That Financial Meltdown

Print PDF

On the agit prop "let's get our message out there" level, the left is not worth listening to when it comes to the financial crisis gripping the capitalist world. Or at least not yet.

It's not that what is being said is wrong, it's that what's being said is just so plain obvious. An ignoramus such as myself could think up the stuff most left groups and commentators have churned out so far, and the op ed and business pages of most ruling class newspapers have just as informative analysis.

This isn't a criticism, just an observation. And it's probably normal in the midst of rapid change, of the sudden transformations that the ruling class are calling catastrophe, that even superpowered theory can at best keep up with and explain what is going on, rather than provide some kind of philosopher's stone with which to extract what we want from the crisis.

So rather than try and map out the minutiae of where the ruling class misstepped, or guess at what saves and stumbles lie ahead, i'm just going to note a few perspectives from amongst the dozens of angles folks must have. i could be full of shit, in which case let me know, but better to be wrong trying to understand where we are is what i figure...

The ruling class is almost unanimous in supporting massive state intervention to save their economy from a bloody nose. How long it takes them to do so may be a barometer of how dysfunctional their political culture is, but they will do so. And this is neither inconsistent not a break with tradition: despite the hype, the capitalists have always supported state spending, but in their "neo-liberal" stage it has been important to clothe this in acceptable militarized or repressive garb: the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. What is key about the current situation is their need to do it in the open, and for something as mundane as their economy.

The middle classes who support and benefit from this system are mixed about the idea of massive state intervention to support the financial sector. They fear that the money is going to be used to save the big rats while the small rats like them get proletarianized. They may be right, but it's hard to see what alternative they have: it is just stupidity to think of the system they support as some productive machine being exploited by nasty parasitic financiers, while it is in fact a wholly and unambiguously nasty parasitic machine, of which the financiers constitute a key part. These people, in their disgust at seeing the system's true nature, could swing far to the left or far to the right. Depending on the political weight of this panicked middle class, those sects which try and court them may find themselves in fact being pulled into their frenzied gravity well.

Different kinds of "solution" may be found depending on this interplay between the ruling class and the middle classes, but for the most oppressed no solution will be forthcoming "from above". Either neo-keynesian "managed capitalism" (is there any other kind?) or the spectre of "every MAN for himself" barbarism, in both cases the implication is continued exploitation, regimentation and pain for the oppressed.

However, gotta be clear: the levels of misery could certainly be ramped up dramatically either as part of the "solution" or as a result of further breakdown.

Other "crises" facing the capitalists - the lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, climate chaos, interimperialist rivalries from Georgia to the North Pole - will all be accelerated by the financial turmoil.

The only question of importance at this point is whether it is possible to use the current juncture to organize today for resistance tomorrow. It takes more than an opinion or a point of view to be able to do so, one needs more than a plan, one needs to be actively following that plan.

The military thinker Clausewitz referred to the consequences of such a concrete plan as a "state of tension". In the book On War (posthumously compiled by his widow and co-thinker Marie von Clausewitz), it is explained that:

if neither party [in a conflict] wills something positive, there is rest, and consequently equilibrium... As soon as even one of the two parties proposes to himself a new positive object, and commences active steps towards it, even if it is only by preparations, and as soon as the adversary opposes this, there is a tension of powers…

What's more:

In a state of rest and of equilibrium a varied kind of activity may prevail on one side that results from opportunity, and does not aim at a great alteration. Such an activity may contain important combats – even pitched battles – yet it is still of quite a different nature, and on that account generally different in its effects.

If a state of tension exist, the effects of the decision are always greater partly because a greater force of will and a greater pressure of circumstances manifest themselves therein; partly because everything had been prepared and arranged for a great movement. The decision in such cases resembles the effect of a mine well closed and tamped, whilst an event in itself perhaps just as great, in a state of rest, is more or less like a mass of powder puffed away in the open air.

i think it is undeniable that in the metropole for years now there has been nothing but a "state of equilibrium" between the revolutionary left and the state, to the point that one really has to wonder in what sense "revolutionary left" remains a useful term in North America, for anyone. This was true during the antiwar mobilization of 2003 ( for "Such an activity may contain important combats") and remains true today, and as such even this great crisis of capitalism risks passing without our making any meaningful intervention ("like a mass of powder puffed away in the open air").

The challenge is reversing this situation quickly, and intervening in a way which lays the ground for something new.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Looks like i'm in trouble...

Print PDF

Economists Warn Anti-Bush Merchandise Market Close To Collapse

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

[Kasama Blog] Misuses of the Erotic: Debate Among Revolutionary Youth

Print PDF

An interesting post by Jed Brandt on Mike Ely's Kasama blog about the anti-queer political line advanced by the (u.s.) Revolutionary Communist Party up until a few years ago: Misuses of the Erotic: Debate Among Revolutionary Youth.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

The Demise of the USSR

Print PDF

Soviet SS-21 short range missile, aimed at Western Europe and the People's Republic of China starting in 1978...

Some time ago i posted a poll, on the effect the demise of the Soviet Union had on revolutionaries in the imperialist countries and in the Third World, the options being Easier, Harder, Bit of Both, or Neither. (An additional joke "The Soviet Union was never defeated" appeared in the list for the imperialist countries, and got four votes.) Obviously, only a very few people answer these little polls i put up, so the results are not really the point, but they do provide a way to discuss a question.

RESULTS:

EASIER: Only four people thought that the demise of the Soviet Union made things unambiguously easier for people in the imperialist countries, nobody thought it had this effect for comrades in the Third World.

This was in line with my first expectations, the line being that in the imperialist countries the Soviet Union was such a negative example of what communism or socialism could look like - a despotic, highly stratified class society where people lived hard lives with few freedoms - that it helped to keep people hostile to the left. Whereas in the Third World this kind of negative example was assumed to have less weight, and the Soviet Union provided material aid to anti-imperialist insurgencies and regimes like Cuba and Nicaragua.

Nevertheless, i can't help but suspect that this appraisal of the USSR's effect on struggles in the Third World misses some nuances. While the Soviet Union did provide aid to almost any and every anti-American insurgency during certain periods, it must be remembered that it also supported anti-communist insurgents and regimes when these were seen as being the best bet to counter the west. One of these days i'd like to look into this more...

HARDER: Six people thought that the demise of the USSR made things harder on revs in the imperialist countries, twelve people thought it made things harder on people ion the Third World.

i'm not sure why these twelve think things got harder in the imperialist countries for revolutionaries. The Soviet Union provided neither aid nor effective leadership, and (through the Communist Parties) often sabotaged and deradicalized struggles here. On the other hand, despite its obvious shortcomings, when the USSR fell apart and the u.s. emerged as the "winner", there was a sense of euphoria on the right and demoralization on the left, not because people had liked the "real existing socialism" of the USSR but rather because it was interpreted as a sign of American strength, and spun as a personal victory for such reactionaries as Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.

As for making things harder for people in the Third World struggling against imperialism, the argument is more obvious. As mentioned above, the Soviet Union had provided material aid, including military aid, to insurgencies and to anti-imperialist regimes like Cuba.

BIT OF BOTH & NONE: Eight people thought the demise of the USSR had mixed results on revs in the imperialist countries, five people thought it had mixed results in the Third World. At the same time, only two people thought it had no effect in either.

And that's that for that poll...

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Jean-Pierre Lizotte Remembered

Print PDF

Jean-Pierre Lizotte

From today's Montreal Gazette, an excellent op ed piece by No One Is Illegal member Jaggi Singh, about the 1999 police murder of Jean-Pierre Lizotte, a homeless PWA, in the trendy Plateau Montreal neighbourhood:

The ‘poet of Bordeaux’ spent many years in prison, but he possessed a simple dignity

Lawyer Michael Stober takes offence at a Gazette report on the death of Jean-Pierre Lizotte in 1999. In his Gazette opinion piece (“Police were not responsible in the death of homeless man,” Sept. 12) Stober, lawyer for Montreal police constable Giovanni Stante, writes that the report gives the “false impression that Lizotte was a victim of police brutality.”

Stober reiterates that Stante was acquitted by a jury in 2002, and cleared by the Police Ethics Tribunal for inappropriate use of force just last month. These are cold, hard facts.

Stante stands acquitted, but it’s still completely valid, and necessary, to question the actions of the Montreal police, despite the police procedures that apparently allow for the punching of an unarmed man held by someone else. One simple fact that readers should consider: Police did not reveal Jean-Pierre Lizotte’s death in 1999 to the public until 53 days later.

There is one witness to the events on the early morning of Sept. 5, 1999, outside the Shed Café on St. Laurent Bvld. who will never get to tell his side, and that’s Jean-Pierre Lizotte himself. Lizotte died following the substantial injuries he suffered that fateful night.

While vigilantly defending Stante almost a decade after the incident, Stober goes on to cite Lizotte’s extensive criminal record. Dead men tell no tales, as the saying goes.

But, fortunately, despite two decades in and out of prison, this particular dead man had a lot to say, and he said it poignantly and insightfully. Jean- Pierre Lizotte deserves his voice, too, as much as Stante has his voice through his lawyer’s skillful advocacy.

Thanks to a remarkable radio program called Souverains anonymes, which encouraged the creative side of prisoners at Bordeaux, we still have a record of many of Lizotte’s words.

After learning of his death, the producers of Souverains Anonymes recalled something Lizotte wrote to Abla Farhoud – a Quebec playwright, writer and actress, originally from Lebanon – who had participated in one show at the Bordeaux prison. Lizotte was responding to the words of the main character of Farhoud’s novel, Le bonheur a la queue glissante, who observed, “My country is that place where my children are happy.”

Lizotte’s response to Farhoud is moving, as he seeks common ground while reflecting on his own life. It’s worth citing in full:

“Hello Abla, my name is J-P Lizotte. For the 21 years that I’ve been returning inside, prison has become my country. When I leave it, I become an immigrant! I experience all that an immigrant might experience when they miss their country of origin. When I’m inside, I want to leave. And when I’m outside, I miss the inside. Sometimes I say to myself, ‘If I had a grandmother or a grandfather, things would have been different for me.’ But how can you have a grandmother when you’ve hardly had either a mother or father. The memories that I have make me cry, so I won’t tell them to you. But, a grandmother, like the one in your novel, is not given to everyone. So, I say to everyone who has a grandmother or grandfather, take advantage of it. Thanks.”

