Archive for the ‘Labour’ Category

« Older Entries

In Remembrance of the Charter of Rights and Freedom

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

William Hogarth, "Court of Law"By Elizabeth Littlejohn

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963), in a speech at the White House, 1962

I write this on the eve of Remembrance Day, 2010, as PM Harper flies to South Korea for a repeat performance of the G20, as three days of testimonies unfold in Toronto and Montreal to question RCMP conduct, and the government continues to refuse a public inquiry into the G20. This judicial inquiry is morally imperative as it would enable the federal court to subpoena evidence from witnesses under oath to knit together the patchwork of incriminating evidence, establish the chain of command of policing during the G20, and finally assign culpability. Both parties are standing firm- this all-encompassing inquiry must not be allowed happen. It may be the only issue they agree upon at this time, having closed ranks to goose-step around civil liberties. Meanwhile, PM Harper is fiddling while Rome burns, selling more of our assets to multinationals in South Korea. Has it occurred to him that Canada is not his to sell?

I dedicate this article to my grandfather, who fought in the First World War, and was one of the few who survived the air force. He came back so shell-shocked that if his family spoke while he drove, he had to pull over to the side of the road to calm down. Within my extended family, several members have been awarded Orders of Canada for public service. I am, however, a vilified ‘protester’, as I believe that there must be a full inquiry into the G8/G20 Summit so that both levels of government are forced to be responsible for the gross abuse of police power, violation of civil liberties and powers of taxation, and desecration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Charter cannot defend its own constitution and abrogation of civil rights, it is a constitution no longer.

It is exactly one week since I witnessed the voting down of the second reading of Bill 121, a public interest investigation into the G8/G20 Summit tabled by Welland’s NDP MPP, Peter Kormos, by 8 ‘ayes’ to 28 ‘neas’ in Queen’s Park. Upon the resounding ‘nea’ across the floor by the consolidated Liberals and Conservatives, there was a unanimous, audible gasp by those in the peanut gallery. Included in that singular voice was my own, and within an hour, having sped away on my round legs, I was listening to Chris Hedges talk about his new book, “The Death of the Liberal Class” at the Munk School for Global Affairs. His lecture was a play-by-play of what I had seen at Queen’s Park, and spoke directly to me.

Could it be, according to Chris Hedges, that the liberal left – unions, churches and universities, progressive political parties, and the press – has lost moral suasion as a guiding voice for democratic dialogue? Have we abandoned our moral compass in favour of corporate elitism? And have we allowed the gutting of ethics, and the erosion of civil liberties, for financial gain? As I watched the provincial NDP fight back at Queen’s Park, and be mocked for their efforts by the opposing parties, I thought no- it is worse- citizens’ rights are being viewed with contempt as they contest the streamlining of economic interests, the growing division between the rich and poor, and the destruction of the environment. As Chris Hedges notes, without a robust liberal voice to engage in this debate, there is a very real danger that things will degrade into violence as the middle and working classes become increasingly disenfranchised, angry and confused. Internationally, general strikes rage, generated by falsely imposed austerity measures imposed by the banks, and Chris Hedges predicts that the US, then Canada, will be next, on the front line. A cynical friend said that no doubt the Conservatives had a contingency fund for legal challenges as part of their G20 bottom line, a line item right after their $500, 000 worth of delegate party favours -glow sticks, hand sanitizer, and $100 pens.

At Queen’s Park, throughout the presentation of the bill, I was distressed by the disregard the opposition had for the NDP. They held extended conversations during their presentation, loud enough to be heard by me in the upper gallery, to show their displeasure at the possibility of the second reading of Bill 121. For me, as a Canadian citizen, it was a momentous historical occasion, for the Liberals and Conservatives, it was a $1.3 billion farce of the highest order, worthy of a William Hogarth cartoon – when Peter Kormos mentioned the editorial in the Star demanding a formal inquiry, a Liberal MPP turned to the fashion section, searching for it there. I watched her. A MPP from the Muskoka region, Garfield Dunlop, mentioned the success of the G8 in Huntsville, although I heard how golfers were losing balls off the green, and militia were crawling out of the brush, holding the golf ball up, and warning them not to hit off the fairway again.

