Category: Canada and Empire

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

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.

Some Canadian Content

Canadians will be heading to the polls well before US citizens in 2004, it turns out. As the federal elections approach, Canadians are once again faced with a truly abysmal choice. The Liberals are an appalling gang of crooks, from the Prime Minister (who owned a steamship line that uses flags of convenience, hurried off to occupy Haiti with the US and has Canadian troops overseeing the ongoing massacre in that country, and is now apparently telling audiences at speaking events that Saddam had WMD and now they’re in the hands of terrorists — when not even the Bush Administration is trying to use that old lie) on down, and the Conservative Alliance has a wide range of debate, from the open and unapologetic racism of Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day to… okay it’s actually not really a very wide range at all. The NDP is more interesting: they might be able to pick up some seats from the Liberals, which would be a good thing.

For just a slight taste of a long-standing trend in Canadian politics that whatever gang wins this election is unlikely to change, check this recent article on Kanehsatake that I did, on a Mohawk community near Montreal. OCAP works with folks in Kanehsatake.

More below.

In Ontario, the media and elite are up in arms over a levy that the Liberals have proposed. A ‘levy’ is not to be confused with a ‘tax’. This ‘levy’ will go to health care, and it is graduated — apparently in the low income bracket people will pay $400/yr, and the most you’d pay is $900. I am also quite appalled by this ‘levy’, though not for the same reasons. If the highest income in Ontario were twice the lowest, such a levy would be appropriate. But since the highest income in Ontario is probably 200 times the lowest, that would make more sense as a ‘levy’ to save health care. Or we could restore corporate taxes, or something crazy like that. Rick Salutin in the Globe and Mail , a decent Canadian progressive, makes a case for raising taxes in Ontario. The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, another very decent progressive outfit, publishes an alternative budget every year.

Kanehsatake

http://www.zcommunications.org/kanehsatake-by-justin-podur

On May 20, 2004, people from all over the Ontario and Quebec will go to the Mohawk community of Kanehsatake to show their support for a peaceful resolution to a confrontation between heavily armed agents of the state and a community that rejects them. The conflict has gone on for months, with a Grand Chief ousted by the community trying repeatedly to return to power, against community opposition, at the head of a group of heavily armed police.

Continue reading “Kanehsatake”

Canadians torture too…

Just a little note to remind Canadians — in case anyone doubted it — that Canada shares the same racism, militarism, and machismo that the US has. The many macabre photos of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US troops and mercenaries ought to have instantly brought to mind the photos of Canadian soldiers torturing to death Somali teenager Shidane Arone in 1993, and the execution of others. There’s some stuff, including one of the gruesome photos (but not the most gruesome, which I remember made the cover of the Toronto Star), archived on the CBC site.

Write letters to York’s Presidnt

Yes, I spelled Presidnt without the ‘e’, because that’s how York University’s President’s email address is: presidnt@yorku.ca. If you are going to write a letter to help Daniel Freeman-Maloy, the Jewish activist who was expelled from the campus for his use of a megaphone while he was being shouted down by large groups of counter-protesters, please be courteous and civil. I believe this is a case where pressure will help, but though the expulsion is absurd, writing emails proportionate to the absurdity unfortunately won’t help, in my assessment anyway.

If you’re interested in doing so, here’s some more facts and guidelines, and a sample letter…

Please act against the expulsion of Dan Freeman-Maloy from York University!

To All Concerned Community Members:

Last week, a 3rd-year undergraduate student of political science, Dan Freeman-Maloy, received a letter informing him of a 3-year suspension from York University, simply for using a megaphone on campus. The letter referred only to his “use of an unauthorized sound amplification device” at an “unauthorized demonstration”. He was given no information on how to appeal the suspension and was threatened with charges of trespass should he enter the campus grounds after 1 May. The suspension comes into effect on the same day that Dan is to begin work at the University’s principal newspaper, Excalibur.

Dan is a Jewish student who has been vocal in defence of Palestinian human rights, as well as in workers’ rights and other social justice campaigns. His suspension comes following a theatrical display on campus on March 16, 2004, in which students were commemorating the anniversary of the death of US peace activist, Rachel Corrie, who died last year in the Gaza Strip. At the display, Palestine solidarity activists were spat upon, kicked and threatened by an aggressive counter-demonstration. The university administration did nothing to protect the students. Instead, in an attempt to silence critical dissent on campus, they chose to suspend Dan.

Dan is due to complete his degree after one year. He has an excellent academic record and has been an active and respected participant in the life of the York University community. Despite the fact that the university’s own legal guidelines (Presidential Regulation #2) states that students be entitled to an administrative procedure allowing for student appeals (Section E, #3), Dan has been suspended by administrative fiat – in an impersonal letter without any possibility of appeal. Furthermore, York’s regulations specify that only serious infractions (such as a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code or illegal behaviour) warrant expulsion. This demonstrates total disregard for his academic future and his right to an education, as well as to York’s own procedural regulations.

