Category: Canada and Empire

An interesting piece on an interesting intellectual idea courtesy of Canadian foreign policy thinkers. This little gem is called ‘proportionate response’ and it is to be applied to Israel.

‘Proportionate response’ is when Israel gets to kill 5,10,40 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing (The ratio since 2000 is about 5:1, the ratio for recent months is much more disparate, which is no doubt pleasing to advocates of ‘proportionate response’). According to the moral and intellectual giants advocating ‘proportionate response’, the doctrine is that “the attacked party must establish the proportionality of its own response.”

This is imprecise. They don’t mean ‘the attacked party’, because if they did, Palestinians would be able to determine the proportionality of their response when attacked, which is certainly not the idea. Too bad Canada doesn’t have a figure like Orwell these folks can look to. He’d be proud: they say ‘proportionate response’ when they mean ‘disproportionate response’.

Who are they, you ask?

Why, they are a large number of the members of Canada’s Liberal Cabinet, of course! Here is their statement.

I learned about this statement because one of these folks is set to become Canada’s new Minister of Immigration, deciding on the life-and-death matters of who gets to stay and who gets deported. This fellow, Joe Volpe, will be replacing Judy Sgro, who went down in scandal (one of those scandals I don’t want to report on because everyone who said anything about it seems to have said something not worth reporting or repeating).

Canada is going to make the US proud one day very soon. Helping in that effort will be Foreign Minister Allan Rock. If you’re in Toronto tomorrow, check him out and ask him about Haiti, Israel/Palestine, SNC-Lavalin’s war profiteering, Afghanistan, Canada’s role in Iraq, or any other thing that comes to mind:

Topic: “Reforming the United Nations: Canada’s Objectives for Change”
Date: Tuesday, January 18th, 2005 at 7:00 pm Innis Town Hall (2 Sussex Street) U of Toronto.

Below is a good letter on Volpe and ‘proportionate response’ from some law students.

Dear Prime Minister Martin,

We are law students completing our final year at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. We currently reside in the riding of Mr. Joe Volpe, who was recently sworn in as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We are writing to you today to express deep reservations regarding his appointment.

As you undoubtedly know, Canada welcomes well over 200,000 immigrants and refugees a year, from dozens of different countries. In addition, Canada grants hundreds of thousands visitor and work visas. These newcomers – whether in Canada permanently or temporarily – enrich Canadian society with their differing cultures, religions and traditions. Moreover, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration plays a significant role in the continuation of Canada’s long-standing tradition of granting asylum to those who flee persecution in their countries of origin. For this purpose, the Ministry has established a complex administrative apparatus to determine whether claimants are in fact bona fide refugees. This administrative framework operates through tribunals and adjudicative officers that apply international law and policy in their decision-making. Hence, any Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requires a balanced and nuanced understanding of, and respect for, international legal instruments and institutions.

It is our opinion that Mr. Volpe lacks both of these qualities. In this regard, we would like to bring your attention to a proposal paper entitled “Canada and the Middle East” (June 6, 2003) to which Mr. Volpe and other members of your cabinet are signatories. This document can be found online through Ms. Carolyn Bennett’s official website and we urge you to review it: http://www.carolynbennett.com/dev/downloads/cdnpositiononmiddleeast.pdf. In our opinion, this paper exudes the signatories’ deep contempt for, and misunderstanding of, accepted principles of international law. While the Canadian government has regularly condemned the loss of civilian life in the Middle East conflict, whether Palestinian or Israeli, this proposal paper suggests that Canada should redefine its position of ‘proportionate response’ to permit Israel greater discretion in its military operations. In particular, the paper states that “the attacked party must establish the proportionality of its own response,” suggesting that the legality of a particular armed action is to be determined not through international legal standards but through the eyes of the perpetrator. The Fourth Geneva Convention is clear that attacks directed against civilian objects are never justified under the doctrine of proportionality. The definition of “proportionate response” put forward in this paper would have justified Israel’s August 2002 bombing of a crowded apartment complex in Gaza City, the result of which was the death of 14 persons of whom 9 were children; it would also have justified the razing of Jenin in April 2002 for the purpose of rooting out militants. Such a perverse interpretation of the doctrine of proportionality should never become the rule in Canada’s international policy.