(The French text of Lizotte’s note and other writings are available at: http://www.souverains.qc.ca/recidivi.html)

His fellow prisoners dubbed Lizotte the “Poet of Bordeaux,” and he wrote prolifically. His poems, in a rhyming and often humourous style, address deeply personal themes: his difficult childhood, his lack of a caring mother, his father’s alcoholism, depression, his HIV-positive status, his drug problems, along with subjects like music, prison and revolt. He even wrote an unpublished memoir about his itinerant life titled, Voler par amour, pleurer en silence.

Clearly, there are underlying and understandable reasons why Lizotte was in and out of prison for more than two decades, beyond the list of criminal offences that Stante’s lawyer provides, without context.

Lizotte lived a harsh reality, right from his childhood, as he shared in his poems and writings with simple honesty.

On Sept. 5, 1999, on a trendy and expensive part of St. Laurent Blvd., Lizotte’s reality came up against the contrasting reality of restaurant patrons, bouncers and police officers. Lizotte was allegedly causing some sort of disturbance, and he had to be restrained in a full-nelson hold and punched at least twice, according to Stante’s own testimony. (Some witnesses claim that Lizotte was punched “repeatedly” and excessively.) Witnesses said there was a pool of blood left at the scene. One witness referred to Lizotte being thrown into a police van “like a sack of potatoes.”

Stante was duly acquitted by a jury in 2002. Police officers are often acquitted – on the rare occasions that they’re charged – within a criminal-justice system that appropriately demands proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” before conviction.

But, what if there were a video of what happened outside the Shed Café in 1999, instead of the imperfect and contradictory memories of witnesses at 2:30 in the morning? What if JeanPierre Lizotte were present in the courtroom, in a wheelchair and paralyzed, in front of the jury’s own eyes?

At Stante’s trial and again in The Gazette’s pages, Stante’s lawyer put a dead man who can’t defend himself on trial. Lizotte openly acknowledged who he was. What’s unfortunate is to continue denying Jean-Pierre Lizotte – the homeless “criminal” – his full humanity and dignity, because he possessed both in such stunning abundance.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Rearview Mirror Glance at August's Riot

Print PDF

As most readers will know, Montreal's unusually cool summer included a very hot August, hot with the bitter heat that comes from tragedy.

On August 9, a group of teenagers were playing in a park in the proletarian neighbourhood of Montreal North. Cops drove up and busted one of the kids, who had a warrant outstanding. His younger brother, the 18 year old Freddy Villanueva, was one of many kids who got in their faces about this. While accounts differ as to the exact chain of events, what is clear is that within a few minutes a police was firing their weapon into the kids, hitting three of them, including Freddy. The kid died that night.

The next night there was a vigil called in the neighbourhood. This happens sometimes (rarely) when a cop murders someone in this city. More often than not there is nothing for weeks or months, or even ever. But this time it was the next night, already a "good" sign, if one can talk of "good" in this context.

But what came next was better... youth from the neighbourhood, many of whom (like the young Villanueva) children of the immigrant working class, started to set things on fire, and to fight the cops. There were molotov cocktails, and one cop got a flesh wound, shot by a rioter.

All this points to the fact that inspiring, high levels of consciousness exist just out of (whose?) sight, that some people understand what solidarity means, even though (unlike leftists who rarely riot) they it may not be word they drop into every conversation. That this level of consciousness exists in one of the key neighbourhoods of the immigrant working class in Montreal is no coincidence, no accident.

Of course, consciousness can play both ways. Police were able to engage "law abiding citizens" in its post-riot repression, using images from local business's security cameras to catch rioters - according to a news story that appeared today, 71 people were arrested, 51 of them due to this latest police tactic. This had already been used earlier this year during the largely apolitical Hockey Riots, and it seems it is going to be a regular problem in cases of mass resistance. It remains to be seen how long it will take for rioters to mask up as a matter of course.

i am of course not saying that everything, or even most things, that happen during a riot are "good" or "correct". Nor is it a matter of assuming that everyone who displays advanced consciousness in such a situation is a comrade in the next. But what it does point to is a much more promising and less decayed situation than one normally finds after a cop killing.

And the effect it had was exactly what everyone and anyone would expect. Within twenty four hours sections of the establishment were opportunistically distancing themselves from their pitbulls in blue, were talking about the need for an "impartial investigation", for a "public inquiry", for an end to police harassment and racism. While other members of the establishment played the same old racist tune, insisting that people in Montreal North should be better parents and then their kids wouldn't be shot by the nice police officers. Both developments predictable, and positive because by forcing matters quickly the ruling class was prevented from putting forward a united front.

So yeah, i haven't been blogging much, but hope to get back in the swing. In the meantime, if only for posterity, i thought i should jot down these few sketchy thoughts...

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Working Class Struggle in Quebec: 1970-

Print PDF

There was an excellent talk yesterday by Richard St-Pierre, about his own personal experience of working class struggles in Quebec since his politicization as a teenager in 1970.

This was probably one of the best talks i have ever heard in Montreal, and it is a real shame that it was not recorded. St-Pierre's itinerary is like many of his generation: a working class teenager, he was initially attracted by the "social gospel" of Roman Catholicism and the idea of armed struggle to win an independent and socialist Quebec. He then quickly became one of the tens of thousands of people who rejected these ideas to plunge into the Maoist movement that was so active in 70s Quebec.

Where St-Pierre differs from most of his comrades is that he has not only remained politically active but after a few twists and turns his commitment to working class revolution led him to left communism, specifically the tiny International Bureau for the Revolutionary Party. Despite his current adherence to the IBPR, St-Pierre did us all the service of recounting the groups and struggles he had been involved in as he saw them at the time, while not being shy to point out, and take responsibility for, specific errors.

The talk was organized in a non-sectarian, comradely manner, by the Montreal local of the North East Federation of Anarchist-Communists (NEFAC), and perhaps forty people attended. While he spoke for over two hours, St-Pierre had time to get through less than half of what he had prepared, and particularly frustrating to me, the section he had to skip was the section on "consciuosness", which i'm guessing would have been the most provocative and interesting bit.

If he speaks again, i strongly encourage you all to attend. In the meantime, with a bit of luck and time over the next few days, i'll try and write up a more detailed report from the notes i took.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Let Freedom Ring: A Collection of Documents From the Movements to Free U.S. Political Prisoners

Print PDF

Look what just arrived back from the printers:

This is the book that killed two months of my summer, doing layout like i'd never done it before and finally breaking in InDesign. It's a 912 page brick, full of historical documents collected by Matt Meyer (of Resistance in Brooklyn and the War Resister's League), all giving a very particular and interesting perspective on some of the key campaigns to free political prisoners over the past twenty years.

Apart from the foreword by Argentinean former political prisoner (and Nobel Peace Prize recipient) Adolfo Pérez Esquivel there are also afterwords by Lynne Stewart and Ashanti Alston. Not to mention writings by Mumia Abu-Jamal, Sundiata Acoli, Ramona Africa, Dan Berger, Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, Terry Bisson, BO, Marilyn Buck, Safiya Bukhari, Chrystos, Angela Davis, Susie Day, Bill Dunne, Jill Soffiyah Elijah, Bob Lederer, Jose López, Oscar López Rivera, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jalil Muntaqim, Luis Nieves Falcón, Leonard Peltier, Ninotchka Rosca, the San Francisco 8, Assata Shakur, Meg Starr, Jan Susler, Linda Thurston, Desmond Tutu, Laura Whitehorn, and many more.

As the back cover blurb explains:

Let Freedom Ring presents a two-decade sweep of essays, analyses, histories, interviews, resolutions, People’s Tribunal verdicts, and poems by and about the scores of U.S. political prisoners and the campaigns to safeguard their rights and secure their freedom. In addition to an extensive section on the campaign to free death-row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, represented here are the radical movements that have most challenged the U.S. empire from within: Black Panthers and other Black liberation fighters, Puerto Rican independentistas, Indigenous sovereignty activists, white anti-imperialists, environmental and animal rights militants, Arab and Muslim activists, Iraq war resisters, and others. Contributors in and out of prison detail the repressive methods – from long-term isolation to sensory deprivation to politically inspired parole denial – used to attack these freedom fighters, some still caged after 30+ years. This invaluable resource guide offers inspiring stories of the creative, and sometimes winning, strategies to bring them home.

This is almost a reference book, providing snapshots of the work being done on the oustide, and of the condtions on the inside of amerika's gulag system. For me personally, some of the most interesting pieces were the contributions by political prisoners, many of which were sent in to Resistance in Brooklyn for photocopies booklets they produced in 1992 (Dissing the "Discovery") and for the "John Brown 2000" conference. Let Freedom Ring also provides a good framework through which to get an idea of some of the forces in the national liberation movements of the internal colonies - Indigenous people, Puerto Ricans, Chican@s, and Black/New Afrikan people - and a glimpse at the reasoning and worldviews that have motivated people from these movements from the 1960s on.

For more details, feel free to check out the appropriate page on my Kersplebedeb website: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/letfreedomring.html

-------------------------

Seeing as this is a brick, weighing almost three pounds, postage is going to be a pain in the ass. In fact, by my reckoning Canada Post is going to charge me almost $20 to ship a copy anywhere in the u.s. - definitely a bother.

To ease the pain, i'm going to be charging $15 postage and for a limited time will be throwing in a FREE copy of the 2009 Certain Days Freedom For Political Prisoners calendar with every order. You can email me (info@kersplebedeb.com) for more details, or else just use the paypal button here to pay online:

and yes, i will be posting about Certain Days soon, but in the meantime you can check here for more details: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/books/cal2009/index.html

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Thinking & Forgetting

Print PDF

Y'know...

thoughts without discipline
are
a lot like leaves
waiting
for the wind to come

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Prisoners of New Orleans need your help now (Hurricane Gustav)!