This expulsion is not only callous toward Dan’s future, but is politically motivated. Megaphones have been used without authorization at countless other “unauthorized demonstrations” in Vari Hall without a single student being penalized, let alone suspended for 3 years, which is a de facto expulsion. Moreover, other students used a megaphone at this very demonstration without any consequences. Dan is being singled out and scapegoated because he is an articulate and effective Jewish advocate of Palestinian human rights. Or, as a member of York’s Board of Directors explained to a concerned graduate student outside a recent press conference, because he is a “rabble-rouser.”

President Marsden is not impartial in this matter, and her record is clear. She has consistently supported right-wing speakers on campus – “Campus Watch” host Daniel Pipes last year, Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky (a proponent of mass expulsion of Palestinians to neighbouring countries) this year. Last year, her administration also brought mounted police on to campus for the first time ever, and coordinated to have three organizers of an anti-war student strike arrested. York’s campus has become more and more repressive recently, as exorbitant and arbitrary “security fees” have been forced upon student groups hosting dissident speakers, as club activities have been prohibited in various public spaces on campus, and as certain student organizations have faced outright bans. This crackdown on critical dialogue – the cornerstone of higher learning – marks a significant step backward for all members of the York community.

We urge everyone who is concerned about maintaining York University’s campus as a progressive space, and all those intent on protecting student rights to free expression and assembly, to contact President Marsden.

We are demanding the immediate reversal of the decision to expel Dan Freeman-Maloy from campus for his political activities. York University prides itself on a reputation as a progressive space where critical development and engagement is encouraged, not stifled. If this reputation is to be maintained, the current administration must act accordingly.

Sincerely,

York Free Speech Committee

How to get involved:

Below we have attached a letter to President Marsden demanding that she immediately reverse the suspension of Dan Freeman-Maloy, so that he can complete his studies and report for work on campus without fear of being charged with trespassing. Please sign the letter below and send it to President Marsden at presidnt@yorku.ca (no “e”) and cc freespeechyorku@yahoo.ca. Or, better yet, write a letter outlining these demands yourself, and get whatever organizations you are a part of to draft letters of their own.

Letters can also be postmarked to:
Office of the President
4700 Keele St.
Toronto, ON
Canada M3J 1P3

For more information on our ongoing campaign, contact freespeechyorku@yahoo.ca

Thank you, and we appreciate all of your help!

President Marsden,

I recently learned of the 3-year suspension of Dan Freeman-Maloy for his use of a megaphone at an “unauthorized” demonstration. I find your decision appalling for a number of reasons. First, your decision is a violation of Mr. Freeman-Maloy’s right to freedom of expression as it is a response to his participation in political activity, not his use of a sound amplification device (many students have used a megaphone without authorization in Vari Hall – why is Dan being singled out?). Second, in contradiction with your own regulations on student conduct, your decision provided no opportunity for Dan to defend himself, nor an opportunity for an appeal. Third, this decision reflects a troubling pattern of silencing progressive political activity on campus (including banning tabling and leafleting for political purposes, and imposing exorbitant “security fees” on student groups). Finally, given York’s official commitment to the pursuit of social justice (as declared in the university’s mission statement), it would seem that you should support and actively create space for social justice activism on campus, instead of shutting it down.

I demand that you immediately reverse your decision to summarily expel Dan Freeman-Maloy. You are the head of a prestigious academic institution with a reputation for academic freedom and political diversity. I am requesting that York uphold its own standards.

Sincerely,

The Surreal World of Campus Activism, Part II

Campus activists who work on Israel/Palestine issues will know about Hillel. Hillel is a group that ostensibly exists to promote Jewish cultural and religious life on campuses, but in fact promotes occupation and militarism in many cases. When the Hillel chapter President at University of Richmond objected to this, she was removed as President a day later. This is a story worth reading in full, so I’ve posted the entire story from the Chronicle of Higher Education below. The bare bones: Jillian Redford, the Hillel chapter president, had been receiving messages from the Israeli Embassy. She wrote to them:

“Could you please stop sending me email after email about radical zionist propaganda?… “I don’t know if you realize that Hillel’s mission statement is based on fostering religious life on college campuses and not organizing marches, protests, or listening to speakers who encourage us to hate our Palestinian neighbors.”

The next day, she was no longer President of Hillel U of R…

Wednesday, May 5, 2004
Student President of Hillel Chapter at U. of Richmond Is Ousted After Criticizing Israeli Embassy
By ERIC HOOVER

The organization that sponsors the University of Richmond’s Hillel chapter removed the group’s student president this semester after she sent a critical e-mail message to the Israeli Embassy, in Washington.

