Category: Canada and Empire

On Canadian foreign policy and its subordination to the needs of the Empire, including the “Five Eyes”.

In whose interests are the “residents” rallies in Caledonia?

On May 22, 2006 – after holding a blockade of the Highway 6 at Caldeonia, Ontario for since February – the indigenous of Six Nations unblocked the highway. The dismantling of the blockade – initially erected by the indigenous to enforce their claim to a piece of land called the Douglas Creek Estates – was a gesture of goodwill on the part of Six Nations after they made headway in their negotiations with the provincial government. (for background see my previous article on the topic: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10152). The gesture was probably to help defuse the organized “angry residents”, who had been rallying at the blockade weekly to demand the road be opened.

But the “angry residents” responded by striking a blockade of their own, preventing native people from getting from the Six Nations reserve to the area they have reclaimed.

Six Nations responded by putting their own blockades back up, and on the afternoon of May 22, there was a tense standoff, with hundreds of “angry residents”, hundreds of indigenous people, and the Ontario police, all present. The standoff continued through May 23. With this action, the “angry residents” have become the most significant impediment to a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The angry resident rallies

Three weeks ago, when I went to Caledonia to see the “angry residents” protest against the Six Nations blockade, I admittedly had a preconceived notion about what the Caledonian rally would be like. I had feared the presence of open white supremacist organizations like the KKK. Not only were there no KKK costumes or signs, but indeed the angry residents were angry at the very implication that they would allow KKK among them. Indeed, the angry residents suggested that the rumors of KKK presence were Six Nations disinformation.

The demonstration of angry residents that took place on May 5, 2006, however, was interesting to me in a number of ways.

First, the protesters did not have an adversarial relationship with the police, which is the norm at most protests. There were a few moments when angry residents yelled at police officers – but these were quickly calmed down by other residents who reminded them that the police were on the residents’ side. And the police were on the residents’ side, quite literally – in addition to the police on the line, there were police interspersed with the residents, conversing and mingling. At one point, an angry resident tried to lead others straight to the police line and past it towards the Six Nations blockade and force open the road. But he was stopped, not by the police, but by another angry resident who argued that a violent incident with the police would not be in the interests of the protesters.

Second, I was struck by the lack of proportion demonstrated by the angry residents. It is true that the Six Nations blockade disrupted traffic. The detour, however, allowed everyone to get to their destinations, despite taking longer. The indigenous were not preventing anyone from reaching their homes, even if they lived within the blockaded areas. Even the angriest residents had to admit this, and qualified their angry claims accordingly, saying: “We can’t get to the hospital – quickly,” and “People can’t get to their homes – without being questioned first.”

I traveled in the Occupied Palestinian territories in 2002, and I saw the effects of real checkpoints, Israeli checkpoints, on Palestinians’ lives. At the time, Palestinians were dying in ambulances because they are not allowed through Israeli checkpoints. Checkpoints turned what would be a 15-minute drive into day-long ordeals of waiting and humiliation. Palestinians really did lose access to their homes, and their families.

Of course, there are few inconveniences that do not seem insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Palestinians. But even by Ontario standards, I found it difficult to understand the rage behind the residents’ cries to open the road. Yes, any delays in getting to the hospital are potentially very dangerous. But is there as much rage at the increasing wait times at the hospitals themselves, traceable to both federal and provincial government funding cuts, used to fund tax cuts? These cuts have been responsible for many unnecessary deaths over the years, in Ontario and throughout Canada.

Third, I was struck by the contradictory nature of the demands and the tactics of the residents. At that rally three weeks ago, a resident – who refused to give his full name – told news cameras of a plan the angry residents had to block the native people in. This was contradictory. If all of the anger had to do with opening the road, surely besieging the indigenous would not help matters?

I also heard residents complain about the ‘lawlessness’ of the indigenous. But the legal struggle was, and is, ongoing, and the law is favourable to the indigenous claim. The problem for the indigenous has been the ‘facts on the ground’, and the willingness of settlers (in the 19th century) and governments and corporations (today) to take a piece of indigenous land illegally, and have the laws changed in their favor later. That is the problem that forces indigenous people to blockades and direct action to protect their interests even though the law is often on their side. Now, here were the residents, threatening siege and extralegal action themselves, in the name of protesting native ‘lawlessness’. This, too, is contradictory.

A factor in negotiations?