Print PDF

The following from Critical Resistance:

To All CR members, Allies, and Comrades of New Orleans,

Prisoners and Families of New Orleans needs your help immediately!
If you haven't heard already Hurricane Gustav is headed for New Orleans
and is predicted to be a category 3 hurricane, the same as Hurricane Katrina. There will possibly be a mandate for all people (outside of prisons and jails) of New Orleans to evacuate starting tomorrow August 29th, the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. It is predicted that hurricane Gustav will pose great flooding potential regardless of its category rating, the levee that broke by elected official's decisions during Hurricane Katrina has not been fixed to it's potential, or replaced.

The over crowding Orleans Parish Prison, located in New Orleans, holds 2, 500 prisoners (this count is not certain, due to lack of information given to the public.) Although not official, we have information that the Prisoners of Orleans Parish Prison will be evacuating to Angola Prison and Hunt Prison in the next coming days and are also prisons that can be affected by Hurricane Gustav due to overcrowding.

During Hurricane Katrina there were prisoners able to evacuate and others who remained locked in their cells with a minimal chance of survival. Prisoners were left in flooded cells, with no food, and had minimal ventilation, to say the least. Family members, of prisoners who were held at Orleans Parish Prison, are still in the fight to locate their loved ones who had been evacuated to other prisons during Katrina. Due to the flooding, lack of organization and care from New Orleans Department of Corrections and elected officials, prisoner's records were also missing. As a result, prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated.
This abuse can not happen again!

What will happen to the prisoners of Orleans Parish Prison located in New Orleans this time?

Critical Resistance (CR) is demanding that the elected officials of New Orleans will not create the same devastating wrongs as they did to the prisoners of Orleans Parish Prison during hurricane Katrina.

1. we demand a full and safe evacuation of all prisoners
2. we demand to know what the evacuation plan for prisoners is
3. we demand to see a public document about that plan immediately
4. we demand information about how we can find people after an evacuation

We are urging every member, ally and comrade of New Orleans across the country, to make atleast one call to:

Sheriff Malrin Gusman: 504.827.8505
(James Carter's secretary said "Orleans Parish Prison is Gusman's prison")
James Carter: 504.658.1030
(Criminal Justice Council Member who is able to put pressure on the sheriff even if they say they can't)
You can also send an email: JCarter@cityofno.com
please put in your email subject: How will you protect prisoners this time?

Please call as many times as you can to put pressure on them and let them know our demands and it is their job to be accountable to us!!!!!!!!

For further information from us please contact Critical Resistance New Orleans:
Mayaba: 917.385.5472 or mayaba@criticalresistance.org
Koolblack: 504.813.4714 or koolblack@criticalresistance.org

(If you can't get through due to evacuation please contact: pilar@criticalresistance.org for further information)

In solidarity,
Critical Resistance

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

[NEFAC Mtl] 35 years of Workers' Struggles: Analysis and Perspectives

Print PDF

The following event is happening in a little more than two weeks. It promises to be one of the most interesting events NEFAC Mtl has ever organized; St-Pierre is a veteran of over thirty years of working class and communist struggles in Quebec, with views which i may not completely share, but which i find much more interesting than most of what the local left produces...

while i'm translating this into english, i don't know if translation will be available at the event itself. Nevertheless, i really hope comrades take the trouble to attend even if french is not their language of choice...

35 years of workers' struggles
analysis and perspectives

NEFAC Montreal invites you to a talk by Richard St-Pierre, a longtime communist activist. He will give an overview of the recent history of the Quebec workers' movement, while bringing to the table some elements of his own political point of view and personal experience.

Over the past decades he has been involved in many quite different struggles. Amongst other things, he was active in groups like the Regroupement Autonome des Jeunes (RAJ), the Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux (CSN) and the Comité des Sans-Emploi (CSE). He is presently a member of the Montreal section of the International Bureau for a Revolutionary Party.

Saturday September 13th
2pm
Pub St-Ciboire
1693 St-Denis

A presentation of the Montreal Local of the North-East Federation of Anarchist Communists - NEFAC

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

[ZNet] No Justice, No Peace: Behind the riots in Montreal after the shooting-death of Fredy Villanueva

Print PDF

The following summary of the problem of police violence in Montreal which led up to August's riots in Montreal North is by Charles Mostoller and from ZNet:

Montreal-Nord, Montreal--"Why four gunshots? Why?", asked Patricia Villanueva. "I don't believe they had reason to shoot four times, just like that. Nothing justifies a death." Patricia is sister to Fredy Villanueva, an 18 year old Honduran youth who was shot dead by a Montreal police officer on August 9th, sparking a small riot among the fed-up youth of this impoverished immigrant neighborhood in North Montreal.

Villanueva is the latest death in a long line of police killings here in Montreal, although the first to occur in this North Montreal neighborhood.

According to police, two officers approached a group of youths who were playing dice in a park, and attempted to arrest Dany Villanueva, Fredy's brother. When an argument broke out, one officer fired four shots, killing Fredy and injuring Denis Meas and Jeffrey Sagor Metelus, who are recovering in the hospital. Police have stated that the officers were attacked by a group of about 20 youths, despite statements from witnesses who say that only five or six people were present and that there was no physical confrontation.

"My brother said 'What are you doing with my brother? Let go of him.' Then I heard gunshots, and my brother fell to the ground," said Dany, according to the CBC. According to statements by the Villanueva family, Dany has had some trouble with the law in the past, but Fredy was the 'good' son, doing well in school and staying away from drugs and trouble.

Jean Loup Lapointe--the Service de Police de la Ville de Montreal (SPVM) officer from Montreal-Nord's Station 39 who fatally wounded Villanueva--has not been suspended, although he has been taken off patrol duty.

Although over 30 witnesses have already been questioned in relation to Villanueva's death, the two police officers responsible for his death have yet to be questioned. His sister wants to know why.

"It's so important to have a transparent investigation, to know what really happened," she said. "But they haven't taken the police officers' testimony yet. What are they waiting for?" Despite the slow course of the internal police investigation, the Villanueva family hopes that Fredy's death will finally make police on the island more responsible and less likely to resort to lethal force.

"We want this never to happen again," said Patricia, speaking after a press conference on Friday. "If it happens once, it can happen again, and it has happened before." The incident has sparked debate in the media and among politicians here, more over the supposed threat of street-gangs in the area than over the reckless use of force displayed by Montreal's finest--with many, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, suggesting the need to beef-up the police units in the area to crack down on gangs. However, Francois du Canal, a spokesperson for the Coalition Against Police Brutality (COBP), believes that the most pressing issue in Montreal's poor neighborhoods is poverty, not gangs.

"They are treating everyone in the neighborhood like they are would-be gang members," he said. "There is poverty and a lot of social problems in neighborhoods like Montreal-Nord, but instead of dealing with poverty--like by giving money to community groups--they give millions of dollars to cops." Take a quick stroll through Montreal-Nord and this is immediately obvious. Local residents gather in front of the dilapidated housing buildings, while groups of five or six police officers patrol the sidewalks and teams of police cruisers line the corners. Many people feel intimidated by the heavy police presence, which has been a part of daily life since long before Villanueva's death.

"There are too many police here," said Kevin Garcia, a friend of the Villanueva family. "Caravans of 10 or 15 police cars will come into the neighborhood all of a sudden, and we feel very insecure, because it seems like anything can happen from one moment to the next. It makes us feel very intimidated to have so many police everywhere." "It seems like they are here to provoke things," he added. "They see a few young people, and even if there are little kids around, they approach them, trying to intimidate--or what are they looking for? They are provoking things, trying to take this to the next level." However, it is unlikely that Villanueva's killers will ever face justice, given the history of impunity for police officers in cases like this. Villanueva is the 43rd person to be killed by the Montreal Police in the last twenty years, yet only two police officers have ever faced charges for their actions--and were acquitted in both cases.

"They kill people, and they're not even accused of any misdoing," said Canal. "So they get away with it. That's what we call impunity, and because of it, they know they can kill people, so they just keep on acting like they can do whatever they want."

"They use harassment, intimidation and violence as tactics," he added, "and things like this happen, because the politicians are too afraid to control the police more. And they will continue to happen if nothing happens to these cops."

Surete du Quebec (SQ)--the Quebec provincial police who are leading the inquiry into Villanueva's death--have promised "an investigation with impartiality, rigor, objectivity and rapidity," according to SQ Lt. Francois Dore.

However, past investigations into fatal shooting by the Montreal Police suggest that we may never know what really happened on August 9th.

For example, in the case of Mohamed Anas Bennis--a youth killed in December of 2005 by a Montreal Police officer--the findings of the investigation into his death have still not been made public., two-and-a-half years later. Nor has the officer who killed Bennis, Yannick Bernier, been penalized.

"It's always the same story," said Canal. "The cops investigate themselves and there are no accusations, so we never really know what truly happened. The cops are not even suspended."

In 1996, former SQ investigator Gaëtan Rivest told the COBP that an investigation into the death of Yvon Lafrance--killed by police in 1989--had been tampered with in order to protect the officer responsible, Dominic Chartier. According to the COBP, Rivest confirmed "that such practices are common within the different police services in Quebec."

"So it really sends a message that the city and the government are backing the police," said Canal, "even if they say they think about the family and all that. But they really seem more upset that there was a riot than the fact that the cops killed an unarmed youth."

Communities like Montreal-Nord are fed up with the situation. The riot that happened the day after Villanueva's death was probably just a release of the neighborhood youth's pent-up anger, not an action organized by local 'street gangs'.

"The only street gang around here is the police," shouted Will Prosper, along with hundreds of other Montreal-Nord residents in front of the town's municipal building on Wedensday night.

Local residents had gathered in the parking lot in front of Mayor Marcel Parent's office, calling for an public investigation of Villanueva's death and an end to police repression in Montreal.

Shouting "No justice, no peace! Disarm the police!" and "Enquête public!", dozens of residents barged into a meeting the mayor was holding, and Prosper raucously called for the mayor himself to resign--for not trying to help lift Montreal-Nord out of poverty.

