Category: Canada and Empire

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

Encounter with a conservative nationalist

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.

FLR: Quebec and the Canadian Elections

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.

The surreal world of campus activism, part III

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.

FLR Report: Canadian Election Coverage!

For the next two weeks, the Killing Train will be offering special, daily coverage of the Canadian election! This part of the blog will be called the “Fear and Loathing Report”. Why that name? Because it seems that these are the two emotions that are driving the election.

If the Conservatives under Stephen Harper win, Canadians will have succumbed to their LOATHING of the ruling Liberals.

If the Liberals under Paul Martin win, Canadians will have succumbed to their FEAR of Stephen Harper’s fascism and mouth-foaming desire to destroy the public sector and take Canada into foreign adventures as quickly as possible.

Canadian readers can look for the Fear and Loathing Report in this blog, once a day, from now until June 28. Non-Canadian readers need not fear: the Killing Train will continue its other coverage as well.

And now some electoral thoughts.

Zeynep Toufe of Under the Same Sun had this question yesterday:

“Why is this happening, and why now? Especially at a time when the world’s elite is mostly trying to damage control from the Iraq War, why is Canada jumping in like this?”

In addition to Joe Emersberger’s response I would add the following.

Elections are a time when I spent a lot of time wondering how much of a say we really have. It isn’t just that politicians once they get into power ignore what the people voted for. It’s also the role of the media in picking the candidates and the winners. The media isn’t taking the NDP seriously, for example. Is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If the NDP got into power, they would have to be domesticated quite quickly (and were, when they were in power in Ontario, for example) or fight back in ways that we haven’t figured out how to do here yet. But in any case, the media keep on saying that Martin is “plagued by scandals” and that Harper is “on the rise”. I can’t help but think that this is a factor in the fall of Martin and the rise of Harper — which brings us to Zeynep’s question: when every other elite in the world is trying to jump off a sinking ship, why is the Canadian elite preparing to put someone in power who will jump on?

I’m not sure myself why Canada has to buck the global trend of throwing out hard right regimes — India did it, Spain did it, and even the US will probably do it in November. Hell, Colombia did it halfway in October 2003 and Ontario and Toronto did so recently as well, throwing out the filthy Conservatives in provincial government and a bizarre mayor (who once said he didn’t want to go to Africa for Toronto’s olympic bid because he feared being roasted alive in a pot with snakes by natives).

It’s not just broken promises, as Joe suggested, although that’s a factor. The poll I mentioned yesterday was analyzed today in the Toronto Star. It turns out that Canadians don’t want any of the vicious right-wing policies that Harper promises. They just want to punish the Liberals electorally for their corruption. This is one of those cases where the public will say to the Liberals: “This is going to hurt me a lot more than it does you…” How strange.

The pollster said: “Canadians are somewhat aware that in the rush to punish the Liberals for real and imagined sins, they may in fact be setting the country on a course inconsistent with dominant values.”

There is something else going on — as always the real story with elections. It’s not just the population who is angry at the Liberals and wants to punish them electorally. It is the Canadian elite itself — and that’s what you’re seeing in the media. It’s hard to know why without knowing all the details of the various scandals — but it may just come down to things like corporate largesse being distributed unevenly. The Liberal party itself has had problems because of a power struggle between the “Martin faction”, that won, and all the losers who had sought the leadership. Martin was apparently not generous in victory, causing defection and dissension in the political machine.

So I guess the answer is that there are some singular local Canadian things going on that could cause Canada to buck the entire global and historical trend and put some diehard terror warriors in the saddle for the next five years, against Canadians’ own better judgement.

Stay tuned for more fear and loathing tomorrow.

Canada: Spain in reverse

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?

The York University Drama continues

Toronto’s York University’s suspension of student Daniel Freeman-Maloy for his ‘crime of megaphone’ continues to provide comic relief for those who still believe in freedom of speech. The York University student paper provided some amusing graphics, since he was supposed to be their opinions editor, a position he will have difficulty accepting since he’s not allowed to set foot on campus. Graphics and letters of support can be found at the website established for this strange case. Naomi Klein wrote a very nice letter to York University’s Presidnt (most universities have a president, but york university has a presidnt — her email is presidnt@yorku.ca) about it, included below. The letters have actually been overwhelming — and coupled with the legal and political pressure being applied could result in York having to back off.

Below is the letter from Naomi.

Dear President Marsden (presidnt@yorku.ca),

I realize you are receiving many letters and calls about the outrageous summary suspension of respected student journalist and activist Daniel Freeman-Maloy. Let me add a slightly different perspective. As you may recall, my last dealings with your office were when you initiated legal proceedings against me and my publisher on the publication of my book, No Logo. You took exception to a passage that alleged that York University had banned students from protesting against the DuMaurier Tennis Open. You denied this and claimed that the idea that York would ban students from protesting on their own campus badly damaged the good reputation of York of University.

So it is with a particularly keen sense of outrage that I have followed the controversy surrounding Freeman-Maloy’s suspension: you are doing exactly what you then claimed York University would never do, banning students from peacefully expressing their political views on campus. Particularly alarming is the way this has been done: without giving the student the slightest opportunity to plead his case. You would never know that York University was once a hotbed of the campus democratization movement.

There is another reason why I am following this issue closely: the Israeli state is acting with greater and greater brutality and impunity with each passing day. The conflict in the Middle East poses a deep moral challenge to all of us: what are we willing to do when deep injustices are being committed and the world community fails to stop them? Will we watch silently, or will we act in our sphere- our workplace, our school? For many Jews, this moral challenge is particularly wrenching because the escalating attacks on Palestinians are being carried in our name. Many of us feel like we must act, we must speak out, or else we are silently complicit.