The ‘angry residents’ have made themselves a factor in the negotiations between the various levels of government and the indigenous over the Douglas Creek Estates, the piece of land being reclaimed by Six Nations. Provincial negotiator David Peterson has talked numerous times to the press about how important it is to reduce “tensions in the community,” and the need to open the road to accomplish this. “All of us were praying and working hard to ensure that something ugly didn’t develop out of this,” he said to the CBC. The “angry residents” help Peterson’s negotiating posture by moving the “middle of the road” away from the indigenous and towards the government’s position.

While “praying and working”, Peterson was also able to present the very useful idea of “two warring sides” and “tensions in the community” to the public, equating two sides that are not at all equal. Indigenous peoples are not represented by Canadian governments. They have their own ideas and structures. The “angry residents”, by contrast, are represented by the governments they voted for and participate in. They are represented by the police who mingled with them at their rallies. To give them a seat at the negotiating table would be to give them double representation.

Despite this, the provincial government does have an interest in a peaceful resolution. It is headed by Liberals who want to distance themselves from the previous Conservative government of Mike Harris, which was responsible for “something ugly” in 1995 – the murder of indigenous man Dudley George by a police sniper at Ipperwash. The real estate developers have an interest in a resolution as well. The developers of the Douglas Creek Estates, Henco Industries, have repeatedly and publicly stated their desire to be bought out by the government. This points to a very simple potential resolution to this particular conflict: the government can compensate Henco and turn the land over to Six Nations. Progress towards such a resolution was expressed in a document called “Compendium of Commitments, Ontario and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Six Nations Council, May 10, 2006”.

With some success in the negotiations, the indigenous opened the road on May 22, removing the greatest grievance of the ‘angry residents’. But the ‘angry residents’ responded by creating a blockade of their own, preventing native people from crossing. Six Nations spokesperson Janie Jamieson described it to the CBC as “colonialism at its finest.”

If the provincial government and the developers both have an interest in a peaceful resolution, why did the “angry residents” act so irresponsibly to try to scuttle it? It cannot be because they want to see more suburban homes built – they have no reason to be more keen on home-building than the developers’ own corporation. Nor can they claim any longer to want freedom for the road – the minute they had it, they ruined it, for every resident, angry or otherwise.

So, in whose interests are these “angry residents” really acting? Perhaps the Conservative federal government. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s party is full of people who are contemptuous of indigenous rights and indigenous people. The same sorts were responsible for what happened at Ipperwash. Though Six Nations has expressed desire to talk to the federal government from the beginning, on a nation-to-nation basis, the federal government has said nothing publicly. Perhaps the “angry residents” really do represent the federal government? It is easy to speculate and difficult to prove. But Canadians who want to express that neither Harper’s people nor the “angry residents” represent them should speak, and move, now, before “something ugly” happens.

Justin Podur writes frequently for ZNet and can be reached at justin@killingtrain.com

Cigarettes, Canada, and the Mohawks

An important story from Canada is also a chance to watch a coordinated media-police operation unfold.

We start with three (Mohawk) indigenous communities around Ontario/Quebec. Kanehsatake, Kahnawake, and Akwesasne, and also Tyendinaga. The communities are frequently harrassed by police and authorities, and there is of course the long-term history that cannot be ignored.

Continue reading “Cigarettes, Canada, and the Mohawks”

No one is the majority!

So, fitting my last entry’s random thoughts about laying claim to the majority, it seems that no one can – which I think is a very good thing.

The conservatives got a minority. The NDP picked up a lot of seats. The lesson: the liberals lost, the conservatives didn’t win. One would be hard pressed to interpret this as a shift to the right. The conservatives will try to make it that, but they have no claim to say the voters shifted.

Continue reading “No one is the majority!”

Some contrary thoughts before the results are in

So, people who follow this blog know I was pretty worried the last time around about a conservative victory. I created the ‘fear and loathing report’ to follow the election. This time I managed a measly two blog entries. Partly, admittedly, my blogging output has fallen off. I am trying to spend a little more time thinking and less time writing. That’s what I tell myself anyway. Partly though I suppose I am just more calm about the possibility of a conservative victory. Not because it wouldn’t be bad, by any measure I can think of. More because I realized if they don’t win this time, they’ll win next time. The liberals have been in power for too long. When that happens people vote conservative. That’s been the pattern over the past few decades. Then the conservatives run the country into the ground – run up the debt, destroy the public sector, engage in corruption – and then people vote liberal again.

That’s a kind of comforting mainstream analysis – to think of politics as a cycle. A few days ago I was feeling alarmist. I don’t think of history as a cycle so much as a spiral, anyway. But it seems to me the world sees these elections as pretty low-stakes. The winner will be pro “free trade”, pro intervention in other people’s countries, pro following the US military to disaster in Kandahar, pro occupation of Haiti, pro “getting tough on crime”, pro integration with the US, pro privatization, pro deregulation, pro dispossession of Palestinians, pro war profiteering. True, the degree to which the winner is reactionary remains to be seen, but there’s agreement on these fundamentals.