"I don't think he can lead Montreal-Nord correctly, because he's not listening to his people," said Prosper. "If he was listening to his people, maybe Fredy Villanueva would still be alive."

According to Prosper, unemployment among youths has skyrocketed under Mayor Parent , and police abuse has gone unchecked.

"These people want jobs, houses, families--and are tired of police harassment," he said. "If you don't give them some options, what are they going to do?"

Both Prosper and Canal feel that in a poor neighborhood like Montreal-Nord, the police just exacerbate the problem.

"The police are not here to help people, they're here to criminalize people and then they do things like killing people," said Canal. "This makes it so that everybody in the community feels alienated--like they are being unjustly treated--and that's one of the reasons why an explosion like the one we saw after the killing of Fredy Villanueva happened."

In the end, police brutality towards immigrants seems like a systemic problem in Montreal, and one that won't be going away soon. According to Prosper, minorities are twice as likely to be shot by police in Montreal, and poor immigrant neighborhoods like Montreal-Nord are overrun by police officers.

"They have a gang mentality," he said. "A lot of police are good officers, but they tolerate abuses by other police officers. How come they don't say anything about that? They ask the population to anonymously denounce criminals, but then they let criminals in their own ranks."

"If we could respect the police, the riot wouldn't have happened. But right now," he continued, "there's no trust, no respect. We know what happened that night, and that's why we want change."

The political response to police killings is to criminalize immigrant communities and victimize the police, sending in more police to fight against street gangs--in other words, young people. Until less money is spent on police in poor neighborhoods and more is spent on community programs, Canal explained, the vicious cycle that has led to so many deaths at the hands of police will probably continue.

"If they don't stop police brutality, and their answer to what happened is to put more police on the streets," said Canal, "then there's going to be more police brutality and more riots to come."

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Demonstration Against Police Abuse in Montreal North

Print PDF

Demonstration in Montreal North!
A Call to Mobilize!
The Breach Has Been Opened in Montreal-North!

Montreal-North is burning. After the murder of Fredy Villenueva by the Montreal Police (SPVM), and the riots which broke out to express the people's anger, the community of Montreal-North remains angry. The time has come to organize a social and political offensive against the local elites who are trying to cover up this state of affairs.

Montréal-Nord Republik (Montreal North Republik) is a new voice in the neighbourhood. It intends to put forward another view of the recent events around the death of Fredy Villanueva and the riots which took place in Montreal North. The group also intends to dispute the dominant discourse which is insinuating that the rioters and protesters are just apolitical hooligans. Montréal-Nord Republik hopes to bring together the neighbourhood community along with all the population of Montreal in order to denounce police repression as well as economic, social, cultural and political oppression.

The MONTRÉAL-NORD RÉPUBLIK movement is struggling for justice following the murder of Fredy Villanueva. We have five demands:

1 THE IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF THE MAYOR OF MONTREAL-NORTH, Mr. MARCEL PARENT, who has stated that "Everything is going well in Montreal-North, there is no problem here. I never saw this coming."

2. A PUBLIC AND INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF FREDY VILLANUEVA.

3. AN END TO ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR BY THE POLICE (intimidation, harassment, racial profiling, abusive arrests, etc.)

4. A WORK prodced by neighbourhood artists and supported by the borough to keep the memory of Fredy alive.

5. A RECOGNITION of the principle that as long as there is economic insecurity, there will be social insecurity.

A DEMONSTRATION IS PLANNED THE EVENING OF THIS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20TH, AT 6PM, IN FRONT OF THE MONTREAL-NORTH CITY HALL (11 155, rue Hébert, corner
Charleroi). WE WILL SUBMIT OUR DEMANDS DURING THE MEETING OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL WHICH TAKES PLACE AT 7PM. All those in solidarity with Fredy and with our demands are invited to come demonstrate.

HOW TO GET THERE: FROM METRO HENRI-BOURASSA, TAKE THE 48, 49,
69 OR 89 GOING EAST TO GARON. FROM MÉTRO PIE-IX, TAKE THE
139 UNTIL CHARLEROI. CHARLEROI IS TWO STREETS SOUTH OF HENRI-BOURASSA AND RUE HÉBERT TWO STREETS EAST OF PIE-IX.

For all information, please communicate with us via the following email address and let us know how to reach you, we will do so quickly:

Email: mtlnord.republik@gmail.com

Website: www.montrealnordrepublik.blogspot.com

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

COBP Communique on the Murder of Freddy Villanueva (Montreal)

Print PDF

Communiqué by the Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP)

Justice for Freddy Villanueva, the 43rd Montreal police killing in 22 years!

Montreal, August 13, 2008 -- On Saturday August 9, 2008, at about 7pm, a police officer from Station 39 fired four bullets that injured two youth and killed Freddy Villaneuva, 18, in Montreal-Nord. The Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP) offers its condolences and solidarity to the Villaneuva family who are beginning a difficult journey that we hope will lead to the truth and real justice. We offer our solidarity as well to members of the community, and in particular to the families of the two injured youth, Denis Meas, and Jeffrey Sagor Metelus who is still in hospital.

The death of Freddy is part of a long history of repression, abuse and brutality by the Montreal police. What happened is unjustifiable. The police know that they committed an enormous error. They are trying to hide the facts, speaking of twenty youth, when eyewitnesses assert that there were five or six. The police say they were attacked when witnesses assert that they saw no direct confrontation between the police and the group of youth. Four bullets were shot at youth who were not armed and who were reacting to a scene of police brutality that was happening in front of their own eyes. We can't be surprised that people have no confidence in the police and revolt.

As per usual, the Montreal police (Service de police de la ville de Montréal, SPVM) and their union (Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal, FPPM), in complicity with the Quebec Provincial Police (Sureté de Québec, SQ), will do all they can in their power to clear the police officer that unjustly killed the youngest son of the Villanueva family. It's unacceptable that police investigate other police officers in such sensitive cases. Police organizations are in solidarity with each other, which is not difficult to prove. During a press conference organized by COBP in 1996, a former SQ investigator, Gaëtan Rivest, confirmed tampering an investigation to the benefit of Dominic Chartier (a Montreal police officer who killed Yvon Lafrance in 1989). He explained that such practices are common within the different police services in Quebec. So, it's not shocking that killer cops are systematically cleared by their colleagues.

The police officers involved in the Saturday evening incident have yet to be questioned, although 30 other witnesses have so far been questioned. This manner of proceeding clearly shows the lack of transparency and impartiality in the investigation led by the SQ. If we trust previous experience, we can expect that this investigation will end by clearing the accused officers. Previous history shows us some facts from which to draw some lessons. Of the 43 cases documented by COBP, 2 police officers have been charged (Alan Gosset who killed Anthony Griffin in 1987 and Giovanni Stante who killed Jean-Pierre Lizotte in 1999) and they were both acquitted. In addition to officers Gosset and Stante, three other officers have been charged after a police killing:

- Police officer Marcovic killed Paul McKinnon, 14, on October 25, 1990. He received 45 days in jail for dangerous driving causing death in 1995, because he didn't show remorse to the family of the victim. He appealed the decision.
- After the beating death of Richard Barnabé, 38, on December 14, 1993, charges were laid against five officers. One officer was acquitted but four others were found guilty of assault causing bodily harm on June 27, 1995: officers Pierre Bergeron, Louis Samson, André Lapointe and Michel Vadeboncoeur. They rejoined the Montreal police force. In 2006, the dismissals of Bergeron and Samson was confirmed in appeal by the Police Ethics Committee.
- After the death of Martin Suazo, 23, on May 31, 1995, police lieutenant Pablo Palacios was charged with obstruction of justice for hiding facts during a police investigation. But on September 14, 1995, the decision to not lay any charges against officer Michel Garneau, who shot and killed Suazo, was announced.

As for the so-called "transparence" of the SQ investigation, we can't count on that either. In the Mohamed Anas Bennis case, killed on December 1, 2005 by police officer Yannick Bernier, the investigation report has still not been made public more than two-and-a-half years later.

Sunday's riot was a clear expression of the dissatisfaction of an entire community. Youth and others are fed up being targeted by the police, and being constantly harassed for the colour of their skin, age, and clothes. The people who participated in the uprising on Sunday did not come from street gangs and were not criminals, as expressed by Yvan Delorme, chief of the SPVM. Rather, they were residents of the neighbourhood and the surrounding area and live daily police repression and discrimination. They sounded alarm bells that must be heard. The Mayor and the SPVM chief must assure that police abuses will stop. At the very least, they should suspend the police officers involved in the death of Freddy Villanueva. For his part, the Minister of Public Security, Jacques Dupuis, must change the law so that police no longer investigate other police officers. There must be a public and independent police inquiry into the events of last Saturday, without waiting more than two-and-a-half years like the Bennis family. Finally, the police involved must be charged criminally so that they answer publicly for their acts.

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

The Collective Opposed to Police Brutality (COBP)
514-395-9691 * cobp@hotmail.com

Source: "From Anthony Griffin to Mohamed Anas Bennis: 40 people killed by the Montreal police in 20 years (1987-2006)", pamphlet by COBP available by request by e-mail.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Katenies at the Superior Court in Cornwall, Ontario

Print PDF

The following important news comes via No One Is Illegal Montreal:

[Included below are links and the text of some recent articles concerning Katenies and her refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of Canadian colonial courts and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). Katenies again refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in Cornwall, Ontario this past July 14, 2008. She is due to appear before a judge in the Superior Court of Ontario in Alexandria on October 21, 2008. It appears as if both Katenies and Kahentinetha will be charged criminally in relation to the CBSA attack on them on June 14, 2008. More updates to come.]

Mohawk Nation News: Stone Wall in Cornwall
Article linked HERE.