I have always been ambivalent about the Ontario Parliament Network, the official channel of the provincial legislature, but I was glad that it was recording and broadcasting this debate for posterity, ignored as it was by the opposition. MPPs, please be aware that you are being observed. I have heard how the intellectual level of discourse, as transcribed in the Hansard, the official record, is the lowest it has ever been historically, but the resounding speeches of NDP MPPs, Peter Kormos, Andrea Horwath, and Cheri DiNovo , showed courage, a monumental standing up for the underdog. As I left the gallery, I made the universal symbol for typing to Cheri DiNovo. I will transcribe my own citizen’s Hansard of events, and I will remember this travesty of justice in the defense of the Charter, and my grandfather, who fought for a kinder, gentler Canada, and my right to protest. During the G20, police erased incriminating photographs on iPhones by resetting the factory settings to default, and stomping on memory cards, to erase incriminating evidence of police brutality. I refuse to let these memories be erased.

Later, at the lecture, deeply shaken, I asked Chris Hedges about the vilification of protesters, and he spoke of having his microphone cut off, twice, during a lecture, and being escorted off a university campus. The press reported that he had created a riot, and the university sent him his coat by mail. Protesters, intellectuals, academics, environmentalists- these are all epithets, just as a Liberal MP pointed out the eloquence of Peter Kormos was due to his background as a lawyer during the Bill 121 debate. Those who ask for educated discussion are discredited to enable bigotry and prejudice, as PM Harper plays his role as ideologue to evade facts, discourage analysis, and hold court through emotion. Elitists, environmentalists, lawyers, lefties, union members, protesters- these have all become dirty words – just read the comments section online, and see how democratic discourse has descended into name calling, supported by this new form of government.

There will be no justice until there is a public inquiry, which ties together the disparate inquiries into a coherent series of events enabled by a chain of command, and yes, assigns blame. We deserve to know what happened, and not to be distracted by the pomp and circumstance of yet another G20 Summit, quick on the heels of our own. Regulation 233/10, the five meter fence rule, will lead right back to the Premier McGuinty’s office, then to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Investigation of this fallacious law will prove PM Harper’s desire to cut away the backbone of peaceful resistance by targeting caring, educated and engaged youth to ensure their future political passivity. The young woman, hit by rubber bullets, may never return to Toronto, and sadly, these memories of the state of martial law have changed a generation’s perception of police. As an educator, I will never forget this deliberate humiliation of over eleven hundred protesters, and as a citizen, I will never forget that my grandfather fought for naught, because I can be taxed to the hilt to have my civil liberties suspended for a political spectacle enabling police brutality, and civilian abuse. Canada is not safer since the Summits and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been allowed to be put into question, and with that, the fundamental rights of every citizen. Shame.

References:
Hedges, Chris. The Death of the Liberal Class. New York: Nation, 2010. Print.
Theo Moudakis, Opinion in Toronto Star, Public Inquiry November 1st, link at http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/883743–g20-summit-public-inquiry-still-required
Krystalline Kraus, “Activist Communique: Ontario G20 inquiry public members bill failed to pass second reading and the Summit cost totals”, ‏link at http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2010/11/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-ontario-g20-inquiry-public-members-bill
The Hansard, November 4th, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=2010-11-04&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F04-NOV-2010_L066.htm&Parl=39&Sess=2#P1300_294131

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Corporate Globalization, Economic policies, Environment, Featured, Labour, The Real Issues | No Comments »

Monsanto, Blackwater, and GM Crop Saboteurs

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Rady Ananda for Dissident Voice, September 20, 2010

Agribusiness giant Monsanto, which genetically modifies plants to exude or tolerate pesticide or to produce nonviable seed, hired the services of the mercenary firm, Blackwater, to spy on activists, Jeremy Scahill reports. A death-tech firm weds a hit squad.