I tried discussing this with a colleague at work, explaining why I was seriously considering abstention (I didn’t abstain, I just voted).

“If you abstain,” he said, “you don’t have the right to complain about anything.”

“What if I reject all the available choices?”

“Then you should choose the least bad, or run yourself.”

“What if I reject the whole system?”

“Then pack up your sh*# and get lost!”

I thought that was a bit too “love it or leave it”. But I wasn’t stumped: “But I have nowhere to go. I reject the global system!” He shrugged and said he was torn between the Green Party and the NDP, both of which had reasonable platforms. I said I wasn’t impressed with the foreign policy of any of the parties.

“Your problem is that you’re at odds with the whole population. Of course the parties are going to reflect the population.”

An interesting point, that. Whether we’re voting or abstaining, whether we’re right-wingers or liberals or leftists or anarchists, we all want to believe we’re in tune with the population. Abstainers point to the 40% who don’t bother to vote. They’re the silent majority who’s with us – and you can add lots of those who do vote, because they’re just trying to choose the best of a bad lot. Liberals and conservatives just point to the electoral results themselves. Social democrats argue for proportional representation. The leftist thesis is that the media prevents certain issues and facts from reaching the population, distracts them, demobilizes them, and that if the population knew more, and felt more empowered, they would be inclined to be leftists. Can we take all that for granted, do you think? It’s what I go on as a working hypothesis, but sometimes, and it’s usually around elections when right-wing parties get elected, I wonder – if I am at odds with the majority, does that mean I should do something different?

A last thought for vote night. Maybe Canada isn’t so much going against the trend in the Americas as it’s 5-10 years behind the trend. The liberals discredited themselves. If the conservatives disgrace themselves (though it might not be giving them enough credit… they have some slick machinery, some smart advisers from Australia and no doubt the United States), then maybe the left will have a shot. That was how the PT in Brazil (and for that matter the Bolivarians in Venezuela) got in: the other parties went down in corruption. What the PT did with the power once they got it is another story.

Counterevidence: The PT got in because of a reputation for innovative management based on what they did in the state governments they controlled. If we make the analogy between the NDP and the PT, the NDP have won provincial power, and having gotten into power, proceeded to not distinguish themselves from those to the right of them.

Enough. It’s time to go watch TV.

2-1 in the Americas

So, the 2006 elections have gone well so far. Bolivia and Chile have both gone to the leftists. But Canada will be moving rightward.

It’s interesting to see how the editorializing on behalf of the Tories goes. It’s basically – the liberals are bad, and the tories really aren’t as bad as you think. Quite a sales pitch.

Even though my first inclination was to abstain this election because I wanted turnout to be low (points to anyone who guesses where I would have gotten a notion like that), I’ve found a reason to vote. Someone reminded me that the party you vote for gets $1.75 in federal funding. And in Canada apparently it’s harder for parties to raise funds from corporations, which is a good thing.

But what I wanted to do in this blog entry was to point out a few other things that are going on. Of course, these are not the sorts of things that should be debated by candidates or the public at election time, so it makes sense that they aren’t part of the electoral conversation (that’s sarcasm).

Like the bombing in Kandahar. The injured soldiers, the diplomat, dead. Canadian officials talking about preparing for more like that. Do the injuries and deaths have any relationship to Canada’s foreign policy? To the way Canada’s linked up with the US military in Kandahar?

Like bin Laden. The US Terror War, which has alienated the world, increased every kind of terror including the kind the US is at war with, and which everyone seems to agree Canada should get more into, not less (while everyone else in the world is trying to move away).

Like Haiti, where the elite is trying to set the UN up to do a massacre so that elections can be cancelled. Why would they do that? Because they can’t pick the winner. Which, incidentally, is why they got rid of the last guy. So, if these pre-planned massacres do happen and the elections are cancelled or just delayed again, what side of democracy will Canada be on? What are the different sides of this debate? Who is prepared to talk about what is really going on in Haiti?

More consensus: Americanization of the justice system (mandatory minimum sentencing). “Free Trade” (something that’s at the heart of the left shift in the Americas, but well outside discussion in Canadian politics).

No wonder Canada’s going against the trend. There’s a single issue in this campaign, “corruption”, and it is by nature moralistic, not ethical, let alone political. So much consensus, so little at stake. But so much at stake, too. We’re missing a lot.