A better view is that the killing of a civilian, whatever the nationality, is and must always be condemnable. It is clear that this is beyond the comprehension of those who support this paper.

Furthermore, the paper suggests that Canada should abstain from criticizing the actions of Israel – such as its widely condemned settlement policy – merely because Palestinian aggression is not sufficiently condemned. It also asserts that UN General Assembly resolutions against Israel are “one-sided” for they do not provide “the other side of the story.” Mr. Volpe and the other signatories should be reminded that no atrocity can justify an atrocity in response. The tu quoque principle that underlies this part of the paper has been rejected repeatedly by numerous international bodies including the ICJ, the ICTY and the ICTR. It is our opinion that such an uninformed understanding of international law has no place in a Ministry which is called upon time and time again to interpret and apply international legal instruments.

Finally, the authors of the paper fundamentally misunderstand the nature and role of our international institutions. The UN and its related bodies are democratic institutions in which resolutions are arrived at through majority vote. Unwillingness to accept the UN as a functioning democratic body based on a conspiracy theory that it has been hijacked by “pro-Arab” forces, demonstrates a grave disdain for the United Nations and its role in the international arena. We would like to remind you that the Ministry’s primary international working partner is UNHCR, itself a UN institution, and it is our opinion that the contempt demonstrated in this paper cannot possibly be conducive to a productive working relationship.

We are not suggesting that Members of Parliament be prohibited from expressing their personal political views. We are merely challenging the propriety of this appointment. Even if the proposal paper discussed above is portrayed in the most favourable light, it is still hard to dismiss the fact that Mr. Volpe’s support of it may give rise to an apprehension of bias which could potentially undermine the integrity of the entire Ministry. We do not believe that the Liberal caucus is so starved of capable persons that Mr. Volpe must be appointed to this very important portfolio.

As citizens of the country which has entrusted you with such an important office, we entreat you to reconsider this appointment.

Respectfully yours,

Lucas Lung and Gleb Bazov

CC: Mr. Joe Volpe and other Liberal MP signatories to “Canada and the Middle East” (Ms. C. Bennett, Ms. R. Folco, Ms. M. Jennings, Ms. A. Neville and Mr. J. Peterson); Mr. Jack Layton (NDP); Mr. Stephen Harper (CPC); Mr. Gilles Duceppes (BQ); UNHCR (Canada); UNRWA (Headquarters, Gaza City); Canadian Council for Refugees; Editor, Globe and Mail; Editor, Toronto Star.

In my explorations of the Canadian political landscape I hit upon a complex figure – a person who calls himself a ‘conservative’ but stands for things one wouldn’t normally think of when the concept of ‘conservatism’ comes up. His name is David Orchard and I found his book interesting enough that I thought I should interview him. I read the book and did the interview looking for serious flaws in his framework and analysis. But while we have some honest disagreements, I did find his ideas to be very interesting and worth serious consideration. I also found him to be a person of integrity – he doesn’t dodge questions or shrink from honest debate. Last, even if you disagree, he is someone who gives serious thought to questions of political strategy. There are a number of things radicals could learn from people like Orchard. Take a look at the interview.

Orchard is an unabashed Canadian nationalist. Samir Hussain is an activist with the Indigenous People’s Solidarity Movement based in Montreal. In contrast to Orchard, Hussain finds Canadian nationalism to be offensive. You will find his latest piece on Canada to be an interesting contrast with the Orchard interview.

And since no entry about Canada today would be complete without some mention of Haiti, there are two articles worth looking at about the recent demonstrations against Canada’s role in turning Haiti into a protectorate. One in Quebec Indymedia, the other in The Dominion.

Unrelated but sad, Exemplary journalist Gary Webb has died under mysterious circumstances.

http://www.zcommunications.org/canada-for-anti-imperialists-by-justin-podur

Based on a talk given to the ‘Nageh’ community group on June 11, 2004, in Toronto. Part 1 of 2. Go to part 2

Continue reading “Canada for anti-imperialists 1”

http://www.zcommunications.org/canada-for-anti-imperialists-part-ii-by-justin-podur

Back to Part I

From local ‘threats’ to global ‘threats’

Continue reading “Canada for anti-imperialists 2”

Quick note on the headlines today for your Canadian elections fear and loathing report. A reader complained about my not saying anything about Quebec. In Quebec, the race is not between the Conservatives and the Liberals. In fact, there’s hardly any race at all. Quebec is poised to give virtually every seat to the sovereigntists, the Bloc Quebecois. The Liberals might pick up a few seats in anglophone Montreal, but that’s about it.