Jilian R. Redford, a junior, had served as the Hillel chapter’s president since the beginning of the fall semester. On February 12, after receiving an e-mail message from the Israeli Embassy’s office of academic affairs, Ms. Redford wrote in a response: “Could you please stop sending me email after email about radical zionist propaganda?”

In the message, a copy of which she gave to The Chronicle, Ms. Redford continued, “I don’t know if you realize that Hillel’s mission statement is based on fostering religious life on college campuses and not organizing marches, protests, or listening to speakers who encourage us to hate our Palestinian neighbors.”

She also asked to be removed from the embassy’s e-mail list.

In an interview on Tuesday, Ms. Redford said that the next day she was summoned to the Weinstein Jewish Community Center — a Richmond-based organization that oversees the university’s Hillel chapter — to discuss the e-mail message, which the embassy had forwarded to officials at the center

In a meeting, two staff members of the center asked Ms. Redford to apologize to the embassy, but she refused to do so, according to both Ms. Redford and Lisa Looney, the center’s director of university services.

Ms. Redford said that during the meeting Ms. Looney and another staff member told her that the embassy had demanded her ouster. She said that she was “grilled” about her opinions on Israeli policies, and also that one of the two staff members mentioned that Ms. Redford, who had been raised as a Southern Baptist, had converted to Judaism only after coming to the university.

But Ms. Looney disputed those assertions.

“The embassy had absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with the decision,” Ms. Looney said in an interview.

“Her political views never came up” during the meeting, Ms. Looney said. “All I wanted to see happen was for her to apologize for the tone of her letter, not the content.” She said she had had a good working relationship with Ms. Redford before the incident.

Ms. Looney said that if Ms. Redford had not included her title in her e-mail message to the embassy, the center’s staff would not have objected to it.

In a February 18 letter to Ms. Redford, Orly Lewis, the center’s director of adult services, suggested that Ms. Redford’s goals were “in conflict” with those of Hillel. “While all of us are entitled to our own opinions, in this instance you are representing the Hillel organization and not yourself,” Ms. Lewis wrote.

The letter also referred to Ms. Redford’s refusal to invite to a Hillel event a speaker the center had mentioned earlier in the semester. Ms. Redford said she had told a staff member at the center that the speaker, a faculty member at Richmond, was a “racist.”

After Ms. Redford again declined to apologize, Ms. Looney informed her of her dismissal in a letter, dated March 3, that called Ms. Redford’s conduct “both unprofessional and disrespectful.”

Ms. Redford said Tuesday that she had mixed feelings about her ouster. “It feels good not to be a part of an organization like that,” she said. “After the way they treated me, it made me want to completely distance myself from them.”

Richmond’s Hillel chapter receives its financing from the center. Previously, the chapter did not have a clear policy governing the election and removal of student leaders, according to Leonard S. Goldberg, Richmond’s vice president for student affairs. But following the incident, the university helped students and the center draft bylaws.

“I questioned whether an outside organization should be able to fire or terminate a student leader,” said Mr. Goldberg, who met with staff members of the center this spring to discuss the new policy. “We had a cordial conversation, but I made it quite clear that we can’t have an outside organization removing students.”

Officials at the Israeli Embassy did not return calls requesting comment on Tuesday.

The Surreal World of Campus Activism, Part I

I assume that a (small) part of my (humble) readership consists of campus activists working on Israel/Palestine issues. These very strange stories will be of interest to that demographic and others. First is the tale of Daniel Freeman-Maloy, one of the En Camino co-conspirators, a member of OCAP, and a very principled activist. He has done work on anti-poverty issues and anti-occupation/war issues, which has brought him into conflict with the organized right-wing ‘zionist’ groups on the York University campus where he studies, and also with the administration on that campus.

He’s been expelled by York for 3 years for ‘unauthorized use of a megaphone’ on two incidents. Lucky for us, today’s activists are often armed with cameras, and some activists put together a film of the two incidents. The film shows Daniel getting shouted down and roughed up by zionist activists who far outnumber the anti-occupation group in both instances. But Daniel was the one who was ‘disrupting the academy’ and hence expelled. Just a little story to indicate the hypocrisy and double standards on campuses in North America. The story made national news, in the National Post and the Toronto Star, today. Below is Daniel’s initial statement.

My Expulsion from York University: an appeal for support and reconsideration

On April 30, 2004, I received a letter signed by York University President and Vice-Chancellor Lorna Marsden declaring that I “will have no purpose on campus” after May 1, 2004. If I set foot on York’s campus at any point in the three years following this date, she threatens, I will be charged for trespassing. My expulsion comes in the context of escalating repression of student dissent by York’s administration, and sets an ominous precedent regarding student rights to freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

The administration’s declaration that I now “have no purpose on campus” is baffling. I am a full-time student at York, and May 1 was both the very day I formally started my job as an editor at York’s main student paper, Excalibur, and nearly three weeks before my last exam. I am being treated as if I have acted dangerously and criminally, even in the absence of any allegations of criminally dangerous conduct.