Cornwall Standard Freeholder: Protesters pack city courtroom
Article below and linked here: http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1114035

Ottawa Indymedia/The Dominion: Mohawk Grandmother challenges border jurisdiction (Video)
Video linked here: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/lia_tarachansky/1931

Statement: Solidarity with Katenies! "Canada" has no jurisdiction over Mohawk land
Statement below and also linked here: http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/solidarite-with-katenies.html; to endorse the statement, e-mail indigenoussolidaritymontreal@gmail.com

Background Info/Previous Articles & Audio:

http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com/2008/06/katenies-cbsa-background.html


INFO: indigenoussolidaritymontreal@gmail.com – 514-848-7583
-----------

Protesters pack city courtroom;
Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Protesters from Ottawa, Montreal and Hamilton packed a Cornwall courtroom Monday in support of Janet Davis, a New York State Iroquois woman who was arrested on June 14 at the Cornwall border crossing in relation to three Customs Act charges from 2003.

Davis, 43, who is also known by her Iroquois name of Katenies, is facing two additional charges of failing to appear in court after she allegedly passed through the border in 2003 without stopping for a Canada Customs agent.

She claims the Canadian judicial system has no jurisdiction over her as an indigenous woman, and even filed a motion in January 2007 to dismiss the charges on those grounds.

The motion was denied, but Davis renewed her objections yesterday by demanding that the court provide written proof of their authority to arrest her and charge her based on what she calls "colonial law."

"My people never gave up their rights or their land to anyone, it was taken from us, these laws were forced on us," said Davis outside the Cornwall courthouse.

"They have no jurisdiction here. I've asked them a question and they have refused to answer it. Where do they get this authority?"

Davis added that she signed her official objection to the court with her fingerprint instead of a written signature as a statement of her individuality as a native woman.

About 30 people packed the courtroom yesterday morning as Davis, who has refused representation, addressed Justice of the Peace Linda Leblanc along with Frank Horn, a Cornwall defence lawyer who says he was only there with Davis as a friend of the court.

"Katenies stands by the Two Row Wampum Treaty," said Horn, referring to an agreement signed between the Dutch and the Iroquois Nation of northern New York in 1613.

"Two cultures may live side by side, but they will never cross. She feels that these charges are a crossover between our two cultures, and that's not right."

Horn was also present in court to object to the treatment of his sister, Kahentinetha Horn, who was with Davis in June.

Horn said both Davis and Kahentinetha, who is 68 years old, were handcuffed and wrestled to the ground by border guards, treatment he said led his sister to suffer a heart attack and be rushed by ambulance to Cornwall Community Hospital.

"She hasn't been the same since this happened," he said. "She won't leave the house, and she's already been back in the hospital once since June. It's just terrible what our family has been going through."

Horn said tensions have been mounting over the past few months between border guards and those from the Akwesasne reserve, adding that many believe the guards are unfairly targeting aboriginals as an excuse to beef up security.

"The Harper government has this whole strategy to get tough at the borders, and they're using our people as the means to stir up Canadians and say: 'Look, we've got this issue at the border, so we've got to increase security,'" he said. "My people don't appreciate being used in that manner."

Horn said many aboriginals are getting sick of the treatment, and protests such as yesterday's will continue until the message is received.

Davis' case will go to trial in Alexandria court starting Oct. 21, 2008.

Original article here: http://www.standard-freeholder.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1114035
-----

Solidarity with Katenies!
"Canada" has no jurisdiction over Mohawk land

On July 14, 2008, Mohawk grandmother and activist Katenies appeared before a judge in the Superior Court of Cornwall, Ontario. And again, Katenies refused to recognize the authority of the courts, and demanded that Canadian officials prove they have jurisdiction over her as an Indigenous woman. She has been ordered to appear in court again on October 21, 2008, in Alexandria, Ontario.

On June 14, 2008, Katenies -- accompanied by Kahentinetha of the Kahnawake Mohawk Territory – was targeted for arrest by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) guards on an outstanding warrant for allegedly "running the border" in 2003, and offenses resulting from her refusal to appear in court and validate the colonial justice system.

Katenies has maintained since 2003 that border officials and the Canadian colonial courts have no jurisdiction over Kanion'ke:haka people or land. In January 2007, Katenies served court officials with a Motion to Dismiss, demanding that they establish jurisdiction, if any, over Mohawks and their ability to travel freely between "Canada" and the "United States".

During the CBSA attack, Katenies and Kahentinetha – who are both writers and contributors to Mohawk Nation News (MNN) – were treated brutally by border guards. Both were handcuffed and tackled to the ground. Katenies was jailed for three days. Kahentinetha suffered a heart attack and had to be hospitalized for several days.

As mainly non-native groups and collectives based in settler communities on or near Mohawk lands, we are publicly standing in support of Katenies, and demand all charges against her by the colonial courts be dropped. We also condemn the brutal attacks by the CBSA on both Katenies and Kahentinetha on June 14, 2008 and declare our solidarity with Indigenous struggles for land, freedom and self-determination.

Endorsed by:
Agitate (Ottawa)
Les Apatrides Anonymes (Montreal)
Block the Empire-Montreal
Coalition Guerre à la guerre (Quebec City)
Collectif opposé à la brutalité policière (Montreal)
Collectif pour l'Autonomie du Peuple Mapuche (Montreal)
Comité Solidarité Nouveau Equateur (Montreal)
Common Cause Ontario
CUPE Local 3906 (Hamilton)
DIRA Bibliothèque Anarchiste (Montreal)
Kingston Indigenous Solidarity Network
La Otra Campaña (Montreal)
NEFAC-Montreal
No One Is Illegal-Kingston
No One Is Illegal-Montreal
No One Is Illegal-Ottawa
No One Is Illegal-Toronto
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (Toronto)
OPIRG-Carleton
OPIRG/GRIPO-Ottawa
Ottawa Raging Grannies
People's Global Action Bloc (Ottawa)
Peterborough Coalition Against Poverty
Peterborough Coalition for Palestine Solidarity
Solidarity Across Borders (Montreal)
and others.

Reports about the CBSA attack, and background information, are linked at the following
website: http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com/2008/06/katenies-cbsa-background.html

To endorse this statement, please e-mail indigenoussolidaritymontreal@gmail.com; Katenies' next scheduled court date is October 21, 2008 in Alexandria, Ontario.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Man Being Starved by U.S. Prison

Print PDF

The following from Philly's Human Rights Coalition/Fed Up! Chapter:

Distribute Far and Wide and Please Take Immediate Action

HRC/Fed Up! has received correspondence from five prisoners in the Special Management Unit (SMU--the most restrictive hole in Pennsylvania) in the last week to report that prison guards and the Unit Manager are starving an inmate as a means of retaliation. We have also been contacted by the inmate's family.

Gary Tucker #FG8520 has been denied breakfast and lunch since 6/19/08, and not been fed at all since 6/26/08. Mr. Tucker was brutally assaulted by 5 or 6 prison guards on 1/29/08, and his efforts at pursuing a grievance in the matter were officially exhausted on 6/18/08.

Unit Manager Chambers, Correctional Officer Bankes, and Sgt. Jones have been implicated as the ringleaders of this targeted starvation. The official rationale given for depriving Mr. Tucker of his human rights--and potentially his life--is that he has been wearing a t-shirt wrapped around his head. Mr. Tucker claims to have been doing this since 2006, and other prisoners in the SMU have written to HRC that they too have wrapped t-shirts around their heads to test the policy. They still receive food.

Given the urgency of the situation we are asking that our allies and all those in solidarity with prisoners and advocates of fundamental human rights call SCI Camp HIll immediateley. Our brothers in the SMU have taken considerable risk to coordinate a letter-writing campaign on behalf of their fellow prisoner. Now it is up to us to do our part and demonstrate that their trust was well placed.

Contact SCI Camp Hill (717-737-4531) and ask for the Superintendent's Office, or ask to speak with Robert Volcheck or Unit Manager Chambers. I spoke with Volcheck last week and he claimed that prison guards feared that Mr. Tucker had concealed bodily waste within the towel wrapped around his head and was potentially planning to rush the door and jam his arm out the tiny tray slot and throw it at them. . . . Honestly, it was the most preposterous and downright stupid things I have ever heard.

When we call we should demand the following:

1-Stop Starving Gary Tucker! Give Mr. Tucker all his meals, everyday.
2-Remove Sgt. Jones and C/O Bankes from having contact with Mr. Tucker. These two were involved in the January assault, and while they need to have their employment terminated, for now let's insist that they be removed from proximity to Mr. Tucker.

Any additional questions, suggestions, or approaches are welcomed. Thanks to those who called for Michael Edwards and sent us feedback. We encourage others to send word and let us know that you called.

Solidarity,

Bret
HRC/Fed Up! Family

--
Human Rights Coalition - FedUp! Chapter
5125 Penn Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15224
412-361-3022 xt.4 hrcfedup@gmail.com
www.thomasmertoncenter.org/fedup/

An alert from the Friends and Families of Prisoners Emergency Response Network

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

Iraqi Uranium Comes thru Montreal

Print PDF

The following just out on CBC:

Uranium shipped to Montreal from Iraq in top secret mission
Last Updated: Saturday, July 5, 2008 | 7:27 PM ET Comments84Recommend54
The Associated Press

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, reached Montreal on Saturday to complete a top-secret U.S. operation.

The removal of 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake," the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."

A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased … that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," Krahn said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 9,300-hectare yellowcake site since its discovery.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way.

It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf.

Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and be within easy range of extremists.

The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.

Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.
Deal reached earlier this year

The yellowcake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that.

The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.

At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers, some leaking or weakened by corrosion, and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.

In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport.

Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried on 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.

On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal.

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast.

Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST

An Historic Non-Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted

Print PDF

An excellent response to Prime Minister Harper's recent "apology" to Indigenous people on behalf of the canadian state:

An Historic Non-Apology, Completely and Utterly Not Accepted

The Maze of Rhetoric

We hope our title is sufficiently unequivocal to convey our reaction to the events of Wednesday June 11, 2008. Maybe by example we can show how one must approach issues which require the utmost clarity. On the other hand, this probably won’t work, especially when it’s clear the predominant intention behind a communication is to obscure. Whatever… in any event, for us, sitting on a spiky metal fence is uncomfortable posture.