This is no doubt in response to a decade of GM crop sabotage efforts around the globe.  Since the publicly-announced introduction of GM crops in 1996, concerned citizens have vandalized such crops every single year somewhere on the planet. Several thousand GM plants have been partially or wholly destroyed. (See brief history below.)

Blackwater is most notorious for its Nisour Square Massacre in 2007. Seventeen innocent civilians died when Blackwater goons opened fire in a busy market square. The hit team was later acquitted in a U.S. court.

Scahill reports that through its web of companies, Blackwater (now Xe Services) spied on and/or infilitrated groups opposing Monsanto in 2008 through early 2010.  He writes:

The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair, Cofer Black, traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to [then-president Erik] Prince and [former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique] Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses.

Black wrote that Wilson ‘understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.’

Black added that Total Intelligence ‘would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.’ Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater ‘could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally’….

…Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating ‘there was no such discussion.’”

Monsanto said only publicly available information was monitored. Scahill writes of Monsanto’s security manager, Kevin Wilson:

He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto ‘with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites.

Tom Philpott of Grist notes:

I can confirm that Monsanto likes to keep a close eye on blogs and websites. Back in 2005, I got my break as a food-politics writer after a Monsanto lawyer slapped my blog, with its all of 30 readers, with a cease-and-desist letter.

Monsanto has also openly engaged with activists on blogs. During my tenure as Senior Editor at OpEdNews.com, site owner Rob Kall approved membership for Brad Mitchell, Monsanto’s public relations chief.  Mitchell particularly focused on articles by Linn Cohen-Cole. (See e.g. the comments on Monsanto’s dream bill, HR 875.)  Cohen-Cole claimed that after her articles at OEN received widespread attention, she noticed surveillance vehicles on her street.

That early 2009 decision at OEN spiked the ire of food writers. They objected to a forum for ordinary people granting equal access to a multi-billion dollar corporation which can publish in mainstream media, and hire professional psyops agents like Burson-Marstellar. B-M represents genocidal regimes, claimed the Bhopal disaster wasn’t so bad, promotes secret vote counting software, and is generally the go-to spin doctor for the world’s worst enterprises.

By a wide majority, OEN members condemned Kall’s approval of Monsanto membership, forcing him to rescind it. Two months later, in May 2009, he demoted and/or banned several “radicals,” including those of us who deride GM foods. In fact, my banishment prompted the inception of Food Freedom, a website that includes coverage of GM foods and Monsanto.

But no matter how many bloggers it tries to silence, the biotech industry has lost in the court of public opinion. This is why it lobbies to ensure genetically-modified foods are not labeled. Not even Burson-Marstellar has been able to overcome the “frankenfood” reputation.

GM Crop Sabotage in Defense of Biodiversity

But it isn’t just public opinion that concerns Monsanto.  Monsanto didn’t hire assassins to sway public opinion. GM crop sabotage, which originated in Europe, has been an ongoing global effort since at least 1997.

In 1999, Andrew Hund compiled several reports of GM crop sabotage around the world, some of which are included in the time line below.

Just focusing on the U.S., Gordon Rausser documented thousands of GM plant destructions in 1999 alone. Citizens targeted GM corn, sugar beets, sunflowers, melons, tomatoes, walnuts, and strawberries. The attacks occurred in Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, New York, and California.

Kathryn Brown reported in Scientific American that in 2000, “in Maine, midnight raiders hacked down more than 3,000 experimental poplar trees. And in San Diego, protesters smashed sorghum and sprayed paint over greenhouse walls.”

This year, Marcel Kuntz described 70 instances of GM crop sabotage in England, Switzerland, France, and Germany from 1999 through 2010.