By suspending Daniel Freeman-Maloy and preventing him from taking his post at the Excalibur, you are punishing a student for peacefully acting on his conscience in the face of tremendous suffering. This is profoundly shameful and will damage not just York University, but the spirit of bold dissent that is so badly needed in this country and the world.

Activism is disruptive. We do it because we believe that there are times when disruption is necessary for needed change to occur. I hope that you will make a decision that is not based on fear of disruption, but on hope in the change that can happen when people are free to speak, and even yell, their minds.

Sincerely,

Naomi Klein

Elections as punishment

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”

The Canadian Election!

It’s to be on June 28. I’m really not sure how much interest there is in this among you, my dear blogreaders. The nature of the election means that the implications for the world are rather small.

Still, part of the point of blogging is to provide a daily antidote to hypocrisy, and Canada’s elite is especially adept at that activity (hypocrisy), especially at election time. Indeed, the nastiest of Canada’s politicians have come to power on a platform of being less hypocritical than Canada’s traditional liberal elite — people like Mike Harris of Ontario or Ralph Klein of Alberta say: “I am going to destroy public services, be servile to the US and corporate interests, be openly racist to indigenous and immigrants — and no hypocrite!” Somehow a part of the Canadian electorate likes this. They say: “Well, at least he does what he said.”

Thanks a lot.

Well, no one can accuse Paul Martin, Canada’s current liberal PM who is running for re-election, of doing what he says. Although he is probably less hypocritical and more openly servile than Canada’s previous Prime Minister Chretien, he has earned the wrath of Reuters, who has called him ‘un-American’ for saying he wants to preserve public health care (in case anyone’s wondering, he doesn’t really want to preserve public health care, as his actions as Finance Minister show).

But as I said in a previous blog entry, Martin is several lies behind even the US administration — he’s saying at parties that Saddam had WMD and gave them to terrorists. See the letter and article below for details.

The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin

Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Mr. Martin,

I was stunned to read a news report ascribing to you the view that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that those weapons had now fallen into the hands of terrorists. I called your office to try to get a transcript since I found it incredible with all the evidence which is now available, that anyone not blinded by ideology or driven by a political need to justify a war of aggression should maintain such a position. It flies in the face of the findings of Hans Blix and of the USA’s own WMD hunters. I am told, however, that the journalist, Stephanie Rubec, whose account I had read, is usually reliable. That is why I am seeking clarification from you on this matter.

Apparently quoting you last week, she wrote:

“The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear Weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don’t know where they are,” Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal. “That means terrorists have access to all of that.”

If you have been accurately quoted and have independent and reliable evidence that the world lacks – including Mssrs. Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and their neo-con loyalists, it would be important to share it, especially since those gentlemen appear to have a less than impressive record for truthfulness about Saddam’s WMDs and are in dire need of evidence to restore a semblance of credibility. If, on the other hand, you are relying on advisors who themselves depend on Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company, your own credibility will have been undermined.

In promoting the ideas of further military action in the Middle East – against Syria and Iran, for example, by the US, Israel, or some new “coalition” — Washington has pushed exactly the story you are alleged to have presented in Montreal. That coincidence should be very worrisome to most Canadians who would not welcome such adventures and most certainly would not welcome Canadian political, let alone military support for them. If indeed you did say what Ms. Rubec reported, can you reassure your fellow Canadians that you are not laying the propaganda basis for Canadian involvement in or support for further “pre-emptive” attacks in violation of the UN Charter and therefore, of international law?

Could you reassure us that your evidence for such claims is solid and not drawn from tainted sources by citing the sources from which it is taken and outlining its character? Or could you reassure us that no significant foreign policy decision depended on your claim by letting us know that you were engaged in speculation which may well have gone beyond the evidence for your claim that terrorists now have access to Saddam’s (non-existent?) WMDs, and that you meant only to stress the importance of vigilance lest such a scenario develop?

Respectfully,

James A. Graff

—————

Terrorists have Iraq’s WMD: PM

Martin’s views run counter to those of French, German leaders

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, Ottawa Bureau

Prime Minister Paul Martin says he believes Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they’ve fallen into the hands of terrorists. Martin said the threat of terrorism is even greater now than it was following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the U.S. because terrorists have acquired nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the toppled Iraqi leader.

“The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Hussein had, we don’t know where they are,” Martin told a crowd of about 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal.

“That means terrorists have access to all of that.”

The PM’s comments run counter to leaders in countries such as France and Germany who have accused the U.S. and Britain of fudging evidence of WMDs in Iraq to justify the war.

When asked to assess the threat level since Hussein was captured by U.S. troops, Martin said he believes it has increased.

“I believe that terrorism will be, for our generation, what the Cold War was to generations that preceded us,” the PM said. “I don’t think we’re out of it yet.”

Martin disagreed with former Prime Minister Jean Chretien who publicly blamed poverty for terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The cause of terrorism is not poverty, it is hatred,” Martin said, adding he’ll lead the charge to convince countries to work together to combat terrorism and make sure the Third World has the tools to stamp it out.

Martin said he’s lobbying the international community to set up an informal organization comprised of a maximum of 20 heads of state to tackle world issues such as terrorism.

Martin said he got the nod from U.S. President George W. Bush during his visit to Washington D.C. last month, and will take his idea to the European Union and Latin America next.

Martin also announced a $100-million contribution to treat millions of people who have AIDS.

The money will be given to a new initiative of the World Health Organization to treat three million people with AIDS by the end of 2005.

The contribution of new money has made Canada the largest donor to the program so far.