We listened with attention to what Stephen Harper had to say yesterday, and we did not hear what we needed to hear. Instead, again we watched and heard one more opportunity being thrown away, this one with more ceremony than those preceding it. We watched and heard the studious avoidance of truth, in what we can only regard as the hope that the repetition of a lie will somehow substitute for reality, a concept now reduced to another mantra (as is nowadays the case for, for example, “truth” or “reconciliation”).

To those surprised or appalled by our reaction, or to people who simply have no idea that there’s an issue here at all, let us begin by pointing to at least a few of the facts we had to keep in mind when listening to the statement of the current head of a political process that has, since it origin (Confederation in 1867), had the elimination of aboriginal peoples as its consistent policy:

(1) the “settler” population of Canada has had, from the point of its inception, a qualitatively different relation with indigenous peoples than the remote colonial bureaucracy that preceded it: for England, the Indian Nations were allies (who, arguably, saved Canada on more than one occasion); for the newly-formed Dominion of Canada, they were impediments to expansion, like swamps and vermin. However, in the transfer of authority, the Dominion was honor-bound to respect them, their rights, and their historical status.

(2) with legal and ethical limits placed upon their treatment of indigenous nations (so that, for example, the Dominion couldn’t just set out to slaughter them all, as became the policy in the United States), tactics had to be adopted that had the effect of extermination without giving its appearance (and the British empire had many models to emulate, particularly Tasmania). A simple but accurate characterization of the array of government programs, policies, and laws aimed at indigenous peoples and nations, then, is that they were a range of “carrots” and “sticks” deployed to turn those of us (if any) who survived these artifices from “Indians” into “Canadians” (or, after the era of multiculturalism began, “Indian-Canadians”). Residential school was only one of those programs, one that was heavy on the “stick” and light on the “carrot.”

(3) church officials and government officials have, from time to time since the mid-1980’s, offered what they (and others) have characterized as “apologies.” These have not been apologies. An apology is not made an apology by the person offering it saying it is an apology; it is only an apology when those who have been offered it accept it as an apology. The fact that the rhetoric of pseudo-apologies has become more twisted as time has gone on should make all of us vigilant against immediately accepting what sounds like an apology without careful examination of exactly what was said, how it was said, and what was not said. And repetition is not an argument.

So, what happened Wednesday afternoon? Stephen Harper described the history of actions undertaken by the government of Canada against the children of indigenous peoples, specifically, their forcible removal from their families and communities and their placement under the unsupervised control of four major Canadian churches. Various aspects of these actions, characterized as “abuse” (including physical, mental, and sexual abuse), were enumerated, followed by variations on the refrain of “for this, we apologize” (or “we are sorry”) and “we were wrong” (or “this should never have happened”). That it happened was attributed to bad, arrogant attitudes of superiority. Finally, when mention was made concerning where “we” go from here, the upcoming work of the so-called “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” was proffered as the most appropriate forum. Afterwards, this performance was, by-and-large, repeated by the leaders of the other political parties.

The presentation was offered with every indication of honesty and sincerity. We do not doubt the honesty of what was said, for reasons we will give below. But for those who take honesty as evidence of truth, it would be good to remember what Marx once said: “The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Groucho Marx, that is.

So what’s our problem? Actually, we have several: we did not hear an apology, we dispute characterizations that were made, and we do not believe the putative mechanism of resolution (the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”) will resolve anything useful.

An apology has at least three characteristics (some people will say there are more, some will list more specific traits… this doesn’t matter for present purposes). The absence of any of these three characteristics immediately disqualifies a statement as an apology: a sincere expression of remorse for the behavior, the promise never to repeat the behavior, and the undertaking to undo, as far as possible, the damage done by the behavior.

“Well,” we hear some say, “the first conditions was obviously met… we all heard Mr. Harper recount a comprehensive list of offenses, halting at each one and saying ‘Canada apologizes’ and ‘it was wrong,’ didn’t we?”

Suppose, after beating his wife to the point of hospitalizing her, a man attempted to make amends in the following manner: “I’m sorry I gave you a black eye… it was wrong; I’m sorry I chipped your teeth… it never should have happened; I apologize for breaking your arm… it never should have happened; I apologize for bruising your ribs… it was wrong;” and so on.

Does this sound odd to you? It does to us. Why would anyone choose to express his remorse in such a fashion? In “apologizing” to his wife, has the man adopted this manner of speaking, perhaps, to be more thorough (the list could go on and on…)? We think not. In this instance, the specificity of the list helps him avoid saying something, something more comprehensive, something more general, but in this case, something much more accurate: “I’m sorry I physically assaulted you. It was a criminal action on my part.”

We don’t believe Prime Minister Harper adopted this obscurantist form of address to be more comprehensive; we believe he did so to avoid saying I’m sorry the Canadian government committed genocide against you. It was a criminal action on our part.

(Of course, Mr. Harper was unauthorized to avoid saying something similar on behalf of the churches; they’ve been doing their own artful dodging for years.)

Consequently, if we’re right the sincerity of what was said evaporates as an apology for residential schooling. Thus it was no apology at all, but bluff and continued evasion. We believe he said what he said honestly; that is, that he sincerely believed in what he was saying, but only because, for the governments and individuals he was representing (past and present), he had to craft an evasive statement that he could, in all sincerity, endorse. Did Mr. Harper, all on his own, come up with this muddied, tortured declaration right off the cuff, or perhaps just a few minutes before he came down the stairs with his escorts in tow? Well, since Indian Affairs Minister Strahl has been telling us for weeks now what Harper was going to say, we doubt it. We also doubt that the Conservative party didn’t have a team of lawyers, rhetoricians, and spin doctors, if not writing the statement, at least agonizing over every phrase, every word, every revelation in the evolving document, considering in detail every implication and weighing each possible consequence. Someone was even counting the number of words. No, what we saw was carefully considered, and when such a carefully prepared and comprehensively vetted document does some things (and not others) it is no accident.

So then, is our “belief” about what Mr. Harper was evading correct? We had no trouble seeing through the Prime Minister’s tortured prose because we’re well aware of related issues (such as the ones we began this essay with) that are no part of what the average Canadian is supposed to know and what government and church officials know all too well: the United Nations Genocide Convention and Canada’s role in it.

Take a moment and judge for yourself: go online (if you’re not online already) and find the text of the UN Genocide Convention. If you know anything about the internet you’ll have no trouble finding it; we give the text of Article II below:
Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Many of you will be reading this for the first time. You aren’t supposed to be reading it at all. We call attention to sections (b) and, especially, (e), which we call the “Slam Dunk.” If pressed we’d be willing to argue the entire list, but we don’t have to: the Article says any, not all. Even Mr. Harper in his statement comes perilously close to the Slam Dunk a couple of times:

“…very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes…”

and

“…it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this.”

Was he, in subconscious guilt, aping a phrase he had read a million times before with the understanding he must avoid it at all costs? … or, perhaps, intentionally teetering along the edge of a precipice, in order to mock the dozen or so of us who were waiting to see if he used the correct word? We don’t know. He creeps into another neighborhood (b) once again when he mentions:

“…emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children…”

but that’s as close as he gets to any of the other categories of acts constituting genocide in international law. It isn’t crucial, however; we already have the Slam Dunk.

Well, isn’t there some way around this… this… embarrassing fact? No. One of the contributors to the current document wrote a book 14 years ago that established the genocide that was Indian residential schooling, and the absence of ways around it was thoroughly dealt with there. However, no one read it then and no one is going to read it now (although it’s still available in print form, and free on the internet at www.nativestudies.org), particularly when we’ve gone and spoiled the ending for everyone.

But then, is there no “responsible” authority (not just a dozen or so Indians, and worse, Indian-lovers, who can read and add and reason) who can tell you, our present readership, whether our “interpretation” is right or wrong? (Over the years, time and again, work on this issue has been slighted by phrases like “X believes that the residential schools were genocide,” or “In X’s opinion, Canada and the churches are guilty of genocide,” like it was some disputable quirk on X’s part that is at issue. Well, it’s the United Nations “opinion,” as expressed in the black-and-white of the Convention, that Canada and the churches committed genocide, and the UN is the body that in 1948 got to say what genocide was.) Okay. In support of our “interpretation,” we call what all must agree is a “responsible” authority… the government of Canada.

Also available on the above web site is a paper that provides more detail and references concerning Canada’s disreputable collusion with the United States in gutting a form of the genocide convention that would have been much more explicit with respect to the point we’re making. The current convention is a watered-down version of the proposals of Raphael Lemkin (the man who coined the term “genocide” in 1944), but even watered down it is sufficient. So sufficient that, when it came time to implement the Genocide Convention in Canada’s criminal code (which was what each nation of the United Nations was supposed to do), Canada omitted entire subsections of the UN Convention (by 1970, (b), (d), and (e) were gone, Canada telling anyone who asked that the laws against murder and manslaughter already banned genocide – reducing genocide, as they discussed in the early 50’s, to outright killing). No less an authority than eventual Prime Minister Lester Pearson had suggested that surgery had to be performed on the UN Genocide Convention, or otherwise Canada and its churches would be in violation of it… and, for heavens’ sake, Indians might someday learn to read!

It’s true that even the Convention as articulated provided sufficient wiggle room to allow countries to adopt modified versions of it. But, as remarked by a commentator who first encountered the Convention last Wednesday, Canada’s excisions and elisions betoken a guilty conscience about what it had been up to. After all, this is what the US, with Canada’s aid, had forced through the conference dealing with this particular issue, and if it was good enough in principle for everyone else in the world, why was it inappropriate for Canada?

Finally, sometime in the late 1990’s, Canada quietly, surreptitiously, and without ceremony removed genocide as a chargeable offense from its criminal code, leaving mention of it now solely in the provisions against hate crimes.

We find it interesting how closely the vaporization of genocide in Canadian law coincided with rising consciousness in Native America on the distance between what international law said and what governments had done, and with a government-commissioned secret study that warned the Chrétien government that Canada was liable with respect to the “genocide issue” and recommended it bite the bullet and ‘fess up. As always, Canada provided itself with some explanatory “wiggle room” about why they did what they did, but we would certainly like to ask some direct questions of the officials involved, as well as examine documents and internal correspondence on these subjects (but see below). But, to summarize in a fashion both short and blunt, the history of Canada’s involvement in the creation and implementation of genocide law, nationally and internationally, betokens an overriding concern with its culpability and liability with respect to its treatment of indigenous peoples in general, and its operation of Indian residential schools in particular.