The timeline below is but a brief sampling of such actions. It shows a wide variety of crops on several continents. And it shows unending interest in ridding the planet of this technology. (Too numerous to list, the cases of GM crop sabotage in the US are not included. See sources above.)

1997 Irish destroy GM sugar beets
1998 Irish destroy GM sugar beets
1998 French destroy GM corn
1998 Brits destroy GM crops on over 40 separate plots
1999 Indian farmers burn GM cotton
1999 New Zealanders destroy GM potato
1999 Canadians destroy GM trees
1999 Brits destroy GM corn
2000 Brits destroy GM corn
2001 Brits destroy GM corn
2001 Brazilians destroy GM corn and soy
2001 Brits destroy six separate fields of GM corn and rapeseed
2002 Indian farmers destroy GM cotton
2003 French destroy GM rapeseed (canola)
2004 French Guiana activists destroy GM coffee
2005 French destroy 50 acres of GM corn
2006 Germans destroy GM corn in several attacks
2006 French destroy GM corn
2007 Brits destroy GM potatoes
2008 Brazilians destroy GM corn
2008 Swiss destroy GM wheat
2009 Swiss destroy GM wheat
2009 Icelanders destroy GM barley
2009 Brits destroy GM potatoes
2009 Brits destroy GM apple trees
2010 Swiss destroy GM wheat
2010 Spaniards destroy GM corn
2010 Italians destroy GM corn
2010 French destroy GM grapes

Not everyone has the luxury of destroying GM crops. In India, under a new biotech bill known as BRAI, people can be imprisoned and fined simply for “misleading” others about GMOs.  Since the entire biotech industry is based on “misleading” information (e.g. one protein-one gene, or that GMOs are substantially equivalent to normal food), one has to wonder if Monsanto executives will get a pass, while only those who disparage the technology become the law’s target.

Elsewhere, dissent has been met with violence.

Last month in La Leonesa, Argentina, 100 thugs attacked local farmers who gathered to hear a scientific presentation on the toxicity of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup. The Chaco provincial government had previously reported a tripling of childhood cancers and a quadrupling of birth defects in the area in the ten years since “the expansion of glyphosate and other agrochemical spraying in the province.”

Monsanto, by hiring a mercenary army and former CIA field agents, is deadly serious about protecting its deadly products. Yet, this contract further discredits the company. The public can now paint an even bleaker picture of the firm that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, rBST, DDT, aspartame and, now, hit men.

Image via Ghana Business News

Tags:,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Corporate Globalization, Environment, Featured, Health, Labour, The Real Issues | 1 Comment »

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 »

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 »

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 »

G20 Convergence: To its success and looking ahead

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

We used the fleeting moment of the G8/G20 summit to further organize Toronto’s community struggles against the impact of colonial, capitalist policies that seek to weaken us everyday. And we succeeded.

July 27, 2010,
One month after the G20 Convergence.

Since September 2009, we’ve worked to challenge, disrupt and abolish the G8/G20. We used the fleeting moment of the G8/G20 summit to further organize Toronto’s community struggles against the impact of colonial, capitalist policies that seek to weaken us everyday.

And we succeeded.

From June 21 to 27, 2010, nearly 40,000 people took to the streets, gathered in discussion, watched movies, set up a tent city, danced and fought. This in itself is a victory.

For the first time, an economic summit saw a march of thousands against colonization and for Indigenous sovereignty (on June 24). This in itself is a victory.

Instead of simplifying our diverse struggles in to one issue, we supported actions for Queer and Trans Rights (22 June), for Environmental Justice (23 June), for Income Equity and Community Control Over Resources (21/24/25 June) , for Gender Justice and Disability Rights (22/25 June), for Migrant Justice and an End to War and Occupation (25 June). We created the conditions for over 100 grassroots organizations to come together, to build relations, to grow stronger together. This in itself is a victory.

For the first time at a G8/G20 Summit (on June 25), we saw communities in ongoing resistance, people of color, poor people, Indigenous people, women, disabled folk, queer folk and others leading the Days of Action (25-27 June). This in itself is a victory.

Knowing that our freedom will rise from an attack at all fronts, respectful of the traditions and needs of safety and efficacy of all our friends; we ensured that actions with conflicting tactics took place separately. This in itself is a victory.

For months, we were followed, intimidated, arrested, our meetings infiltrated by state thugs. Many of us were snatched in pre-dawn and early morning raids on the day of the G20 meeting, yet we were not swayed. We came together, gathered strength and continued to support the demonstrations. This in itself is a victory.

So while 1,090 people have been arrested, thousands beaten, illegally detained, searched, harassed and abused. While over 300 people face criminal prosecutions for their ideological and political actions, and while multiple instances of so-called conspiracy trials and politically motivated targeting continues, we insist, this June 2010, on the streets of Toronto, the people won.

One phase of our work is complete. A new one must begin.

Many of us are organizers in community groups and will be returning to them, we urge you to join us.

Many of us are activists inspired by our collective power these last few months, we intend to form new spaces and organizations for justice, we urge you to do the same.

Many of us will continue to fight for freedom for our friends facing repression, we urge you to support us.

The organized resistance in Toronto has emerged stronger, unified, connected. We take this moment to send our solidarity to the organizations and groups across the world to continue their struggles. Take action in your communities. Build lasting movements for justice free of state violence.

=======

Have an inspiring story, picture or video, email them to
community.mobilize@resist.ca. It is imperative that we remember the joys
with the pain.

This message has been released by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network on July 28, 2010.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Assault on Democracy, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | No Comments »

‘Corporate zombies’ protest mining company Goldcorp, July 22, 2010.

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

The issue of mining  has particular resonance in Canada, the country that houses the head offices of over 60% of all mining companies in the world. Contingents within the G2o protests demanded that Canada take responsibility for the severe environmental damage and human rights abuses caused by its mines – which have offices here, but exist as open chasms, all over the world.

The G20 has come and gone, but the work of anti-mining activists continues. July 22nd was the International Day of Action against Open Pit Mining. On this day activists in Toronto protested Goldcorp, a mining company that refuses to shut down its operations despite being ordered by the UN commission and the government of Guatemala, where it is located, to do so.

The following is a video of an activist explaining the importance of protesting Goldcorp.  A more detailed article on the event follows below.
Toronto – During the International Day of Action against Open Pit Mining, Toronto activists, dressed as corporate zombies, took to the streets of the financial centre of the city to protest Goldcorp and “other unethical Canadian mining companies.”

Open-pit mining is a method of extracting rock or minerals from the Earth by their removal from open pits or borrow pits otherwise known as a sand box. There are open-pit mines in at least 18 nations, including Canada, Australia, Colombia, Chile, Peru and the United States. Materials such as gold, coal, diamonds, nickel, limestone, marble, and others are extracted from open-pit mines. Activists and critics say open-pit mining poses a dangerous threat to the environment. According to CTV News, a recent federal independent review panel concluded that a proposed open-pit gold-copper mine near Williams Lake, British Columbia would cause environmental damage to fish, habitat, cultural heritage and the future use of lands and resources.

Thursday was the second annual International Day of Action against Open-Pit Mining, which took place in Latin America and in Canadian cities, including Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa. Organizers planned demonstrations in front of mining corporate offices and consulates in Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina and other parts of Latin America. A march also took place in front of the Toronto Stock Exchange earlier in the afternoon. Activists dressed as corporate zombies protested “the most brutal form of mineral exploitation.” Other members of the protest spoke to people interested in the purpose of the demonstration and explained the deaths and environmental harm that has transpired from open-pit mining. “We’re corporate zombies because Goldcorp in Guatemala is killing people in Latin America and other places. They’re contaminating the water,” stated Megan, an activist at the rally. “Goldcorp in Guatemala has actually been ordered by the UN Commission and the Guatemala government to shut down but the people from the company are saying, ‘you can’t just come here with a bunch of soldiers to shut down a mine’ but they actually came there with a bunch of soldiers to open up the mine in the first place.”

Megan further added that the local villagers, who own the land, are not receiving any forms of compensation. They will also, according to Megan, be forced to live with the agricultural and environmental effects “forever.” According to the Committee for Human Rights in Latin America, Canadian open-pit mining companies have been responsible for human rights violations and environmental damage for the past several years, which has been reported in the media. “As more than 60% of the world’s mining companies are Canadian, the aim of this action is to recall Canada’s role and its close ties through grants, diplomatic and consular support, investments in the Canadian Pension Plan, tax benefits, etc., with this industry heavily tainted by scandals,” states the organization in a press release.

Both video and article appeared on Digital Journal on July 22, 2010

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Globalization, Labour, The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »

What we struggle for on a daily basis: The fundmentals of G20 resistance

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Harsha Walia from No One is Illegal touches on economic disparity and exploitation, the absence of a democratic process and the illegitimacy of borders. She urges people to find out more about why people are resisting the G8/G20.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, Video, War and Occupation | 1 Comment »

Voices for migrant justice from South Korea, the location for the next G20 summit

Monday, July 19th, 2010


A letter from the Migrant Trade Union of South Korea asks for support and solidarity in face of repression and abuse wrought by the South Korean government, preparing to host the next G20 summit in November 2010.

Dear friends and allies

Migrants Trade Union (MTU) sends you warm greetings and solidarity. We are writing to inform you of very upsetting events taking place in South Korea and to ask for your support.

South Koreais currently preparing to host the G20 Summit in November. The government of Lee Myung-bak is using the upcoming event as an excuse to enforce policies that trample on basic democratic rights. In particular, the Lee administration is using the G20 Summit as a pretext for carrying out a massive crackdown against undocumented migrant workers currently residing in the country.

For many years now, migrant workers have worked in South Korea’s small and medium-size factories, playing an important role by supporting South Korean industry. Undocumented migrant workers, who have often lived in Korea longer than their documented colleagues, have become especially accustom to Korean culture and lived together with Korean citizens as part of Korean society.

Despite the fact that the Korean government brings thousands of migrantworkers to Korea to fill labor shortages in small and medium-size companies, it will not allow them to legally settle or invite their families to live with them. Refusing to sight the UN Convention on the Protect of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Family, which promises basic protections for migrant workers’ human rights, the South Korean government treats migrant workers only as cheap and disposable labor. The government’s sole policy towards undocumented migrant workers has been one of viscous raids, detention and deportation, which has lead to countless injuries and deaths. Every year, migrant workers lose their lives in the course of the government’s crackdown.

This year, the government is using the G20 Summit as an excuse to openly strengthening the policy of raids, detention and deportation. Since May, the police have been carrying out a ‘crackdown on foreigner crime’, stopping people on the street for no reason other than that they appear to be foreign. The government has said it plans to get rid of South Korea’s 180,000 undocumented migrant workers by the end of August.

In response, labor and social justice organizations are joining forces to oppose this anti-human rights, anti-labor policy, and carry out a united struggle to protect migrant workers’ rights.

We ask for your support and solidarity as we move forward with our struggle. Please send letters of protest to the South Korean government expressing your grave concern about its repression against migrant workers. A sample letter is attached for your reference.

Your solidarity is an important part of a wider effort to protect the rights of South Korea’s migrant workers. We will work hard to keep you informed of the situation here in Korea. We ask for your sincere attention and support.

Sincerely,

July 4th, 2010

You may fill in your organizations name and sign the letter below, or use it as reference to draft your own letter.

Please fax letters to: President Lee Myung-bak

Ministry of Justice, Republic of Korea
Building 1, Gwacheon Government Complex,
Jungang-dong 1, Gwacheon-si, Gyeonggi-do
Republicof Korea
Fax: 82-2-2110-3079

Commissioner of Korean Immigration Service
Fax: 82-2-500-9059, 82-2-500-9128, 82-2-500-9026

When you do so, please also send a copy to us a mtuintl@jinbo.net or
82-2-2269-6166 (fax)

<Sample Protest Letter>

We at  *(fill in organization name) * wish to express our deep-felt anger and concern about South Korea’s policy towards undocumented migrant workers. It has come to our attention that your administration is pursuing a massive crackdown against South Korea’s 180,000 undocumented migrant workers in preparation for the G20 Summit to be held in November this year. While you seek to advance your country’s international standing by hosting the Summit, this blatant attack on basic rights only demonstrates the backwardness of your government and its stance towards migrants.

We are aware that migrant workers have played an important role in turning South Korea from a underdeveloped to a highly developed nation. Even now, migrant workers are supporting the Korean economy by filling labor shortages in small and medium-size companies.

In an age when migration is taking place around the globe, governments need new forward-looking policies on migrants. Recognizing this, many nations have signed the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families and are seeking to reduce discrimination against migrants. Some governments have provided pathways for undocumented migrants who have resided in their borders for a long time to settle and attain the same rights as nationals. This is because they recognize that even without legal visa status, these migrant and their families have contributed to and become part of the society in which they live. It is also because these government recognize that undocumented migrant workers play an important role in supporting national economies.

In comparison, the South Korean government’s policy towards migrant workers lags far behind international standards. Amnesty international has documented Amnesty International has documented and expressed concern about cases of, “arbitrary arrests, collective expulsions and violations of law enforcement
procedures, including in some cases, excessive use of force,” during raids by South Korean immigration officials and police. The international NGO has also noted that, *”mass crackdowns have… put pressure on detention facilities, contributing to**
**problems of overcrowding, poor living conditions and delayed access to medical**
** treatment”*(Amnesty International, *Disposable Labor: Rights of Migrant Workers in South Korea*, 33).

In his 2008 report to the Human Right Council, the UN Special Rapporteur noted that states *have, “the obligation to respect and protect the human rights of all those within its territory, nationals and non-nationals alike, regardless of mode of entry or migratory status” *(A/HRC/7/12, para 14). He also noted that a high degree of discretion given immigration authorities to detain migrants and the use of mass raids can lead to human rights violations  and collective expulsion, which is illegal in international law (A/HRC/7/12, para 48-49). He recommended that states find alternatives to detention, as a means for avoiding the abuses undocumented migrants face (A/HRC/7/12, para 65).

We are gravely concerned that South Korea is doing nothing to address these issues and it instead, only strengthening policies which violate migrant workers rights. We therefore make the following demands:

1. That the South Korean government and, in particular the Ministry of Justice and the Immigration Service, immediately stop the viscous crackdown, which is threatening the human rights and very lives of migrant workers.

2. That the South Korean government stop using the goals of a successful G20 Summit and advancement of its international standing as an excuse to arrest and deport migrant workers, and instead put forth a realistic solution to the problems of undocumented migrant workers, such as a plan for legalization.

We will be keeping an eye on the measures the government implements with regard to migrant workers and the efforts it makes to protect their rights. We hope that you will do your best to put forth a positive policy concerning the rights of undocumented migrant workers and their families.

Sincerely,

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Corporate Globalization, Disability rights, Economic policies, Environment, Featured, Gender and Sexuality, Immigration/Refugee/Migrant Justice, Indigenous Rights, Labour, The Real Issues, War and Occupation | 1 Comment »

Vandana Shiva on environmental justice and the role of the G20

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Dr. Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and the founder of Navdanya, an environmental justice organization,  speaks at “Shout Out for Global Justice,” an event that took place on June 25, 2010, on the eve of the G20 in Toronto.
Watch live streaming video from rabbletv at livestream.com

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Corporate Globalization, Economic policies, Environment, Labour, Poverty, The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »

« Older Entries