[[For non-Canadian readers: Quebec is actually an amazing place with an amazing history. It is pretty clear to me that without Quebec Canada would long-since have been absorbed into the United States. The Quebecois have always sought self-determination and were historically oppressed by an anglophone elite. Much of this changed with the ‘Quiet Revolution’ in the 1950s and 1960s, a cultural and economic upsurge in Quebec. Since then, the central government has tried to meet Quebec’s aspirations for self-determination by decentralizing powers to all the provinces. For a long time, Quebec’s provincial government was ruled by the Parti Quebecois. These are sovereigntists with a fairly progressive social-democratic idea — to develop Quebec for Quebecois, with Quebecois resources. Recently, provincially, the Liberals took over, and have been slashing the public sector like one might expect. Quebec nationalism, like Canadian nationalism, doesn’t offer much to the indigenous, who have seen the Quebec government act no different towards them than any other settler government in the Americas. Still — and despite some very racist strains in the Quebec nationalist leadership (one leader said the problem in Quebec was that white women aren’t having enough babies; another in 1995 after a sovereignty referendum was lost blamed ‘money and the ethnic vote’), it is pretty clear that Quebec has been a civilizing influence on Canada. As has Saskatchewan, on which more in future FLR, perhaps]]

So on Quebec, CBC reports today that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Giles Duceppe, said he would bring down a Conservative minority government on the issue of abortion. Harper wants a ‘free vote’ on abortion (the Alliance platform used to include a ‘free vote’ on capital punishment as well… perhaps we could also get, after a few years, free votes on the use of the medieval rack, the guillotine, burnings… this party has no plans for a ‘free vote’ on genetically modified products though, or action on climate change, or…). He’s also said he’d break with Conservatives over Kyoto and Quebec’s aerospace (for the most part military) industries. So, once again, Quebec might possibly provide a civilizing influence (though asking for protection of military industries doesn’t exactly qualify as civilizing) on a Conservative minority government. Provided, of course, the Conservatives don’t win a majority.

On March 11, 2003, at Concordia University in Montreal, where a lot of ugly stuff has happened on campus over the Israel/Palestine conflict, some angry “tabling” (“tabling” is just sitting at a table that has leaflets and posters on it and giving them out to passersby) was going on. A member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) was tabling next to a member of Hillel (see this note on Hillel). In the exchange, the SPHR member told the Hillel member: “I’ll be famous one day and you’ll be selling falafel.”

What happened next? A chain of events that led to an acquittal today.

Who was acquitted? For what? How could the rather banal exchange above lead to a criminal prosecution? See below, dear reader, for details…

Acquitted! Palestinian Concordia student Nidal Alalul cleared after bogus charges by Hillel members

MONTREAL, June 11, 2004 — This morning in Montreal’s Municipal Courthouse, Concordia student Nidal Alalul was acquitted of the charge of “uttering a death threat”. Judge Antonio Discepola, who is regarded as one of the most pro-prosecution judges in Montreal, nonetheless found Nidal not guilty with a terse four word statement: “The information is dismissed.” In his written judgement, Discepola found Nidal’s testimony very credible, while casting doubt on the accounts provided by the complainants, who were members of Hillel Concordia and Birthright.

On March 11, 2003 — several months after Benjamin Netanyahu was shut down by pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University — Nidal was arrested on campus and charged with “uttering a death threat”. Nidal, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) had been in an argument with Schlomo Lifshitz, 47, of Birthright, which offers free trips to Israel to Jewish youth (in his judgement, Discepola describes Birthright as “a non-governmental organization funded by the Israeli government”). Schlomo was tabling with Hillel, and began to bait Nidal, who is a foreign student orginally from Nablus. When Schlomo said that Nidal had “a weak personality”, Nidal replied: “I’ll be famous in two years … a lawyer or a politician … and you’ll be selling falafel.”

Nidal’s comment was interpreted as a death threat, with Schlomo, members of Hillel, Concordia security, and eventually the Crown attorney assuming that Nidal meant that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. The overtly racist assumption throughout the trial was that the only way for a Palestinian youth to be famous is by becoming a suicide bomber. That racist assumption was backed by Concordia University, whose security guards detained Nidal, and did not attempt to get his side of the story. Moreover, Concordia University lawyers attended the trial, helping the Crown make her case, in a clear show of bias against Nidal. (Similarly, Concordia lawyers have been helping the Crown in cases against other pro-Palestinian students and their allies, in relation to the September 9, 2002 protests at Concordia University, with little success. In one case, a defendant has already been acquitted of five charges before even having to present a defence!)

Written complaints against Nidal were made by several members of Hillel, including Rachel Guy (who now sits on Concordia student council). Rachel testified against Nidal, but her credibility was severely weakened when she conveniently forgot to admit that she actually wrote Schlomo’s written statement to the police for him.

That Nidal was ever charged is another example of the biased treatment of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, and their allies, by Concordia University. Nonetheless, Nidal’s acquittal — as well as other recent acquittals and dropped charges — indicates that victories are possible in court, especially when the charges are so racist and bogus in the first place.

To stay in touch about ongoing court proceedings related to Concordia University, please e-mail noii-montreal@resist.ca.

Scary news from Canada, which is on the verge of an electoral fascist takeover. The Conservative party of Stephen Harper is headed for a win in the elections of June 28.

While the current, Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, helped out the coup in Haiti and has been a useful tool for US foreign policy and US/Canadian corporate interests, there are a few differences between him and Harper.

Harper is anti-abortion. Harper is anti-gay marriage. Harper is for openly racist immigration policies (Martin is for hypocritical policies). Harper is for openly supporting the US war on the planet (Martin is for doing so behind the scenes and selectively). Harper wants to boost military spending, get ‘tough on crime’, cut taxes and further undermine and privatize Canada’s fragile public sector, especially its public health care system (Martin is for dismantling these things more slowly and behind the scenes).

In the media, the rise of Harper’s Conservatives is being portrayed in terms of Canada’s dissatisfaction with the Liberals’ corruption after three terms in office. First of all, the Liberals are certainly corrupt — but the Conservatives’ record in power is far worse, and Ontario, the biggest battleground of the elections, just came out of two terms of hideous Conservative corruption and ought to know better than to elect these fascists. If people have to defect from the Liberals and punish them, why do they have to shoot themselves in the head to do so, especially when a third party with a decent platform exists in the NDP?

This is all rather like what happened in Spain, in reverse. Think about it.

In Spain, you had a hard-line right winger devoted to active subordination to the US agenda in Aznar. Despite his population’s desires, he took the country headlong into war and occupation in Iraq. This made his population a target for terrorists, and his population, who never wanted the Iraq war, paid the price. Then the population had a chance to punish him politically in elections, and did so.

In Canada, you have a hypocritical liberal government that decided not to jump on to the disastrous Iraq war openly, but to perform the historically normal Canadian functions of behind-the-scenes aid, followed by sacrificing the Haitian people’s right to self-determination to ‘mend-the-fence’ that insufficient subordination to the US agenda supposedly caused in US-Canada relations (see my commentary of last year for some revolting reactions from Canadian elites. Canadian elites revolted, and threw up a leader who promised to take Canada headlong into the Iraq war and occupation and whatever other imperial adventures the US plans. Now, if the population elects him, will we have to live what the Spanish lived through?

Unfortunately, Canada is probably more like the US than it is like Spain. The American media, and much of the public, couldn’t understand how Spain dumped Aznar after a terrorist attack. They saw it as ‘appeasement’, and everyone knows that a terrorist attack in the US would help the jingoistic right in that country, who people would flock to. The Spanish had the opposite reaction.

Which way would Canadians go, given the choice? Which way will they go? Will we have to find out?

Today I saw in the headlines that Stephen Harper, who might just replace gangster Paul Martin (the ‘gangster’ epithet is based on his behaviour as regards Haiti) as the Canadian Prime Minister, is planning to drop the gun registry and put more cops on the streets. In other words, harmonize Canadian crime policies with those of the United States, which is a model for social cohesion and just plain feelings of safety and well-being on the streets.

This is one aspect of the Canadian elite that I’ve never understood.

Continue reading “Elections as punishment”