So, Canada itself agrees that our reading of the UN Genocide Convention is correct, and that it accurately characterizes its behavior towards Native Peoples.

Okay, you might say, Canada’s behavior is at variance with international genocide law… but didn’t implementing what they did, however maimed and deformed, into Canadian law remove all future problems? After all, aren’t their actions simply a version of what the United States, also worried about the possibility of being charged with genocide, undertook… adopting a limited version of the Convention, finally, at the end of the Regan administration, and then subjecting it to interpretation by American courts?

It’s true it was pure evasion, but it isn’t true that it lets Canada off any hook. Apart from the “guilty conscious” their behavior evidences, putting aside any question of legal liability that might or might not be attached, and forgoing any discussion of what jurists have long ago established concerning the priority of international law (e.g., that countries and government officials can’t exempt themselves from accountability to international law); instead of all that, just ask yourself: was it merely the failure of the corrupt powers of Rwanda (or Slobodan Milosevic) to exempt themselves (or himself) from the Genocide Convention that got them (or him) into trouble? Suppose the Genocide Convention was in force during the Holocaust… would Hitler’s declaring himself and his chums “immune” have rendered it inoperative? Is that the length the average Canadian is willing to have her or his government go to avoid having to deal with its genocide of indigenous peoples?

It has taken us some time, but Mr. Harper’s statement:

“…it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this.”

…must be amended to say:

“…it was wrong for the government of Canada to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this. And it was a crime.”

Bank robbers, thieves, drunk drivers… all criminals, in fact… don’t get to erase their crimes by saying “I’m sorry,” regardless of how sincerely they might say it.

Genocide on the Table

A television snippet from country-wide reaction on Wednesday featured Diane Blair crying out “It was genocide! Why not just admit it?!”

A fair question, and one well-put. As we have seen, Mr. Harper could have used the term, and it was a deliberate act not to. What motivated him? Without too much thought we can see several reasons, grounds sufficient for us to have anticipated long before Wednesday’s circus that what we weren’t going to hear would be a genuine apology. To answer the woman’s question, first, keep on reading the Convention; immediately you will find:
Art. 3. The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Art. 4. Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
So we have Reason 1: rulers, public officials, and private individuals, criminals all, prefer to avoid being punished for their actions. It is very common, we think, for criminals to not want to be punished. In most cases, however, and unlike the case under consideration (i.e., the Indian residential schools), criminals are not in charge of the political, economic, legal, and journalistic controls of a nation. Journalistic control, of course, is particularly necessary if one is going to maintain the manufactured ignorance of multiple millions of Canadians.
Reason 2: Canada has held other nations accountable to a standard of international law that it has itself evaded. That is hypocrisy. Canada wants to complain to China about its human rights abuses; it does not want its own abuses thrown back into its face.
Reason 3: Assaults, rapes, and every other form of abuse expire in national law, perhaps even in international law, according to their Statute of Limitation. Genocide has no Statute of Limitation.

Reason 4: Canada presents itself as a good world citizen, a paragon of virtue. However, a country that bears comparison with Nazi Germany is a paragon of virtue like Charles Manson is a boy scout leader.

Reason 5: Speaking like a psychologist for a moment, abusers frequently tell themselves they have good grounds for the abuses they perpetrate. Often they repeat the lie to themselves with such regularity that they come to believe it.

Reason 6: This is a reason the head of the United Church gave us in a public meeting in 2002: “genocide” is such a harsh word that the membership of his church would be upset by its use, however appropriate. Thus, it’s better to perform genocide than give it its proper name. So perhaps Canada is similarly just thinking about the tender sensibilities of its real citizens, and not those of its pseudo-citizens against whom the genocide was implemented.

Reason 7: The lengths Canada has gone (first, to limit the definition of genocide, and second, to obstruct every way there might have been for indigenous peoples to even raise it as an issue) shows the fear that, if the governments and churches show “weakness,” Indians will treat them with the same rapacity Westerners show weaknesses detected in one another. That is, that Indians will behave like Westerners (the irony that this transformation is what the residential schools were trying to institute has not escaped our notice). It is to our credit that there is no evidence at all that we would behave in such an inhuman manner. More than for any other reason, the moves that have been made toward litigation have been motivated by the government and churches closing off any other ways of seeking redress. From the beginning, all the survivors wanted was a genuine apology, along the criteria we’ve mentioned at the beginning of this commentary.

Reason 8: For us, Reason 1 and its first cousin, Reason 7 are is the overriding motivations behind avoiding the word “genocide.” But it takes not a moments reflection to appreciate that, once “genocide” is on the table, its application across the entire range of policies and programs affecting Native Peoples, historically and contemporaneously, must be considered.

Let’s briefly look at some specific cases in light of Reason 8. So; how well does “genocide” fit the various incentives manufactured over the years for Indians to enfranchise themselves or to be enfranchised? Perfectly, we think. So; how descriptive is “genocide” concerning the 60’s and 70’s Scoops, where uncounted numbers of indigenous children were adopted out, some overseas, to non-Native foster parents? Flawlessly, in our opinion. (Sterilization? Who said that?) Or, can “genocide” accurately characterize the current status of suicide in aboriginal communities? It can and it does, we would argue.

And on and on. Maybe some of you would prefer to argue the point, but that’s our point: the Indian residential schools were not isolated idiosyncrasies of a few members of a governmental department or two. Genocides involve a host of interrelated and interwoven policies and programs, the understanding of which requires sustained effort and the application of all 5 of the specific headings given under Article II. The Nazis, for goodness’ sake, made it illegal for Jews to own parrots!

Bringing genocide to the table would take the churches, but more centrally the government of Canada, into the exhaustive examination of additional regions of its policies and programs with respect to indigenous peoples, regions that, up until now, it has successfully avoided (or at least, as it is now trying to do with residential school, managed to isolate from other policies). And, what is perhaps even more important, establishing that Canada’s policies toward indigenous peoples constitute an historic and ongoing genocide rules out Mr. Harper’s statement as an apology, since such would violate the second feature of a genuine apology; someone who is still doing it can’t be promising not to do it again.

If Genocide, Why?

So far we have only dealt with why what Mr. Harper said on Wednesday was not an apology (to summarize, he meticulously avoided using the proper term “genocide” to characterize Canada’s actions, thereby impugning the sincerity with which he had worked so hard to infuse his words). But at the outset we objected to more than the non-apologetic nature of his statement; we took exception with characterizations he made of the actions of the churches and governments.

We don’t dispute his repeated assertions that “it was wrong.” For us, this was a no-brainer: genocide is wrong. Mr. Harper’s pathetic attempt to insinuate mitigating circumstances (“While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools…”), another evasion which disqualifies his statement as an apology (just try to apologize for killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol by saying “I always do silly things when I’m drunk”), also boomerangs when we consider the irrelevance of the specifics of a genocide to decide upon its “wrongness.” After all, some Jews learned a useful trade working as slave labor in concentration camps; some made new friends; many lost weight; and some even had their metabolisms re-set, so that they were able to maintain a healthy weight for the rest of their lives! But when you make the moral decision that genocide is wrong, you don’t have to listen to sophistry that tries to turn the task of making moral judgments into an accounting of the “goods” and “bads” of a particular program.

There are numerous other places we could be picayune. Calling residential schools “educational institutions” grated on us, for example. But in at least one more point the presentation descended much too far into pure fiction for us to leave it uncommented. With genocide now revealed as the accurate term to characterize the governments’ and the churches’ actions, the question of why arises. Even Mr. Harper, in evading the issue of genocide, still felt compelled to provide his listeners with an historical vignette of the underlying cause of creation and operation of the schools:

“Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption that aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal.”

There you have it; the objective was to assimilate Indians, because we were believed to have inferior cultures (spiritual beliefs are an expression of culture, and thus redundantly included in Mr. Harper’s statement). This was “wrong,” “caused great harm,” and has “no place in our country.”

We have no doubt about the “great harm” part of his statement; however, you should notice how it leaves the agents of all this misery unnamed. It was “the residential school system” that had objectives (and not people working for the churches and governments), and the “inferiority assumption” apparently just hung in mid-air during the years of operation of residential schools, unattached to anything identifiable as a human being wearing a frock or business suit.

Are things any better when we supply warm bodies to this dodge? Well, inserting human beings into all this would at least make explicit that it was people who had the objectives of (1) removing Indian children from their forms of life and (2) insinuating them into mainstream culture, and that people had the (now more obviously racist) assumption that Indians were inferior. So now, our agreeing that this was “wrong” allows us to encapsulate and restate this part of Mr. Harper’s little history lesson into “people did harmful things to Indians because those people were racists.”

But anyone who thinks we are satisfied with this rendering is much too used to bad movie scripts, where bad people do bad things because they are bad. As if the clergy and governmental officials responsible were all wearing black hats. Life is not so simple.

First, the image that in Indian residential schools an “inferior” culture was being replaced with a “superior” culture (which thinking, thanks to the P. M., we now know has “no place” in Canada) is simply wrong. Indian children were not being taught to drink tea with their pinkies extended, speak with an affected English accent, or appreciate poetry and opera; they were being taught to perform as menials (domestics, farm hands, cooks, etc.) for members of the superior culture (and even the not-so-elevated members of that culture). If they were expected to learn anything in residential schools, it was to learn their place; to perform, without question and with dispatch, the commands of their betters. If this was assimilation into “dominant culture” it was into its lowest, most wretched, most disposable stratum, where the inhabitants moiled to eke out a marginal existence. It was alright that these serfs would be Indians; after all, our “betters” have never really concerned themselves with the color of their peons.

Second, attributing this all to “the racists” (who, thank heaven, no longer have a place in Canada) erects a faceless, nameless straw man we’re all supposed to take a turn at pummeling. But this piece of misdirection insinuates that ideology determines actions, rather than actions determining ideology. This is too big a subject to go into here, but ideologies of race, race inferiority, and sub-humanity arise from the material needs to dispossess and expropriate, and not vice versa. Canada’s wealth has arisen from the willingness of the settler society to simply take what they want from indigenous populations (just ask the Lubicon, the Cree of Northern Quebec, and the Labrador Innu, for recent examples). It’s in casting about for some excuse to justify satisfying a material agenda that Canadians have had to create and then invoked the non-humanity of the real owners of Canada.

Consequently, holding anonymous racists responsible for the woes of Indians and assuring us they no longer abide here is nothing but additional falsification on a heroic level. For banishing faceless and nameless spirits to some vasty deep does no such thing as long as the material need to do away with Indian rights and claims continues to abide here. Thus Mr. Harper’s history lesson is nothing more than another kind of bribe… like the forthcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission. “Just let us insinuate a comic-book version of Canada,” it says. “We don’t have to name the ghosts in the story; we all know who they were anyway. We’ll just pretend they’re all gone now, so you can sleep better at nights. And we get to pretend there’s a clean and complete split with this admittedly reprehensible past.” But the past is present, and it seems, the future.

Resolving Anything Useful?

For a “clean break” the events of Wednesday leave an enormous number of loose ends (some thicker than the Atlantic Cable) flailing around, at least for us. Even several of the leaders of the other political parties, in their responses to Mr. Harper’s statement, noted on Wednesday that it was short on detail. That may be true; however, directly by Mr. Harper’s words and indirectly by implication the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been accorded the task of sorting out the remaining specifics.

Is it up to the task? Not even in the cartoon world Mr. Harper has created, much less in the real world.

As already mentioned the statement not only said things we dispute, it left unmentioned a host of issues we needed to see addressed. Let’s run through a few of the omissions:

(1) Genocide. Is the commission going to bring this up? And so what if it does? Canada has already demonstrated it will simply ignore the charge if it’s made, and has been careful to eliminate any possibility of treating the matter in a serious way. Minister Strahl, for example, stated repeatedly in the run-up to Wednesday that nothing Mr. Harper would say would prohibit an ongoing, aggressive investigation into crimes associated with the residential school. But he knew, as we did, that the central crime had already been removed from consideration. Even if Indian after Indian stands before the commission and charges genocide, nothing will happen about it. Most of all, such repetition will only dispose the “average” Canadian, who is supposed to be getting an education on these things, into the familiar stupor of “there go those damned Indians again, always complaining about something.”

(2) The Cover-Ups. Once “wrongs” are correctly identified as “crimes,” can anyone else see that Canada and its churches have been covering up the crimes of the residential schools for quite some time now? The pattern of responding to charges made by former prisoners of Indian residential schools was predictable and familiar: stonewall, then impugn the testimony and motives of the victims (“those troublemakers just like to make noise, or they’re looking for another handout”), then admit that maybe, just maybe there was a “bad apple” here and there in a gigantic barrel of nice apples (“some bad things may have happened, but it was all done with the best of intentions”), then throw a sacrifice (preferably one already dead) to a dissatisfied and growing crowd of lawyers, and then go back to stonewalling (“Hey, enough already! The issue has been settled!”).

Canada and the churches have worked long and hard to avoid admitting anything (in 1998 it was estimated that the Anglican Church, for one, had spent the overwhelming bulk of their budget for dealing with residential schooling on advice from publicity agencies), much less general and specific criminal acts. As anyone paying attention could probably guess, here the government has long ago moved to limit its own possible damages from colluding in knowingly hiding crimes and hindering investigations, so that, for example, while it’s illegal in Canada to destroy documents needed for criminal investigations the people who do the destroying can’t be charged with anything (the “Naughty-Naughty” Principle).

But the churches have long looked out for their own, with known pedophiles in their ranks given a “time out” and then transferred to a new assignment without the inconvenience of having to face a criminal charge. By the way, isn’t this what Becket and King Henry were arguing about back in the 13th century? Eventually, didn’t English law come down on Henry’s side? We have to agree with Henry on this one.

The victims of abuse at residential schools have had to endure not only the original abuse, but the vituperation and calumny of criminals and those assisting criminals in evading disclosure and prosecution. And, for parliamentarians and bureaucrats, even if they’ve removed themselves from the possibility of formal criminal charges under the existing criminal code, justice demands an accounting and acknowledgement of the cover-up as much as it demands them of the original crimes.

(3) The Secret Histories. Attention has been focused so much on church and governmental abuses that there is a clear and present danger that an additional unknown number of malefactors will slip through the cracks. It has already been acknowledged that, for example, in the 50’s the Canadian Medical Association asked for, and received, permission to study the distribution and growth of tuberculosis in “human” populations by giving unpasteurized milk to the children in residential schools. Around the same time, the Canadian Dental Association asked for, and received, permission to study the lifelong development and growth of caries (tooth decay) in “human” populations by giving “sham treatments” to Indian children in residential schools. Here, not only are the people who “authorized” these child abuses culpable, so are the people who ask for them. Both these cases, of course, took place long after the Nuremburg Protocols for ethical research with human beings had been articulated and accepted.

Nor does it end here. The notorious Dr. Cameron, who, while in the pay of the Central Intelligence Agency, used electroshock and mind-altering drugs to experiment on innocent Canadians (a chapter in Canadian history immortalized, so to speak, in a CBC movie), also had some kind of involvement with Indian residential schools, mainly in the Prairie provinces. Rumors abound (since at least the early 90’s), but there has never been enough hard evidence to sustain charges. Doesn’t this bear investigation?

In fact, with a captive population and a supervening authority at best indifferent to their well-being and without any mechanism of complaint or due process available to the victims, what could not have happened? On this subject our imaginations have already been far outstripped by what everyone admits actually did happen; what a broadly-thrown finely-gauged net might dredge up is, in our opinion, anybody’s guess. The (now, finally, at last) movement to start digging in church graveyards and remote, unmarked locations is merely the tip of an iceberg, one that could well nail, even for those Canadians at the utmost levels of denial, the concept of genocide to Canada’s treatment of indigenous peoples.

There’s more (Sterilization? Who said that?), but this is enough for now. These three loose ends, rather than “details” that can be dealt with summarily, are, we predict, Hydra’s Heads that will sprout hundreds or even thousands of additional inquiries if pursued with due diligence. We have a number of problems with the upstart commission, but our question here is: Is the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” equal to this task?

This commission can (1) subpoena no witnesses, (2) compel no testimony, (3) requisition no document. It cannot find, charge, fine, or imprison. Thus far, the only ones lining up to testify are members of groups who have already testified (the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples generated thousands of pages of testimony from school survivors, a corpus, we must add, that has not in the slightest way entered into the consciousness of the average Canadian in the 12 years since its publication) and those who still maintain sufficient plausible deniability to publicly defend its inactions (the RCMP, for example). Those most obviously culpable have already stated their intentions not to bother showing up.

Will, somehow, the victims of residential schooling show up dragging bales of documents proving abusive actions, abusive policies, collusion, cover-ups, etc. on the part of ministers, bureaucrats, clergy, professors, bag-men, pedophiles, and the full host of assorted miscreants? They’d better, for the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” won’t have them.

Or maybe we just need to pray for our own version of a governmental or ecclesiastical “Valachi,” who will show up and rat out the Dons, all the way up to and including the Capo de Tutti Capi. However, not only is this an extremely thin thread upon which to hang our hopes for truth (and more importantly, JUSTICE); what “witness protection program” is going to protect him or her?

“Truth” is an odd name for a body that can trade not at all in that particular commodity. “Reconciliation,” too, is an odd word for five years of allegations that can be either scorned or ignored, according to the tastes of those who are its subject. It invokes the same fantasy world Mr. Harper constructed, where Canadian and indigenous peoples are returned to that happy state of mutual respect and cooperation that existed before the bad old residential schools came along and ruined everything. In “truth,” however, there never has been any “conciliation” to “re.”

Conclusions

We don’t know about you, but we’ve been unable to swing a dead cat since Wednesday without whacking someone telling us about how the “apology” has “closed a painful chapter” and signals “a new beginning in relations” between “Canadians and Indian-Canadians” (sic). Like someone tearing apart a picture of a former boyfriend or girlfriend, spitting on it, and walking away from the pieces tossed over the shoulder, however, we’ve been witnessing a made-up ceremony, one where the participants, for various reasons, are trying more to convince themselves they’ve dealt with all the serious issues rather than actually putting an end to them.

Canada has, once again, missed a truly historic opportunity, putting paste on display rather than an authentic diamond, because the diamond, in someone’s estimation, would have been far too expensive. Already, after the patina of ceremony has worn off, there have been some rumblings, primarily around the fact the Mr. Harper’s statement was long on being sorry and short on being active. And as we pointed out at the start, a real apology promises to undo, as far as possible, the damage done. But now that the statement is revealed as just another evasion, we must caution against whatever action the governments of Canada would propose; as we’ve tried to make clear, the “action” Mr. Harper’s statement endorses, the “Truth” and “Reconciliation” Commission, is no action at all. And someone who steals your car, wrecks it, and is unrepentant about his/her actions is most definitely not the person you’d choose to repair it or replace it.

But that person most certainly at the very least would be responsible to pay the costs of repair or replacement. If this be genocide, the role of Canada’s government (and churches) is to make it possible for us to once again make ourselves whole, nothing more and nothing less. How should we do this, how long it will take us, where do we start… these questions and more crowd in on us all. But they are questions we must identify, discuss, and answer ourselves.

Those of you who saw clearly and immediately the farce that was being played out; those of you who felt in your heart of hearts that the whole orchestration was out of tune but couldn’t identify the offending instruments until now; and those of you who were misled until you brought the powers of your own intellect to the examination of this exercise in rhetorical excess; whatever your history is that led you to complete this overlong commentary; we invite you to join in the task of building what ultimately must replace this charade, some kind of response authentically committed to truth in this history and justice in its resolution.

Roland Chrisjohn
Andrea Bear Nicholas
Karen Stote
James Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi)
Tanya Wasacase
Pierre Loiselle
Andrea O. Smith

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST

COLLAPSE POST