was attacked by several officers, dragged into an unmarked van and assaulted, most of which was captured on camera. She was subsequently charged with assaulting a police officer.

MacAuley characterized the Crown’s decision to drop her charges as part of a strategy to avoid embarrassment, and to isolate defendants who don’t have clear video evidence exonerating them. “They want to sweep us under the carpet; they want us to go away…(but) we will not be silenced.” Although MacAuley is glad that her charges were dropped, she said that she will continue to support others still before the courts. “This fight is not over, because so many of us are still facing charges.” She is now considering her options for pursuing legal action against the police.

When asked if any officers would be charged for their actions during the G20, Paris replied that it was a “police matter”. Paris said the decision to withdraw or divert charges was made “in the public interest”, and defended police actions by stating that reasonable grounds for prosecution was not the same as reasonable grounds for arrest.

Matthew Melancon, who along with dozens of other Quebec residents was picked up at a mass arrest during a raid on a Student Union office at the University of Toronto, told The Star: “They spent billions of dollars on (security) and I wasn’t there at the demonstration… yet they charged me with conspiracy for participating in a riot …what was I supposed to be conspiring? I was sleeping at the university of Toronto …and (was woken up by) dozens of cops with guns screaming at us.” Most Quebec defendants have not had their charges dropped and will have to return Toronto in October for more court appearances.

Later in the day about 150 people gathered outside Police Headquarters in a rally organized by the Community Solidarity Network, a group which is fund-raising to support G20 detainees. Spokesperson Mohan Mishra contrasted the money that had been spent on security and prisons with the social austerity measures adopted by G20 nations at the Summit in June, taking particular aim at Steven Harper’s conservative government. “(Harper) is cutting wages and cutting jobs while at the same time spending over a billion dollars on security for the G20, spending a new 9 billion dollars on prisons and spending 16 billion dollars on new fighter planes. We fought this agenda during the G20 and we are going to continue to fight it. The people in court today are being prosecuted not because of any actual crimes but because of their opposition to the G20.”

Image courtesy of the Toronto Sun

Posted in Assault on Democracy, Featured | No Comments »

An Attack on Democracy and Indigenous Freedom at the G20

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Published on Aug 26, 2010 in the First Nation’s Drum: Canada’s National Native Newspaper
By Danny Beaton, Mohawk
Photograph courtesy of Ben Powless, Mohawk

Police Car burns in downtown Toronto

As we walked out to catch the streetcar headed east on College Street, the rain was warm as it began to soak through our hair. On Saturday, June 26, 2010, we were going to join the protest of the G8 and G20 at the Legislation steps at Queens Park in Toronto, Ontario. The streetcar stopped near Grace Street, and my partner’s son’s drum teacher got on and sat in the seat in front of us. We exchanged greetings. Later in the day, we saw him drumming magnificently on his chrome snare drum belted across his chest as he and several dozen drummers and dancers celebrated the fifteen thousand concerned citizens, artists, teachers, mothers, fathers, even grandparents of all colours and backgrounds who had gathered to protest the many concerns we collectively inherited.

We stood on College Street watching the colours and banners of different groups, organizations, unions, and people all smiling and filling the air with positive energy with chants and slogans of justice. When I saw Greenpeace, I said to my wife, “Let’s join them,” as I have known some of their staff for many years. “No,” she said. “We will wait for the Council of Canadians, as they will remember us and they will have some Site 41 people there, maybe some farmers, too.” Sure enough, the Council began to walk by us, and we stepped in and shook hands with Don and Mary Jane and their two university children. We all exchanged hugs and began to chat as we walked down University Street, stopping now and then to wait for the crowd to catch up.

When we reached the American Embassy where the protest had stopped, hundreds of armed police in military combat stance stood in front of the embassy in all directions, staring at us with cold glaring eyes locked on us. We smiled in our now mindful experience of the military state we were entering. Military-style police stood on public benches, some wearing protective face masks, some with clubs and huge shields like an army ready to pounce, scare, beat, or confront an enemy. Many of these guards held what looked like shotguns, riot guns, assault weapons ready for a confrontation. I felt a negative force, and all I could say to them was, “What are you protecting?” I felt a monster present; that image in front of the US Embassy was something from a movie like Apocalypse Now. The entire protest, I am sure, was surprised at the size and array of goons in military style. My friends shook their heads in disbelief. We all exchanged comments regarding the police, and we all agreed this was uncanny for Toronto to have such a cold army of riot squads, like we were back in the days of Gandhi in India, boycotting the British rule.