In fact, those looking for a description of my behavior as dramatic as the administration’s response to it are likely to be disappointed. The alleged crime for which I have been exiled from my school for three years is use of “an unauthorized sound amplification device” (that is, a megaphone) on two separate occasions: October 22, 2003, and March 16, 2004. While general issues of freedom of expression and procedural fairness lie at the heart of this matter, I still feel compelled to address the specific allegations in turn.

Firstly, the events of October 22, 2003. On this date, the administration provided space for “Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Appreciation Day,” an event at which people sporting Israeli military paraphernalia congregated in one of York University’s principal public spaces to celebrate Israeli militarism. The mayor of an illegal Israeli settlement led the event, which was attended by many people who have served in the forces. In this situation, as a Jewish anti- nationalist and an avid anti-militarist, I did use a megaphone to highlight the event’s glaring impropriety. But vocal opposition to militarism, even expressed loudly, is far from criminally threatening.

The second instance cited, March 16, was the first anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie, a US peace activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to block it from demolishing a Palestinian family’s home in the Gaza Strip. What happened on that day was without precedent in my experience. While approximately thirty of us set up a mock check-point, some dressed as soldiers and some as civilians, a crowd of some 150 militant Zionists that had been congregating nearby in preparation proceeded to rush our display. We had postponed our action for a period to avoid a clash, but were unsuccessful. We were surrounded, and for nearly an hour faced physical and verbal intimidation.

In this context, I was one of many students organizing the mock check-point who tried, through chants and small speeches, to let confused onlookers know the purpose of the display that was being aggressively swarmed. President Marsden is contending that this somehow “contributed to the threat of harm to the safety and well-being of York University community members.” If this is the case, why am I not being charged criminally? Why did the administration wait so many months to paint my conduct as dangerous?

When I was informed in early November by Ms. Ridley from the Office of Student Affairs (OSA) that I needed to review the student code of conduct, which she alleged I had broken on October 22, I told her that I would do so and then get in touch with her. That same month, I visited her to set up an appointment (I was in and out of the OSA office throughout this period regarding the status of Students for a Critical Consciousness, a campus club of which I am President). She informed me that she would need to coordinate the meeting with the security personnel who had been present on the day in question. I told her that the meeting had been called at her request, and that I was in no rush to meet – Ms. Ridley smugly responded that she was not surprised, and that she would contact me in the near future. She never followed through.

The administration had every opportunity to contact me. Again, I am the President of a recognized student club, my York University email account is listed online as the group’s contact information (and is used readily by York’s library to notify me of late fines), and I even had a minor debate in late February/early March in the pages of Excalibur with Nancy White, York’s director for media relations (regarding some of our school’s questionable corporate connections). Plainly, it is hardly as if I had gone underground.

Over the past year, as a York-based social justice activist who is both Jewish and anti-Zionist, I have been called a “self-hater” and a “terrorist”; I have received death threats. Now, the administration of Lorna Marsden is topping all of this off with a summary suspension order. York University’s mission statement describes the school as “a community of faculty, students and staff committed to academic freedom [and] social justice.” In the hope that this is truly the case, I appeal to the administration to allow me to return to my studies and to my job without any further harassment.

To everyone else reading this (in case the administration’s response is not immediately favorable), the York Free Speech Committee, which recently formed to deal with this situation, will be circulating an important call-out shortly. Please keep posted on this situation, and consider providing your personal support to our campaign if you get the chance.

Sincerely,

Daniel Freeman-Maloy

Some Canadian Content

So, I suppose I should talk about Canada from time to time. There are actually some very serious labour disputes going on in Canada. There is a health care strike in British Columbia and as of this morning, the government had imposed back-to-work legislation on the workers, with a very generous settlement: a 15% wage rollback, plus no cap on external contracting (ie., privatization and layoffs, ie., total job insecurity). If the workers are going to stay on strike, it will be ‘illegal’, a line Canadian unions have been loath to cross.

The same thing happened in Newfoundland recently, which is going through its own self-imposed ‘structural adjustment’ by its millionaire premier (one of the wealthiest men in Canada). There, too, labour responded by striking. There, too, the strike was declared ‘illegal’.

It is a tactic that is instantly imposed by every legislature in the country when they want to break a union or attack the public sector generally: impose a nasty agreement, wait for the strike, then declare it ‘illegal’ and impose a settlement. They are forcing unions to break the law — but until the unions are ready to fight back as hard as the state and elites are, the workers will continue to lose the gains that were won by previous generations through hard struggle.