The march continued south, and the image we saw as we passed the US Embassy that afternoon will remain etched in our minds, knowing what we are up against in our struggle for justice, freedom, and environmental protection. We continued down University Street with roughly 15,000 walking peacefully, calmly, now in a state of awkwardness, feeling like our message was being heard just by our sheer numbers. Everyone was positive. Many of us were carrying cameras, snapping away at the momentum and unity achieved by the organizers. The Spirit of Unity, Harmony, Justice, and Peace had been achieved.

Now we had started at Queens Park and traveled to Queen Street, where we were confronted with two rows of shoulder-to-shoulder riot police with shields and batons. They forced our peaceful walk from south to west where every street north and south was guarded by the same 2 rows of shoulder-to-shoulder riot police forcing our walk west, giving us a boxed-in feeling with the reality of being truly controlled by a goon squad.

This once trendy shopping district filled with tourists, Torontonians, street vendors, and citizens alive with zest, peace, and calm now appeared to be under marshal law, about to explode with danger, and the feeling of danger was everywhere. Being surrounded by a riot squad and goon force was no easy feeling as we were not ready for battle, nor were we prepared for a beating; we were peaceful protesters chanting and drumming for life. Just as we reached Spadina Street, a group of protesters turned around and headed east, followed by a hyper group of riot police running after them—this I believe was the beginning of the violence to come over the next three days.

Our city was now under siege; the monster was unleashed; the tear gas exploded. Billy clubs were stained in blood by angry police who came to Toronto for a confrontation. Several hundred innocent citizens beat to the ground by the riot squad, and for what? For who and why? The G20 and elite G8 were not in Toronto to discuss the most serious environmental disasters in the history of the earth (oil rupture by BP in the Gulf of Mexico) or the most serious environmental crisis (climate change or global warming enhanced by Canada’s tar sands). North American Native peoples have never been consulted by this elite of western political leaders about environmental issues in any serious strategic context regarding environmental protection or any forms of joint management of natural resources. Native peoples of North and South America and the indigenous peoples of the world demand the protection of Mother Earth for Seven Generations of Accountability for future generations to come.

The gathering of government leaders of the world in Toronto without the input of indigenous leaders was the first mistake Prime Minister Stephan Harper made to discredit any world debate on the solving of world problems. Realistically speaking, the G20 or G8s first priority or intention was never meant to solve environmental problems but was meant to keep the activity of material goods and consumption moving along so that the profits would continue, based on the exploitation of natural resources and development of indigenous territories without Native or Aboriginal consent. Now these political leaders have gone back to their own countries to try and keep their economy from collapsing—and the economy is a real issue, only there are even bigger issues. Real issues of environmental degradation have not been addressed. The fishermen by the Gulf of Mexico and so many others have lost their economy, but this was not a priority for western thinkers who gave the “go ahead” on deep sea oil drilling. The Tar Sands in Alberta are destroying rivers, lakes, streams, and Native homeland. Not to mention animals, birds, fish, the traditional Native diet, berries, plants, and medicines are contaminated, and for what? Profit. Contamination is now moving along to other communities.

We have to ask ourselves about what is more important: profit or water and sustenance. Economies should evolve around life, not death. We cannot let negative thinkers, businessmen, politicians hide with the police and army to protect them while they develop and destroy water and earth, because it belongs to our children and their children. Real problems like environmental protection need to be addressed now because soon there might be a dead ocean. Collecting the oil was not a first priority, and it created a far worse problem by dispersing toxic chemicals that have devastated the people’s homeland and life.

The people have a human right to defend Mother Earth and her blood and their children’s future because it is Our Way of Life—everything has a right to live, and Respect is the Law of the Land. This is the North American way of life and always has been, and it is the Natural Law of life with the natural world. Mother Earth can take care of us, but we have to take care of her, too. The police should never have used force on innocent protesters, artists, teachers, fathers, mothers, students who stood up for justice, unity, righteousness, and peace. Thank you for listening. All My Relations.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Featured, Indigenous Rights | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »