March 21, 2015 - No. 12

Bill C-51, Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

Private Interests Dictate State Policy on Matters of Security

Bill C-51, Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

Private Interests Dictate State Policy on
Matters of Security

In reviewing the examples of rampant criminality among the police, intelligence service and state agencies reported since the government introduced Bill C-51 on January 30, it is apparent that private interests are dictating state policy on matters of security. TML Weekly thinks that this is an important aspect for people to investigate as they continue to oppose the bill and the government's agenda. The neo-liberal restructuring of the state brought monopoly right to the fore and the old mechanisms of a public authority have been smashed.

Bill C-51 itself marks a departure from the existing practices in Canada as regards the rule of law. This was pointed out in the testimony of University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hearings on the bill:

"The current proposal is a breathtaking rupture with fundamental precepts of our democratic system," he said. "For the first time, judges are being asked to bless in advance a violation of our Charter rights, in a secret hearing, not subject to appeal, and with only the government side represented. There is no analogy to search warrants -- those are designed to ensure compliance with the Charter. What the government proposes is a 'constitutional breach warrant.'"

Writing for the Vancouver Observer, Warren Bell goes further and says that before the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was created, "the McDonald Commission, whose reports led to [its creation], firmly and repeatedly resisted pressures to infringe on Canadians' civil rights."

There had been an interest that things should be done within the rule of law, even violations of rights. Under the Harper government the rule of law has been overthrown and replaced with private interests. This explains why the government is barrelling ahead with Bill C-51 despite near-unanimous opposition from the public, experts, media, lawyers, organizations, former prime ministers and other officials and sitting premiers and everyone who was part of the old civil society. The government's interest is not to uphold the old concept of balance between security and rights which was also held by the McDonald commission but to make sure that private interests can dictate.

Recent media reports on RCMP and CSIS activity against the people reveal what is taking place before Bills C-44 and C-51 are even passed and foreshadow worse to come.

A CBC report on March 12 explained that Simon Fraser University health sciences professor Tim Takaro was harassed by RCMP who were able to call him on his daughter's unlisted cell phone. A few days before, he explained, he had been hiking on Burnaby Mountain and had taken photos "near the site of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline." He was informed by RCMP that they knew he had previously participated in protest rallies. Takaro was on Crown land and the RCMP was not responding to any allegation of lawbreaking but simply to Kinder Morgan's monopoly right over the state security apparatus and its private dictate that they did not want any photos taken. The CBC also reported that a 71-year-old woman was questioned on the same basis last September.

On March 18 APTN National News reported on the extensive information sharing on First Nations' political activity between Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and CSIS and the RCMP as well as the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC). In the lead-up to December 2012 demonstrations under the Idle No More banner, a government memo revealed that the "(Government Operations Centre (GOC)) has consulted with ITAC, RCMP, AANDC, (Transport Canada) and (Public Safety) Communications." The GOC is described as a "federal nerve-centre created to deal with threats of a national scale."

The documents obtained by APTN also reveal monitoring of online discussions about the demonstration which were shared between agencies and used to spread the notion that the actions posed a "threat of violence."

Another article the same day describes in more detail the activities of the GOC. In a spring 2014 "risk forecast" prepared for deputy ministers' committees on resources and energy the GOC warned, "A growing geographic reach and an apparent increase in protests that target infrastructure such as rail lines are also boosting the impact of demonstrations," the Canadian Press reports. Meetings were held to "plan for protests that might happen in response to resource development decisions on projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline."

Denying the objective basis of change, development and motion, the GOC analysis says that the increased resistance of Canadians to the anti-social offensive is driven by the "notoriety and success" of protest movements in Canada and other countries. The analysis does say that individual protests which were previously not monitored "are now noted" due to their potential to spread. The major concern expressed throughout is that demonstrations and other political activity will interfere in the exercise of monopoly right by energy and resource monopolies.

A Canadian Press article on March 17 detailed CSIS' role prior to the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline in providing "assessments" of opposition to the project, treating it as a national security matter.

Meanwhile the Canadian government requested information on 388 Facebook users in 2014, requests the social media company complied with in 53 per cent of cases, CTV News reported on March 16. The independent news website Blacklock's Reporter on March 19 detailed claims that CSIS engages in "regular dialogue" with major banks in Canada and is able to monitor Canadians' bank accounts without warrants.

Another report reveals that the RCMP activities and "dirty tricks," which the McDonald Commission was struck to investigate, are very much ongoing. A March 19 article in VICE reported that an RCMP sting operation involving political activists in Sherbrooke, Quebec had agents and an informer attempt to lure an activist into committing hijackings and bombings. The sting campaign, which was said to be related to an investigation into an earlier bomb detonation, involved the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET), comprised of RCMP and CSIS agents.

Another matter entirely is the highly questionable activity of CSIS overseas. Turkish media reports appeared in Canada on March 12 indicating that a CSIS agent (paid asset) who had previously lived in Ottawa was responsible for trafficking individuals, including minors from Britain, into ISIS-held areas of Syria. It was subsequently reported that this individual had Canadian-issued equipment and also worked with Canadian spies operating out of Canada's embassy in Jordan, run by former RCMP officer and security detail for Prime Minister Harper Bruno Saccomani. The agent stated that he had been promised Canadian citizenship in exchange for his work for CSIS. The Globe and Mail reported that he claimed to have helped at least a dozen people cross into Syria and supplied a range of information to the Canadian embassy. His travel was paid for by Canada and he claimed to have reported to individuals named "Matt" and "Claude." These activities bring to mind the police sting operations in the U.S. and Canada which fund and organize terrorism in the name of combatting terrorism.

Investigative reporter Andrew Mitrovica remarked on iPolitics that "Ottawa's tepid statements on this matter read like classic non-denial denials, leading many to conclude that CSIS may have gotten caught -- again -- up to its old tricks."

One feature of Bill C-44, Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act and Bill C-51, Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 is that they authorize CSIS to conduct foreign operations "without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state." CSIS' activities, including its connections to ISIS, certainly violate the laws of the states in which they are operating, despite the bills not yet having come into law. In the House of Commons and Senate debates on Bill C-44 ministers and Conservative Senators have indicated that the bill aims to bring the law into line with existing practices. Aspects of Bill C-51 also seem to correspond to practices already underway.

The rampant criminality of security forces even before Bills C-44 and C-51 have passed indicate what horrors may follow. As was pointed out by Craig Forcese in his committee testimony and his website National Security Law, writing violations of the law directly into the law is unprecedented and a breach of existing legal practices. The danger of the government changing the law to bring it in line with these "existing practices" is that these police agencies act with impunity when their practices do not correspond to laws and that with additional powers and no public authority to answer to they will continue to go further.

These powers are already being wielded against the movements of the working class and people opposing monopoly right, the First Nations exercising their rights and sovereignty, the people of Quebec and everyone working for change. Recent reports have revealed that the government, police and intelligence agencies are already tracking all political activity against the status quo with particular attention being paid to directly serving the private interests of the monopolies. They are doing so on a basis that equates monopoly right with national security itself.

Photos show actions in (top to bottom): Yellowknife, Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's.

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Blame the Rich and Not the People for
Racism and Racist Attacks

Sharpeville Massacre, South Africa, March 21, 1960 CALENDAR OF EVENTS

March 21 is designated as International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, marking the anniversary of the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa when South African police shot hundreds of demonstrators protesting the country's apartheid passbook laws. Sixty-seven were killed and 186 wounded. Demonstrations will be held across Canada on this day to express the people's rejection of racism and step up the struggle to defend the rights of all.

In Canada today, as in most of the "advanced" European countries, and countries where European states seized the lands of indigenous peoples -- in America, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, Palestine and elsewhere -- racism is a state policy. This state policy is to perpetuate the increased exploitation of workers from Asia, Africa and Latin America within the country, subjugate the First Nations and maintain and expand the super-exploitation and robbery of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Racism is also one of the means used by the state to divide the working class and polity in order to block them from uniting around an immediate political program against the neo-liberal agenda of the monopolies and for empowerment of the people through renewal of the democracy. The Harper government's racist attack against people from Muslim backgrounds and the right to conscience is a particular instance of this. His incitement of Islamophobia is but one of many examples throughout Canadian history that illustrate it is the wealthy oligarchy and their state that both incite racism and profit from it.

Modern racism based on "visibility" or skin colour came out of the social and property relations of European colonialism and the 16th to 19th century European slave trade. People from Africa were systematically kidnapped, enchained, and brutally transported across the Atlantic during the period of the slave trade to profit the European occupiers of Indigenous lands in the "New World," as well as merchant capital. By the end of the 19th century those Europeans enriched by their robbery of the "new" and "old" worlds of the Americas, Africa and Asia advanced their race theories as part of the rationale for a second historical period of colonization, the era of modern imperialism. The empires escalated their seizure of territories and populations in their race for raw materials, markets in which to invest capital, and military advantage points. This was done in the name of "civilizing" "lesser breeds without the law" to quote British racist-imperialist poet Rudyard Kipling, who also coined the phrase "white man's burden." 19th and 20th century imperialists like Cecil Rhodes encouraged more European migration to their respective empires while continuing to depopulate Indigenous lands, and establish apartheid-style states like South Africa, Rhodesia and still today Israel. The re-settlement of "surplus" populations also served to ease the growing class contradictions in Europe while providing North American monopolies a continuous flow of low-wage, unorganized workers.

The exploitation of European workers in Europe and on the American continent was glossed over by selling racist notions of being "superior" and "more advantaged" than workers from the oppressed and occupied lands on the basis of visibility or colour, language, religion and culture. Racism, the unscientific idea that some people are superior to others due to phylogenetic features, language or religion, was and continues to be a main ideological basis for the imperialist world system.

This racist chauvinism promoted by governments, their armies, police, educational institutions, mass media and monopoly employers overwhelmed European countries as the inter-imperialist world war erupted in 1914. Racist chauvinism, in addition to being official government policy and propaganda promoted by the media, all state institutions and employers, even corrupted leaders of workers' parties and trade unions. The betrayal of the advanced ideas from the 19th century that workers everywhere should unite to bring into being a better world through revolution and defending the rights of all enabled European oligarchs and states to incite "their" workers to massacre each other for almost five years in the First World War. This betrayal cost the lives of millions and only the Russian and German workers' revolutions broke the cycle of slaughter.

The "victorious" empires then re-divided the empires of the "vanquished," giving rise to the states in the Middle East carved out of the Ottoman Empire and laying the basis for the European settler state of Israel on Palestinian land. Racism continues to be the ideological basis of the Israeli apartheid state and Zionist project, which has always found support from the Canadian state.

Today the Harper government's extremist support of the overtly racist Netanyahu government in Israel is interwoven with its incitement of Islamophobia within Canada. It has become integral to the rationale for justifying the further entrenchment of a police state in Canada with Bill C-51.

A feature of state-organized racism today is that those who practice and incite it do so by pretending they are anti-racist and indeed the greatest defenders of democracy and human rights. This is the case whether it is Prime Minister Harper, heads of government in Europe, or even the U.S. president. Facts have their own eloquence and break through the hypocritical rhetoric. While mouthing an apology for residential schools, instruments of Canadian genocide, Harper continues to deny the need for a national inquiry into why more than 1,000 Indigenous women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada between 1980 and 2012 alone. The government continues to attack the sovereignty and inherent rights of the First Nations through racist legislation such as the First Nations Elections Act and First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

While ready to denounce anyone who supports the rights of the Palestinian nation as an "anti-Semite," Stephen Harper makes outrageously provocative statements against the "culture" of Islam as "anti-women." Canadians from coast to coast to coast have put Harper's words in their place, showing once again it is the state not the people behind racism and racist attacks.

On March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, let us single out those who promote and profit from racism in Canada and throughout the imperialist system of states -- the billionaires and monopolies, their racist states, the cartel system of political parties and the monopolized media -- and those who profit by collaborating with the racist status quo.

Blame the Rich and Their State, Not the People for Racism and Racist Attacks!
Workers and All Oppressed Peoples, Unite to Defend the Rights of All!

No to Any Attack on a Person's Right to Be --
Harper's Incitement of Islamophobia
Must Be Vigorously Opposed

Harper launched a frontal attack on the right to be during Question Period in the House of Commons on March 10. He said, "We don't allow persons to cover their face during citizenship ceremonies. Why would Canadians, contrary to their own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open, that is frankly rooted in a culture that is anti-women and that is frankly [...] unacceptable to Canadians?"

Harper uttered his male chauvinist, racist remark to justify the government's intent to appeal the February 6 decision of Federal Court in the case of Zunera Ishaq, a 29-year-old Toronto mother of three of Pakistani nationality, who had undertaken a legal challenge to the Harper government's anti-niqab edict. In the decision, Justice Keith Boswell ruled government policy to prevent women from wearing a niqab during a citizenship ceremony -- in place since 2011 -- was inconsistent with the current Citizenship Act. Justice Boswell, a recent Harper appointee, ruled that the government position that citizenship candidates "are required to remove their face coverings for the oath taking portion of the ceremony" was inconsistent with a regulation of the Act which obligates citizenship judges to "administer the oath of citizenship [...] allowing the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof."

How is this possible, Judge Boswell asked, if a policy requires citizenship candidates to "violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion?" "For instance, how could a citizenship judge afford a monk who obeys strict rules of silence the ‘greatest possible freedom' in taking the oath if he is required to betray his discipline and break his silence?"

Zunera Ishaq, a university graduate and community activist, spoke out against the government's decision and defended her right to be in a March 16 Toronto Star op-ed. "My desire to live on my own terms is also why I have chosen to challenge the government's decision to deny me citizenship unless I take off my niqab at my oath ceremony," she said. "I have taken my niqab off for security and identity reasons in every case where that's been required of me, such as when I have taken a driver's license photo or gone through airport security. I will take my niqab off again before the oath ceremony without protest so I can be properly identified. I will not take my niqab off at that same ceremony for the sole reason that someone else doesn't like it, even if that person happens to be Stephen Harper. I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and ‘save' me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me."

On March 19, CBC Radio's The Current spoke with three Muslim women as to why they wear or wore the niqab. The interviews with Shomyla Hammad of Mississauga; Rezan Mosa, a student at Western University; and Khadra Ali of Toronto, underscore how viciously Harper's Islamophobic remarks in the Parliament attack Canadians' right to be. Shomyla Hammad explained that she had migrated to Canada in 2002. With young children at home, she took up the study of her religion and in 2007 decided to wear the niqab to be closer to her god. Despite her fears of being rejected, her Muslim and non-Muslim friends totally accepted her decision. But she had to argue strenuously with her husband who felt if he walked with her, people would judge him as having forced her to wear it. She said she can get over people staring or making ignorant comments because she understands that they have no knowledge about her religion and personal commitment to her veil. Asked about Harper's remarks, she replied, "I was really sad and shocked to hear that. I really want to tell Harper that living in Canada since 2002 and wearing the hijab and niqab and being Muslim, we have never had any issues with the people. I would say he is here to corrupt the people's minds now against us. So don't do that."

Rezan Mosa said her personal decision to wear the niqab was resisted by her parents, especially her father, because they feared her being attacked for her choice of apparel. "They get scared when things happen like in Paris or Chapel Hill because people might be in an angry state and take it out on me." When asked about Harper's remarks she said, "I was born and raised in Canada and he's speaking about Canadian values. I want to relate to that because I feel I'm just as Canadian as anybody else. So his making comments about the way I dress, it just really angered me, made me feel marginalized like I don't belong here. His making those comments validates others making comments similar to those."

Khadra Ali explained she adopted the niqab at age 20. She was pleasantly surprised that co-workers and employers made no issue of it. Again of her own volition she decided not to wear it any longer because she felt it interfered with her social interactions. "I'm hoping that as Canadians we move beyond tolerance. [...] It's important that we all feel safe. It sucks that when as a Muslim woman you get targeted and feel like you're doing something wrong when you're not."

Asked about Harper's attack on the niqab she said "I was really disappointed to hear our Prime Minister say something like that. He was ill-advised. Wherever he got that information from, he got it wrong."

Among various articles written against Harper's attack are views that the government does not care about the Appeal Court's decision as it will not take place until after the election. Some writers argued Harper's primary aim was to simply create a "wedge issue" to divert the electorate and incite racism. Vancouver Sun columnist Stephen Hume wrote a column on March 16 entitled "If any country has an anti-woman culture, it's Canada." In it he cited the grim statistics of murder, sexual assault, and other attacks against women in Canada, and the fact the government refuses to establish a national inquiry on the murdered and missing Indigenous women in Canada.

On the other side, Conservative MP from Bruce Grey-Owen Sound, Larry Miller, had to apologize for his remarks on radio station CFOS in Parry Sound the day following Harper's attack on women who wear the niqab. "Frankly, if you're not willing to show your face in a ceremony that you're joining the best country in the world, then frankly [...] if you don't like that, or don't want to do that, stay the hell where you came from." His apology said these words were "inappropriate" but he still agrees with Harper's view that women must be prevented from wearing a niqab at their citizenship ceremonies.

Canadian Muslim women number 500,000. Half of them are born in Canada, and a small minority of them choose to wear the niqab. Women wearing the niqab are willing to unveil for genuine security purposes such as getting a licence or going to the airport. However, these facts are of no consequence to the Harperites. Their aim in attacking a woman's right to choose her apparel at a public citizenship ceremony is to fuel Islamophobia, divert and divide the polity.

The best rebuff to Harper's attack on the right to be is to step up the organized opposition to Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 the justification for which also bases itself on Islamophobia, and to strengthen the organized work to defeat Harper in 2015.

Government's Bogus Promotion of
Canada as a "Land of Refuge"

- Charles Boylan -

The attacks on the Muslim community that have intensified since 9-11 are not new. The Canadian state has a long history of attacking the Indigenous nations, the Quebec nation and the Métis nation and people of every single non-European national minority origin. The Canadian state has committed heinous crimes against the Chinese, Japanese and East Indians, as well as all black Canadians and people of West Indian origin, people from Africa and Latin America, the Filipino community and against many from minority religions. Despite this, it is trying erect in Ottawa a monstrosity called "Memorial to Victims of Communism -- Canada, a Land of Refuge."

The racist genocide of Indigenous nations in Canada is a continuing crime of enormous proportions in which all levels of the Canadian state and governments of all political parties are implicated. These nations, who gave refuge to many Europeans who came to their land were subject to brutal land theft by European colonialists which persists today. Also well-known is the kidnapping and imprisonment of Indigenous children in abusive "residential schools," with the rationale to "kill the Indian" in them, destroy their language and culture -- a clear act of genocide. Evidence of "medical experiments" on Indigenous children in the 1940s and 1950s have been revealed as recently as 2013. Indigenous families engaged in resistance are labeled "terrorists" by the RCMP and CSIS. Their children are taken away by the state and held under the guise of child protection until these families disavow their determination to defend Indigenous lands against monopoly encroachment. This is essentially state-organized kidnapping and ransom.

In the 1870s, to build the Canadian Pacific Railway through the mountains of British Columbia, the Canadian government contracted Chinese workers, who were abused and robbed of their pay, and many killed through unsafe conditions. Afterwards racist laws were passed to prevent them from settling in BC, including a "head tax" and other schemes through which millions of dollars were extorted from the Chinese community and used to finance infrastructure as the Canadian nation-building project under British colonialism expanded in the west.

Also in BC during that period, coal mine owners strove to set European and Asian miners at each other's throats, establishing race-based villages and camps at various mining and lumber sites throughout the province.

The 1914 incident of the ship the Komogata Maru is an example of a pre-World War One racist attack on the Indian community. The British and Canadian governments and state officials forcibly prevented Punjabi citizens of the "British Empire" aboard this ship from settling in the British colony of their choice. This was part of an attempt to contain the growing anti-colonial movement within the Indian communities of western North America.

In the 1930s workers engaged in resistance to the depression were deported back to England and other European countries. Between 1930 and 1935 more than 28,000 were deported either for political beliefs or other pretexts such as unemployment, including thousands of communists who fought for the rights of all. The eastern European Jewish community was singled out for attack, with the government of the day refusing to let Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany land in Canada.

There is also Canada's sordid history of wartime internment. During the First World War, large numbers of Ukrainian workers, many of whom espoused revolutionary ideas, were interned and forced to work on government projects, because they allegedly represented a "threat to security."

The same rationale was used to round up Japanese Canadians during World War Two and intern them in camps, with their property stolen by the state.

Right after the Second World War, the Russian Doukhobor community was singled out as "terrorists." Their children were interned in the New Denver residential school and deprived of their families.

For many decades too the African-Canadian communities in Canada have come under attack, their communities disrupted and destroyed for real estate projects -- most notably Africville in Halifax in the 1960s -- and their members discriminated against by police, governments and employers.

It is even more grotesque today for the Harperites to declare Canada a "land of refuge" when they have been organizing attacks on refugees in Canada and stoking anti-immigrant sentiment. Among other things, the government has removed refugees' access to the public health care system and established a bogus "safe countries" list to deny refugee status to those fleeing reactionary and racist violence in countries like Mexico and Hungary. Just recently Conservative MP John Williamson remarked on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), asking why "brown people" are coming to Canada. Not only does the Harper government deny people refuge in Canada, but through the TFWP and like programs, it actively engages in labour trafficking and indentured servitude that puts workers in a constant state of insecurity.

Far from showing that Canada is a land of refuge, the government has been restructuring the immigration system with measures such as the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital Pilot Program which turns the possibility of putting down roots in Canada into a privilege for the rich.

In all these attacks on specific communities in Canada, the state and monopoly media, together with a host of sycophants repeat a huge lie that it is the Canadian people who are racist or xenophobic, or have a "limited tolerance" for people with "novel and distinctive features." It is the state, they say, which has generously given "refuge." Quite the opposite is the case. The working class of Canada is comprised of persons from many national backgrounds. By its very nature, it has decades of experience uniting against state-organized racist attacks. Of foremost importance is the organized resistance of the communities singled out for attack. The more organized and determined the communities are in defending their rights, the more support they gain from their fellow workers and neighbours. Unity is created through struggle for justice, for the rights of all, not in currying favour with authority for the purpose of self-aggrandizement through various schemes for elite accommodation.

As the targeted communities organize resistance against state attacks, they are compelled to deal with RCMP and CSIS black ops. These include infiltration, rumour mongering, attempts to recruit people as informants against their friends and family, as well as "sting operations" instigated by government agents -- typically taking advantage of some unwitting youth or mentally ill individuals -- which are then sensationalized as "terrorist" events by the monopoly media. Two such staged police stings are presently in the courts in BC and Ontario.

The RCMP and CSIS have carried out a continuous attack on Canadian revolutionaries organized in CPC(M-L). They and other progressives are designated "terrorists" for steadfastly defending their rights. Despite all the monopoly media propaganda and all the harassment and intimidation by the political police, the Canadian people, especially the working class, have taken stands to oppose racism and racist attacks. The recent rallies against Bill C-51 and Islamophobia are current examples. The mass solidarity marches and demonstrations with Indigenous peoples in recent times are other examples.

Today, there is a growing resistance movement to oppose the neo-liberal anti-social "austerity" agenda that seeks to enrich the monopolies at the expense of the working class, youth, national minorities, Indigenous peoples and the broad masses of the people. The rich Canadian historical experience against state-organized racism and other attacks can and should inform the struggles in the present day, with the main lesson to be drawn that our security lies in defence of the rights of all. The defence of rights on the basis that everyone has inalienable rights which belong to them by virtue of being human, is a powerful basis around which to organize for an alternative to the status quo.

On March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, let all the forces opposed to the Harper government, to racism, imperialism and war converge in demonstrations across Canada around the slogan:

Our Security Lies in the Fight for the Rights of All!

Canada-U.S. Relations

Harper Government Signs New Secret
Annexationist Agreement

- Enver Villamizar -

On March 16, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Steven Blaney and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson signed the Agreement on Land, Rail, Marine and Air Transport Preclearance between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America in Washington. The Agreement is a major commitment of the Beyond the Border Action Plan issued by Prime Minister Harper and President Obama in December 2011.

Preclearance refers to the arrangement under which U.S. Border Patrol officers are placed in Canada, typically at airports but more recently at sea and land ports, to clear travellers or goods bound for the United States. Since 2011 preclearance in areas other than major international airports has been tested on an ad hoc basis with an eye to establishing a legal framework to make such arrangements permanent.

The Agreement itself is being kept secret until it is tabled in Parliament. According to government releases and news reports, however, it would establish all the legal authorities required to set up preclearance operations for air, sea, land and rail transport of people and goods between Canada and the United States. In particular it would allow U.S. Border Protection agents to be armed while carrying out their customs and immigration preclearance inspections in Canada and to detain people, something that has not previously been the case. U.S. agents would not be permitted to arrest people, however; arrests would have to be made by Canadian officers.

At the announcement of the signing Blaney stated: "[This Agreement] would make an important contribution towards ensuring the legitimate flow of trade and travel, while continuing to ensure border security and integrity -- efficient and effective cross-border travel and trade are essential for the Canadian and U.S. economies, and for the prosperity of our communities. This single Agreement for all modes would ensure a consistent approach to all preclearance activities, regardless of the mode of transportation. This will make it easier to implement and govern preclearance activities."

This is a typical example of how the Harper government deliberately tries to disinform the public about its nefarious activities. First it asserts that "legitimate" cross-border travel and trade are essential for the Canadian and U.S. economies and prosperity. Canadians are then supposed to accept as gospel that Canada is dependent on trade with the U.S. and that this dependent relationship is not a problem to be acknowledged and rectified. Further, Canadians are to accede that it is in our interest to facilitate U.S. national interests being imposed on us as quickly as possible, and anyone who dares oppose this opposes Canada's "prosperity."

The fact is Canada is Canada and the United States is the United States. Canadians do not want to be dictated to or controlled by the U.S. (and vice versa, though that is hardly the issue). Harper knows this, which is why such an important matter as placing militarized U.S. agents on Canadian soil is treated so lightly as to require no discussion and yet as something essential for "the prosperity of our communities." He wants Canadians just to look the other way while such treasonous measures -- a foot in the door for what next? -- are imposed across the country.

According to the government there are several steps Canada must take before the agreement can enter into force, including the tabling of the signed Agreement in Parliament for 21 sitting days and the introduction and passing of legislation by Parliament. This would be followed by the ratification of the Agreement by both countries.

The Agreement was not made public at the time of the announcement. All the fanfare about the signing is the Harper government telling Canadians how to view these developments so they do not draw their own conclusions based on conscious acts of finding out for themselves.

Right on cue, the Windsor Star published an editorial on March 18 headlined, "Historic border deal is fantastic for Windsor," no questions asked. According to the Star's editors "Monday's deal really is historic and 'momentous,' as [U.S. Secretary for Homeland Security] Johnson dubbed it, and business people on both sides of the border are lauding it as a way to move forward, especially after the recession's crushing effect on the economy."

Whether or not it serves the Canadian people or Canadian nation-building of course has nothing to do with the Harper government's considerations for signing the preclearance agreement.

Preclearance Being Broadened

Customs and immigration preclearance has existed at certain major Canadian airports dating back to the 1950s. However these were ad hoc arrangements based on the amount of personal and business travel from those particular airports to the United States. Since the signing of the Beyond the Border Action Plan in 2011 a major objective has been to establish a legal regime allowing such arrangements to be put in place more broadly, especially for the preclearance of goods so as to avoid any delays at the border. The basis for this is the push of U.S. imperialism to bring Canada fully under its domination in all spheres of life by establishing what amounts to a United States of North American Monopolies. The monopolies want no impediment to their operations and are destroying any public authority that might get in their way, replacing it with private interests as oversight bodies or boards made up of representatives of the monopolies.

This Agreement is also part of U.S. imperialism's push to place its armed agents on Canadian soil and in so doing, demand decision-making authority over affairs in Canada. Other arrangements in this same vein include the establishment of "joint" oversight committees of Canadian airports that place U.S. security agents in a position to set policies and procedures for Canadian airports. All of this is being done in the name of "security." However Canadians are well aware that giving U.S. security agencies power within Canada will not provide security for them. Already there are widespread reports of increased levels of harassment and discrimination at U.S. border crossings following the introduction of new arrangements that allow U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents full access to the Canadian Police Intelligence Centre database.

The March 16 agreement is being presented as a milestone in efforts to enhance border efficiency and reduce wait times and border congestion with its framework to establish preclearance arrangements in the four modes of transportation (ship, air, land, rail). According to information provided by the government, the agreement "will allow the market to propose operations when and where it makes sense -- facilitating trade and travel, and creating economic benefits for Canadians." Despite not elaborating what this language implies, it is clear that public interest will not guide the type and scope of these arrangements; they will be driven by the demands of the monopolies for arrangements that facilitate the maximizing of their profits.

It should be remembered that since the beginning of Beyond the Border a number of the monopolies, especially those in the auto sector, have sought preclearance of their products at the point of production. This means that U.S. border and Homeland Security officers are in control of what and who gets in and out of a Canadian production facility. Is this what is meant by letting "the market propose" operations -- that the monopolies decide where inspection facilities will be established and under whose authority? The agreement will establish a "Preclearance Consultative Group" to oversee its implementation. Why is a bi-national agreement of such importance to be placed under the authority of such a body, rather than government ministries such as Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in Canada and the Department of State in the U.S.? It is likely that various representatives of the monopolies in transportation will be politicized to oversee when and where preclearance facilities are set up, rather than elected officials who are supposed to defend the public interest.

This Agreement is said to provide the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBA) preclearance officers the authority to carry out their security, facilitation and inspection process in the other country. The fact that U.S. agents will be armed and have the power to detain, if not arrest, people is a very serious matter. It indicates that U.S. security agents are being given the legal ability to conduct operations on Canadian soil, including to use weapons and detain people on the basis of their own self-serving criteria which might have nothing to do with inspecting cargo or people.

To make it appear that Canadians will be protected from U.S. agents' abuse of authority, the government points out that the Agreement would create a new criminal liability regime applicable to both CBSA and CBP preclearance officers: "Generally speaking, the inspecting party would have primary jurisdiction over its preclearance officers for offenses committed in the performance of official duties. Generally speaking, the host country would have primary criminal jurisdiction over acts committed by preclearance officers outside the performance of official duties, including when they are commuting to and from work." We are told that "as is the case under the existing Agreement, Preclearance officers would be required to comply with the laws of the host country while in that country -- both when they are on and off duty." Under the new Agreement, "any U.S. preclearance activities in Canada would have to be carried out in a manner consistent with Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act." We are told these authorities and obligations will be fully reciprocal. Up to now, however, there have been no Canadian preclearance operations in place in the United States.

As well, government assurances that the law requires that U.S. border officers respect Canadian laws does not provide much comfort when the Harper government's "anti-terrorism" Bills C-44 and C-51 will give Canadian security agencies permission to violate these same laws with impunity. Are we now to believe that a government that will grant secret police the right to break its own laws as well as those of other countries will hold U.S. agents accountable when they break Canadian laws in the name of "stopping terrorism?"

Establishing Transport Hubs

One of the aims of the Preclearance Agreement appears to be to establish transport hubs for U.S.-bound goods and people at non-international air and other ports so as to avoid congestion or other "drawbacks" encountered at international ports. Individual travellers wishing to fly into smaller non-international airports in the U.S. would receive preclearance in Canada, as would large monopolies that wish to establish operations at smaller municipal airports for shipping into the United States.

The government states that the new agreement would allow travellers "to avoid lengthy and unpredictable customs lines in the U.S." and that it "facilitates improved transborder passenger flows through Canadian airports and increases their competitiveness as hubs for in-transit travel." It adds an example: "Existing marine and rail operations in BC are enabling local ports to serve as hubs for cruise ships destined to small Alaskan ports that lack customs facilities, for ferries and for facilitating the cross-border movement of U.S.-bound trains from Vancouver."

One example of such an arrangement being put in place to assist the monopolies directly with cargo inspection facilities outside of the main international airports can be found in the City of Windsor, on the border with Detroit, where a multi-modal cargo terminal is being built. Construction of the terminal is mainly funded by the Harper government's Economic Action Plan with some contributions from the City. The first tenant for the new cargo hub at Windsor Airport will be the private U.S. postal monopoly FedEx, a competitor of Canada Post, that has signed a 20-year lease and is expected to move in by December 2015. No doubt establishing preclearance for packages going into the United States from Canada, or even establishing Windsor as a "secure" hub for packages in transit to the United States, would assist FedEx's use of Windsor for its operations.

Canadians must take note of these arrangements from the standpoint of reversing them. Placing armed agents of U.S. imperialism on Canadian soil and destroying the public authorities that are supposed to uphold Canadian sovereignty in order to serve private interests is unacceptable. The new arrangements will only lead to insecurity for the working class as well as for Canadians more broadly. This insecurity is already seen in the way North American monopolies arbitrarily move production here or there to favour their narrow self-serving interests at the expense of the people and the communities they have built.

Canadians will be served by defeating the Harper government to make it clear to all governments that they oppose their country's annexation into the United States of North American Monopolies.

NAFTA Enforces Monopoly Right Against Public Right

- K.C. Adams -

An international trade tribunal established within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has awarded ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil $17.3 million in damages from Canada. The two U.S. oil monopolies rejected a joint federal-Newfoundland and Labrador regulatory board investment requirement in exchange for the right to exploit the Hibernia and Terra Nova offshore oil deposits. The tribunal ruled in early March that the two Canadian governments acted against NAFTA rules by demanding the monopolies spend money on research and training in Newfoundland and Labrador. The investment money would have come from the companies' profits made from extracting and selling Canada's offshore oil.

Natural Resources Canada has confirmed the NAFTA investor rights dispute ruling awarding ExxonMobil $13.9 million and Murphy Oil $3.4 million. The companies complained that governments have no right to say how much money they are required to invest in social and other programs from their equity profits. The tribunal said that requiring the oil monopolies to spend a percentage of their offshore revenues in research and training in Newfoundland went against NAFTA rules prohibiting host governments from establishing performance requirements on companies' local investments and purchases.

The case was brought under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows corporations from Canada, the U.S. or Mexico to sue for damages in cases where the foreign company believes it has been unfairly discriminated against by a government body in one of the three host countries. The investor rights mechanism, amongst other things, allows corporations to challenge governments' ability to regulate health, safety and social issues when this requires investors to divert profits away from owners of equity. Any government regulation or requirement which companies deem to damage their profits or impede their investments is subject to the Chapter 11 investor dispute mechanism. NAFTA-imposed monopoly right takes precedence over sovereign and public right that the participating countries may wish to uphold.

A similar investor rights clause is included in the proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, which the Harper government is pushing towards implementation. Canadians across the country have expressed opposition to CETA but Harper is using his parliamentary dictatorial powers to force it into law. This is similar to the foisting on Canada of the original free trade agreement with the U.S. in 1988 and NAFTA after that. Canadians have consistently expressed their opposition to the monopoly right of free trade and its negation of Canada's sovereignty and public right through votes and in other ways.

Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) says the ExxonMobil/Murphy Oil case "shows that under these [free trade] agreements foreign corporations really are beyond the reach of our domestic courts and legislatures." Prior to the NAFTA challenge, Sinclair said that ExxonMobil launched a losing court challenge in Canada to the Newfoundland and Labrador investment requirements. After losing, both companies filed a complaint under Chapter 11. The federal government is now required to pay the monopolies $17.3 million.

NAFTA Investor-State Claims Are "Out of Control"

In 2010, the federal government had to hand over a $130 million cheque to AbitibiBowater following a NAFTA challenge to former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams' attempt to save an AbitibiBowater mill from destruction. A CCPA study, which examines the NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism and its results, says NAFTA investor-state claims are "out of control." From 1995 to 2005, investors brought 12 claims against Canada, while in the last ten years the number has risen to 23. Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims, Mexico 22 and the U.S. 20.

Discussing the study, Scott Sinclair says, "Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through the investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world."

Regarding the study the CCPA notes: "Most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty-three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures. Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government. These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).

"Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case. All three governments have incurred tens of millions of dollars in legal costs to defend themselves against investor claims. The pervasive threat of investor-state challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 puts a chill on public interest regulation."

To read the full CCPA report, click here.

(Sources: CCPA; Toronto Star)

Harper Government's Motion to
"Extend and Expand" Canadian Mission in Iraq

"Fight Against Terrorism" -- Cover to Support
U.S. Aggression Against Syria and Iraq

- Louis Lang -

In a speech in Mississauga on March 18, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would be presenting a motion to the House of Commons next week to "extend and expand" the Canadian mission in Iraq.

Presently, the Canadian Air Force has six CF-18 jets bombing ISIS targets in Iraq. The CF-18s are based in Kuwait along with two surveillance planes, an aerial tanker and 600 support personnel.

In addition to aerial bombing, Canada has also deployed 70 special forces soldiers in Iraq in an "advisory and training" role, working with Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga fighters located in the northern part of Iraq.

Canada's role in support of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is based on a motion presented to the House of Commons by the Harper government in October 2014 asking all parties to support the government's decision to "contribute Canadian military assets to fight against ISIL and terrorists allied with ISIL, including air strike capability for a period up to six months." Included in the motion was the condition that "Canada would not deploy troops in combat operations."

In making the announcement, Harper did not elaborate what "extending and expanding" actually means. He went on to say that "The current authorization laid open the possibility of going to Syria although we have not done that."

These comments have raised many questions and concerns about Harper's intention to continue Canada's participation in a military action for which many have said no satisfactory explanation or justification has ever been provided. To suggest, as Harper has done, that ISIS has "declared war on Canada" and Canada must support the U.S.-led coalition to protect the security of Canadians and "our way of life," is to continue down the path of foreign aggression and war in support of U.S. imperialism which has already given rise to countless disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya. Far from making Canadians safer, the anarchy and violence of such wars cannot fail to put the whole world in danger.

Many in the media are also questioning Harper's references in his remarks about the "current authorization" of Canada's involvement. This latest U.S. military aggression in Iraq is not authorized by the United Nations in any form. Any inference that the "authorization" for bombing or other military activity comes from the Iraqi government is also questionable because the devastation and destruction of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2002 has left the country split and divided into many factions. Not only are large parts of the country controlled by ISIS but the nominal central government in Baghdad is trying to rebuild the Iraqi army with the help of its Iranian allies. The northern part of Iraq is under the control of Kurdish forces who are also fighting ISIS but with their own agenda and longtime goal of establishing an independent Kurdistan.

Harper identifies his government's "authorization" to intervene in Iraq as deriving from the vote in the House of Commons on October 7, 2014 although it has been admitted that such a vote is not required to send troops. The government previously based its claims of the legitimacy of such an authorization on the request of the Iraqi government to participate in and provide assistance to the fight against ISIS. In that vein, the government claimed that it would not follow the U.S. in intervening in Syria due to the Syrian government's insistence that it did not condone violations of its sovereignty under any pretext.

The justification for entering the war has shifted towards claims of combatting terrorism to protect the safety and "way of life" of Canadians. And in recent weeks when asked if Canada would indeed enter Syria as part of the "extension" or "expansion" of its war participation, the line of respecting Syria's sovereignty and the source of the war's legitimacy was dropped by the government. Instead, Harper stated in Mississauga, "The current authorization laid open the possibility of going into Syria, though we have not done that." He will "address those issues" when the new proposal is revealed, he said.

Recent reports suggest that for the U.S., Canada and others in the coalition ISIS is not the main enemy or overriding concern for being present in Iraq.

There have been ongoing reports from Iraqi forces confirming that U.S. and coalition planes have been dropping weapons and ammunition reached by ISIS forces in different locations. The latest report by the Fars News Agency, which appeared on the Global Research website on March 19, 2015, says the following; "A commander of Iraq's popular forces disclosed that wiretapping of ISIL's communications has confirmed reports that U.S. planes have been air dropping food and arms supplies for the Takfiri terrorists." The agency's source for the story was the Commander of Iraq's Ali Akbar Battalion.

Many similar reports by Iraqi officials have surfaced over the last few months. Head of the Iraqi Parliament's National Defence Committee, Haken al-Zameli, disclosed that "the anti-ISIL coalition planes have dropped weapons and foodstuffs for ISIL in Salahudin, Al-Anbar and Diyala provinces."

Iraqi MP Majid al-Gharawi stated that the U.S. and international coalition are "not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization, because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month." Gharawi added that, "[T]he U.S. is trying to expand the time of the war against ISIL to get guarantees from the Iraqi government to have its bases in Mosul and Anbar provinces."

Recent reports have also revealed a role played by Canada and its intelligence service in the recruitment of ISIS mercenaries. According to a detailed report in the Ottawa Citizen, March 13, 2015, Canada's embassy in Amman, Jordan, was allegedly involved in the recruitment of ISIS "jihadists." The report deals specifically with the recruitment and smuggling of three adolescent British girls into ISIS-controlled territory in Syria. The article states that "a foreign spy arrested in Turkey on suspicion of helping three British schoolgirls travel to Syria to join the Islamic State was working for the Canadian intelligence service."

Canada's Ambassador to Jordan, Bruno Saccomani, was appointed to that post last year based on his background in security issues. Previously he had been Superintendent of the RCMP before becoming security chief in charge of Prime Minister Harper's "security detail." During his tenure with the RCMP and the Prime Minister's Office, Saccomani worked in close liaison with CSIS.

The role of Canadian intelligence operating out of the Canadian Embassy in Amman has been an integral part of the ongoing process of U.S.-NATO sponsored recruitment and financing of terrorists as part of its destabilization of Syria and Iraq to isolate Iran and Russia. Prior to the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, NATO and the Turkish High Command had initiated the recruitment of thousands of "Muslim volunteers" to fight alongside the "Syrian rebels." The Turkish army housed the volunteers, trained them and secured their passage into Syria.

The so-called debate in the House of Commons next week to "extend and expand the military mission in Iraq" is a smokescreen to hide the real intent of the U.S. and Canada to continue to threaten the people of the region with destabilization and foreign occupation. A recent interview in the Washington Post with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq, clearly shows that ISIS is not the reason the U.S. is in Iraq. In the interview, General Petraeus said, "Yet despite that history and the legacy it has left, I think Iraq and the coalition forces are making considerable progress against the Islamic State. In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq's long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by -- and some guided by -- Iran."

Although the Harper conservatives continue to talk hysterically about the need to fight the "jihadist threat to Canada," they cannot hide the fact that continued participation in the unjust and unlawful foreign aggression in support of the goals of U.S. imperialism to control the region and its resources is really what is behind their plans. Their immediate goal is to continue to prolong the civil war in Syria to achieve regime change, or if not that at least instability from which the country will not be able to recover. This along with prolonging the fight against ISIS in Iraq serves to bleed Iran and sabotage the cooperation of the peoples of the Middle East as part of the overall NATO drive to isolate Russia.

No amount of deception and cover-up in the House of Commons can give legitimacy to the criminal actions being planned by the Harper government against the people of Iraq, Syria and Iran. Canada must end its participation in U.S. aggression and wars! The Harper government's extremist positions and warmongering character has lost the confidence of the Canadian people and must be defeated.

Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!

Fourth Anniversary of NATO War Against Libya

Crime of Epic Proportions Shows Canada
Needs an Anti-War Government

March 19 marked the fourth anniversary of NATO's criminal war against Libya in the name of its imperialist doctrine of defending "human security." The aggression took place in the context of what was called the "Arab Spring," in which protests took place against various governments in North Africa and the Middle East, in many cases instigated or co-opted by outside forces to engineer regime change in the service of imperialist interests. The NATO operation, designated as a "no-fly zone" over Libya, officially took place between March 7 and October 31, 2011. The war was declared over shortly after the vehicles of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi and other Libyans were bombed by NATO, and Gadhafi was captured and brutally murdered by its militia forces on the ground on October 20, 2011. What had been described as a "no-fly zone" turned out to be a ruthless bombing campaign against the Libyan army, whole cities and patriotic Libyan civilians who took up arms to defend themselves.

After this crime, the fraud that NATO was killing Libyans to defend protestors or promote freedom and democracy was forgotten. After a 24/7 monopoly media bombardment promoting the wildest tales to justify imperialist aggression, and then lionizing the brutal activities of NATO and its allies on the ground, Libya disappeared from the news save for occasional mentions of the dysfunctional state of the country and the ongoing crimes against the people committed by those NATO put in power. These included genuine instances of slaughter of protestors which were now no cause for alarm for NATO or the U.S. and Canadian ruling circles. Libya has reappeared in the news again in the context of atrocities committed against Coptic Christians by NATO-aligned forces who now pledge allegiance to ISIS, complete with calls from Egypt and others for another military intervention in the country. No warranted conclusions have been drawn by those who promoted and enabled the aggression that destroyed the Libyan state, devastated its cities and put in power those who the U.S. and Canada now claim to be against.

Four years ago, to block the people's opposition to aggression in Libya, U.S. imperialism undertook a total mobilization of its retinues in the media, politics, academia and NGOs. This unholy alliance became a chorus insisting that the Libyan authorities were carrying out merciless slaughter and that genocide was impending if NATO did not launch a war. All but one of Canada's Members of Parliament supported the mission, none of whom have expressed any regret four years on. Opposition to the war was deemed impossible and that unlike in Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam and other U.S. wars, imperialism was responding to urgent humanitarian needs. The confusion and hesitation sown among the people was coupled by a failure to take account of reality after the fact and make amends for the war propaganda in breach of the Geneva Convention.

The reality of the situation in Libya, which was not in fact a mystery at the time, has been further clarified by academic and other studies which go unreported and unheeded. In some cases these reports have come from those whose prior falsehoods were used to justify the war. As mea culpas go they are tepid and acrid, but bear repeating on the fourth anniversary of one of the worst modern crimes of U.S. imperialism.

A policy brief entitled "Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene" published in September 2013 by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University underscores the fraudulent pretext for the war:

"[C]ontrary to Western media reports, Qaddafi did not initiate Libya's violence by targeting peaceful protesters. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented that in all four Libyan cities initially consumed by civil conflict in mid-February 2011 -- Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli, and Misurata -- violence was actually initiated by the protesters. The government responded to the rebels militarily but never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to "indiscriminate" force, as Western media claimed. Early press accounts exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing 'more than 2,000 deaths' in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period."

"Further evidence that Qaddafi avoided targeting civilians comes from the Libyan city that was most consumed by the early fighting, Misurata. HRW reports that of the 949 people wounded there in the rebellion's initial seven weeks, only 30 were women or children, meaning that Qaddafi's forces focused narrowly on combatants. During that same period, only 257 people were killed among the city's population of 400,000 -- a fraction less than 0.0006 -- providing additional proof that the government avoided using force indiscriminately. Moreover, Qaddafi did not perpetrate a 'bloodbath' in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to NATO intervention -- including Ajdabiya, Bani Walid, Brega, Ras Lanuf, Zawiya, and much of Misurata -- so there was virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi."

"Evidence reveals that NATO's primary aim was to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately, including some in retreat and others in Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte, where they posed no threat to civilians. Moreover, NATO continued to aid the rebels even when they repeatedly rejected government cease-fire offers that could have ended the violence and spared civilians."

The brief, based on an article in the journal International Security entitled "A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign," clarifies these matters in order to advocate for more "effective" military intervention that does not "backfire" as in the case of Libya. NATO's intervention was effective in achieving its aims, particularly the destruction of Libya's independent nation-building project, and to increase the hold of U.S. imperialism over the African continent and the Middle East.

The war propaganda was so deceptive as to turn all the old terms and definitions from the twentieth century into their opposite. Those terms became weapons in the hands of the imperialists to launch their aggressions and trample on public right. On the anniversary of the aggression against Libya it is more urgent than ever for the people to follow their own thinking and analysis of the objective conditions and not follow the emotive terms from the past with vague and distorted definitions that can suit monopoly right and imperialist war. Modern definitions of human rights, democracy, socialism, trade unionism and economic development can only be articulated in the fight against imperialism in defence of the rights of all, in actions with analysis to serve the people's interests in opposition to monopoly right. Even the defining of the people's interests and the struggle to fulfil those interests and control one's own destiny must be the work and creation of the people themselves and their own organizations.

The current state of anarchy and violence in Libya, which once had the highest standard of living in Africa and a wide range of social programs provided free of charge, is a tragedy and a crime that lies squarely at the feet of the U.S. imperialists and the NATO countries, including Canada. This destabilization has spread to other countries surrounding Libya. It makes clear that the so-called human security agenda/responsibility to protect doctrine is just another brutal example of the irrational and bankrupt imperialist doctrine coined during the Viet Nam War: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) pointed out in 2011 the need to reject aggression against Libya and urged Canadians to oppose the manipulation of these events by the U.S., NATO and others who do not have the interests of the peoples of their countries and the world at heart. CPC(M-L) called on the Canadian working class and youth to lead the anti-war and peace movements to take unequivocal stands against the preparations to carry out an invasion of Libya and to oppose the attempt to get Canadians to join a bandwagon to call for the invocation of the imperialist "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine in the name of "stopping the killings" in Libya. CPC(M-L) called on the people to take an unequivocal stand against jumping on the bandwagon of providing unsubstantiated claims as a pretext to invade Libya and achieve the self-serving aims of the U.S. and other enemies of the peoples.

On the anniversary of the NATO aggression against Libya, when the U.S. imperialist aggressors and their NATO allies such as Canada continue their plans for intervention, coups and regime change, from Venezuela to Syria, Canadians must steadfastly and unequivocally oppose imperialist aggression as a matter of inviolable principle and reject the imperialist pragmatic line of lawlessness and that "nothing succeeds like success." No matter the high ideals used to justify these activities, they are violations of international law and crimes against the peace, the most serious of all crimes on the international scale. These laws were established following the tremendous losses in World War Two, to ensure that such a war would never again occur. The magnitude of the crime against the Libyan people underscores the urgent need for Canadians to take up the cause of their own political empowerment so as to bring into being an anti-war government that embodies Canadians' desire for Canada to be a genuine force for peace in the world.

Government's Deception on Democracy and
Human Rights

Recent media reports indicate that the Harper government knew full well that the NATO aggression against Libya was neither capable nor serious about achieving its publicly stated aim to promote democracy or human rights.

Journalist David Pugliese, in a March 1 item for the Ottawa Citizen, points out that just prior to the NATO aggression, "Canadian intelligence specialists sent a briefing report shared with senior officers. 'There is the increasing possibility that the situation in Libya will transform into a long-term tribal/civil war,' they wrote in their March 15, 2011 assessment. 'This is particularly probable if opposition forces received military assistance [from] foreign militaries.'

"Some officers in the Canadian Forces tried to raise concerns early on in the war that removing Gadhafi would play into the hands of Islamic extremists, but military sources say those warnings went unheeded. Later, military members would privately joke about Canada's CF-18s being part of 'al-Qaida's air force,' since their bombing runs helped to pave the way for rebel groups aligned with the terrorist group. The Royal Canadian Air Force flew 10 per cent of the missions during NATO's campaign, the Citizen reports.

During the NATO aggression, TML Weekly pointed out NATO's inability to instill legitimacy in its mission and its interim government and associated factions put in place as part of the regime change, noting that the situation would only degenerate into more anarchy and violence.

Rather than the Canadian intelligence assessment pointing to the inevitability of "tribal" war, the sordid links between rebel leaders and groups with the CIA, MI6 (the British intelligence service), the CIA-backed Al-Qaeda of the Maghrab and other foreign agencies ensured that inter-imperialist contradictions and black ops would play out in the ceaseless struggle for domination of a wealthy and resource-rich African country. Many media reports at the time pointed to the deep disunity amongst the so-called rebels who were held together in their Faustian bargain with NATO against the Libyan people. Today some of these same rebel leaders, including Abdel Hakim Belhaj, are reported to be leading the Libyan section of ISIS, which Canada suggests is the greatest enemy of humanity.

The Government of Canada website for the Canadian embassy in Libya presently states on its homepage, "The revolution against tyranny in 2011 led to Libya's first democratic government and a new era of Canada-Libya relations with both countries committed to working together to promote freedom, rule of law, and human rights."

What is the nature of this "democracy" installed through NATO aggression and its Libyan counterparts? In a separate red box immediately below its flowery words about democracy and human rights, the embassy states with no sense of irony:

"Due to the deteriorating security environment in Libya, the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development has decided to temporarily suspend its operations at its office in Tripoli. We have not suspended diplomatic relations with Libya.

"The Canadian Embassy in Libya is currently closed, but will continue to operate remotely from the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia until conditions allow for its reopening.

"This is a temporary measure and has no relation to our continuing and long-standing diplomatic relations with Libya.

"Canada remains committed to support the Libyan people in their efforts to build a stable and secure democracy."

On the same page, is a bright yellow box containing the following travel advisory:

"Libya: Avoid all travel

"Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada advises against all travel to Libya due to the fragile and unpredictable political situation and the threat of terrorism in the region. Given the volatile security situation, the Canadian embassy in Tripoli has suspended operations until further notice. Canadian officials have left the country. Canadians in Libya should contact the Embassy of Canada in Tunis, Tunisia (+216 70 010 200), or the Emergency Watch and Response Centre in Ottawa +1 613 996 8885."

In an expanded travel advisory, under the heading "Civil unrest and violent conflict," the embassy states:

"The political situation is extremely fragile. The capital has been seized by a coalition of armed groups, and the democratically elected government has been driven into exile in Tobruk, in the east of the country. Formal state security structures have largely collapsed.

"Armed clashes are ongoing throughout the country, and violence spread from eastern Libya to the capital in June 2014. Fighting between armed groups supporting the elected government in Tobruk and the opposition government in Tripoli occurs daily. Hundreds of people have been killed, thousands injured and hundreds of thousands displaced by the fighting.

"Demonstrations and protests are a regular occurrence across Libya and have resulted in violence and fatalities. Follow the security situation closely through local media reports, take appropriate steps to increase your personal security and limit your movements to daylight hours. Avoid public gatherings and all demonstrations, as they may become violent without warning."

What Imperialism Destroyed and Created

Since the NATO overthrow of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2011 the wealthy, developed and oil-rich country has had no clear state authority, with power constantly shifting between two or more major warring factions from the erstwhile "rebels" and more than a thousand smaller groups. The paralysis in the country and the ongoing imperialist meddling to promote this or that faction has led to some of NATO's 2011 rebels pledging allegiance to ISIS which now exercises control of various Libyan cities. Reports in February stated that much of the Libyan coastline is under Islamic State control. It has occupied the city of Derna since October, 2014 and Sirte since February 16. Once a city of over 100,000 and the birthplace of Muammar Gadhafi, Sirte was completely devastated by NATO bombing in 2011.

It is much more than a paradox that U.S. aggression against Libya provided great support to those the U.S. claims to be combatting in Syria and Iraq. A far greater enemy than the Islamic State in the eyes of U.S. imperialism is the peoples of Middle East and North Africa having their independent nation-building projects and cooperation with fraternal peoples outside the Anglo-American orbit. That is why the destruction of Libya and a prolonged war in Iraq and U.S. reoccupation serves the U.S. goal of blocking the peoples of the region from defeating their enemies at home and opening a path to progress.

A November 2014 article by journalist and researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya entitled "Libya Then and Now: An Overview of NATO's Handiwork" provides an overview of the state of the country before and after NATO's war. Nazemroaya reported from Libya during the war and witnessed the aggression of NATO forces firsthand. TML Weekly is reproducing excerpts from his article to inform readers about the aims and consequences of U.S. imperialist "humanitarian intervention."

Nazemroaya describes the major advances made in Libya since independence, and particularly since the nationalization of oil revenue in 1970. "For years, up until 2011, Libya had the highest standards of living in Africa and one of the highest in the Arab world. [...] The fact that Libya happened to be a rich country was one of its crimes in 2011. Oil, finance, economics, and Libyan natural resources were always tempting prizes for the United States and its allies. These things were the spoils of war in Libya. While Libyan energy reserves and geopolitics played major roles in launching the 2011 war, it was also waged in part to appropriate Tripoli's vast financial holdings and to supplement and maintain the crumbling financial hegemony of Wall Street and other financial centres. Wall Street could not allow Tripoli to be debt-free, to continue accumulating international financial possessions, and to be a creditor nation giving international loans and investing funds in other countries, particularly in Africa. Thus, major banks in the United States and the European Union, like the giant multinational oil conglomerates, had major roles and interests in the NATO war on Tripoli."

The article reports that the present division of Libya into separate geographic and political factions has been a longstanding imperialist project:

"The historic project to divide Libya dates back to 1943 and 1951. It started with failed attempts to establish a trusteeship over Libya after the defeat of Italy and Germany in North Africa during the Second World War. The attempts to divide Libya then eventually resulted in a strategy that forced a monarchical federal system onto the Libyans similar to that established over Iraq following the illegal 2003 Anglo-American invasion. If the Libyans had not accepted federalism in their relatively homogenous society they could have forfeited their independence in 1951.

"During the Second World War the Libyans aided and allowed Britain to enter their country to fight the Italians and the Germans. Benghazi fell to British military control on 20 November 1942, and Tripoli on 23 January 1943. Despite its promises to allow Libya to become an independent country, London intended to administer the two Libyan provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica separately as colonies, with Paris to be given control over the region of Fezzan, which is roughly one-third of Libya, the area to the southwest of the country bordering Algeria, Niger, and Chad. [...] Following the end of the Second World War, the victors and Italy attempted to partition Libya into territories that they would govern as trust territories. The American, British, French, and Soviet governments referred the matter to the UN General Assembly on 15 September 1945. There, the British and the Italians made a last-ditch proposal on 10 May 1949, called the Bevin-Sfora Plan for Libya, to have Libyan territory divided into an Italian-controlled Tripolitania, a British-controlled Cyrenaica, and a French-ruled Fezzan. This failed because of the crucial single vote of Haiti, which opposed the partition of Libya.

"The British then turned to King Idris to softly balkanise Libya through the establishment of a federal emirate. A National Assembly controlled by King Idris and an unelected small circle of Libyan chieftains was to be imposed. This type of federalist system was unacceptable to most Libyans as it was intended to be a means of sidestepping the will of the Libyan people. The elected representatives from the heavily populated region of Tripolitania would be outweighed by the unelected chieftains from Cyrenaica and Fezzan.

"This did not sit well with many Arab nationalists. Cairo was extremely critical of what the US and its allies were trying to do and called it diplomatic deceit. Nevertheless, even with the opposition of most Libyans, federalism was imposed on Libya in 1951 by Idris. Libyans popularly viewed this as Anglo-French treachery. Idris was forced to abolish the federalist system for a unitary system on 27 April 1963.

"The imperialist project to divide Libya was never abandoned; it was just temporarily shelved by different foreign ministries in the Western bloc and NATO capitals. In March 2011, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Jr. testified to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that at the end of the conflict in Libya, the North African country would revert to its previous monarchical federalist divisions and that it would have two or three different administrations. NATO's Supreme Commander, Admiral Stravridis, also told the US Senate Armed Services Committee in the same month that Libyan tribal differences would be amplified as the NATO war carried on. There were even multilateral discussions held about dividing the country, but the exact lines were never completely agreed upon and negotiations kept on waxing and waning with the frontlines in the desert and mountains.

"US plans to topple the Libyan government that were put together in 1982 by the US National Security Council under the Reagan Administration were also revised or renovated for NATO's war in 2011. One can clearly see how these plans played out through the dual use of an insurgency and military attack. According to Joseph Stanik, the US plans involved simultaneous war and support for CIA-controlled opposition groups that would entail 'a number of visible and covert actions designed to bring significant pressure to bear on Qadhafi.' To execute the US plan, Washington would first have to encourage a conflict using the countries around Libya 'to seek a casus belli for military action' while they would take care of the logistical needs of CIA-controlled opposition groups that would launch a sabotage campaign against the economy, infrastructure, and government of Libya. The code name for these secret plans was 'Flower.' In the words of Stanik:

"'The NSC restricted access to the top-secret plans to about two-dozen officials. Flower contained two subcomponents: "Tulip" and "Rose." Tulip was the code name for the CIA covert operation designed to overthrow Qadhafi by supporting anti-Qadhafi exile groups and countries, such as Egypt, that wanted Qadhafi removed from power. Rose was the code name for a surprise attack on Libya to be carried out by an allied country, most likely Egypt, and supported by American air power. If Qadhafi was killed as a result of Flower, Reagan said he would take the blame for it.'

"It also just so happened that the Obama Administration's US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who was the deputy director for intelligence at the time, endorsed Rose, the military subcomponent of Flower.

"Since NATO toppled the Jamahiriya government, this is exactly what has happened in Libya. A free for all has come about, which has spilled over into neighbouring states such as Niger. There are multiple factions and different administrations including the Transitional Council in the District of Tripoli, the Misrata Military Council in the District of Misrata, several self-styled Emirates in Cyrenaica, and Jamahiriya loyalist and tribal governments in the Western Mountains and Fezzan. There have even been fusions where Jamahiriya loyalists and anti-Jamahiriya militias have joined to fight all others. The end product has been lawlessness and Somali-style civil war. The state has basically been 'failed' by the US and its allies. Post-Jamahiriya governmental authority is only exercised by those in power inside of their offices and a few spaces. Violent crime has proliferated. Tripoli and other major cities are being fought for by different factions and Libyan weapons are being smuggled into different countries. Even US officials, which helped midwife the groups running rampant in Libya, have not been safe from the turmoil they helped create; the murder of US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in Benghazi on 12 September 2012 is testimony to this.

"Oil and gas production has been stopping. National assets have been sold off to foreign corporations and privatised. Libya is no longer a competitive economic power in Africa anymore. Nor is Libya a growing financial power. Tripoli virtually transformed from a debtless country to an indebted one overnight.

"There is also a great irony to all this. The warplanes of the US-supported Libyan regime that has replaced the Jamahiriya began bombing Libyan citizens in 2014 as battles for control of Tripoli raged. The US, European Union, and NATO have said nothing about this whereas in 2011 they started a bombing campaign and war on the basis of false accusations the Jamahiriya government was doing exactly this. The deceit of these players is more than evident."

(Global Research, November 22, 2014)

Sewol Ferry Disaster in South Korea

Grieving Parents Appeal to Canadians
in Their Fight for Justice

On April 16, 2014, the Sewol ferry, carrying 476 people, capsized and sank in the biggest maritime disaster in south Korean history. Two-hundred and ninety-five passengers lost their lives, including 245 grade 11 students on a field trip. Nine passengers are still missing, including four students and two teachers. To date, in spite of demands by the victims' families, the Korean people and people worldwide, there has not been a comprehensive investigation into what caused the Sewol to sink, why the passengers were not immediately rescued although coast-guard vessels were within sight of the sinking ferry, and why it has not been salvaged to uncover further evidence.

On March 20, Jisung Lee and Jongbeom Park, who each lost a child in this tragedy, addressed a Toronto audience to tell their story and to ask the Canadian people to support them and the other victims' families in their quest for an inquiry into this tragedy and to seek punishment for those responsible and compensation. The event, held at the Beit Zatoun Centre, was organized by Toronto People in Solidarity with the Families of Sewol Ferry and co-sponsored by the University of Toronto Centre for the Study of Korea, the Dr. David Chu Community Network in Asia Pacific Studies and the York University Centre for Asian Research. This event was part of a North American speaking tour giving voice to the victims and presenting the case to world public opinion.

In the opening remarks, Ju Hui Judy Han, Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Toronto, indicated that the neo-liberal policies imposed on south Korean society by the conservative government of President Park and its predecessor has led to the privatization of many public assets. The takeover of the public sector by monopolies and businesses has meant that corners are cut, workers are not properly trained and safety regulations are often ignored. She noted that over 50 per cent of workers in Korean industry, like the captain and most of the crew of the Sewol, are temporary workers on short-term contracts. This fact, she pointed out, is directly responsible for the Sewol ferry tragedy.

The main themes brought out by the speakers are that the Park government of south Korea has taken no responsibility for this disaster and President Park and her government have ignored efforts by the victims' families for redress. The speakers pointed out that they do not consider the sinking of the Sewol a maritime accident, but a "massacre" because there was plenty of opportunity to safely rescue all the passengers but this was not done. Jisung Lee, the mother of student Do Eon Kim noted in fact that as soon as the ferry was in distress, parents received text messages from the children on board that they were in danger but real-time media reports indicated that the rescue operation was underway and that the passengers were not in danger. There was utter confusion among the parents about what was going on. It was noted that the main people rescued by the coast guard were the captain and some of the crew, who abandoned the ship after telling the passengers to stay put!

Jongbeom Park, father of student Ye Seul Park, stated that the sinking of the ferry was directly attributable to "private interests taking over public authority." In his view, there is a crisis in south Korean society of the public authority and institutions being dismantled and privatized and that there is increasingly no accountability of these institutions to the people. He pointed out that the victims' families realize that they are in a larger battle for democracy, peace and change. Park also said that in the face of the south Korean government's stonewalling, the victims' families are appealing to the court of public opinion for justice. They are hoping to take their story to the whole world and put pressure on the Park government to take responsibility for the killing of their children and family members.

In the discussion that followed, one person pointed out that the south Korean government must go and that there can be no expectation that this government will co-operate with the victims' families or assist them in any way. The discussion also revealed that a lot of disinformation about this tragedy is promoted and there are efforts by the south Korean state to keep the victims' families isolated. Another person noted that the U.S. dominates south Korea and that there is a direct link between the U.S. and the south Korean government's anti-social domestic policies, and that the Korean people's efforts to take their affairs into their own hands, end the U.S. occupation of their country and fight for peace and re-unification are the way in which these sorts of disasters can be averted.

The speakers said they have received a warm response in Canada. One of the Toronto organizers, Kelli Lee, said that since August 2014 to date every day one person has been on a hunger strike in Toronto to support the fight of the Sewol victims' families for justice. As well, immediately following the Sewol ferry sinking, a large number of signatures were collected from the York and University of Toronto academic community calling for an inquiry into the disaster. At the meeting, participants wrote messages of support for the victims' families that the speakers will take back home.

For more information contact sewoltoronto@gmail.com, or visit this website where a petition can also be found: www.sewoltruth.com.

The speakers' upcoming tour dates in Canada are as follows:

Toronto
Talk with Sewol Families: A Korean Community Event
Saturday, March 21 -- 2:00 pm
North York Civic Centre, Council Chambers, 5100 Young Street. North York
For information: sewoltoronto@gmail.com

Sunday, March 22 -- 9:00 am - 6:00 pm
Exhibition "Lost Dreams of Sewol Victims"
North York Civic Centre, 5100 Young Street, North York
For information: sewoltoronto@gmail.com

Windsor
Sunday, March 22, 2015 -- 3:00 pm
Windsor Korean Church, 3149 Forest Glad Drive,
For information: heechun@me.com

Vancouver
Tuesday, March 24 -- 5:00 pm
SFU Harbour Centre, Room 1400/1401 -- 515 West Hastings St.
For information: nazeunyondai@gmail.com

Coquitlam
Wednesday, March 25 -- 7:00 pm
Best Western Coquitlam Convention Centre, 319 North Road
For information: nazeunyeondai@gmail.com

French Anti-Terrorist Act Takes Its First Victim

Commandeering the Internet in France

- Nicolas Bourgoin -

The front of civil liberties is one of the few areas where the government of France has not been idle. The ink has barely dried on the latest decree regarding websites that condone terrorism and already it has taken its first victim: the Islamic-News website, reputed to be pro-jihad. And this will likely be only the first of a (very) long list because at least fifty platforms are already in the government's crosshairs. Noting the individualization of terrorists' activities, the law passed on November 13, 2014, which strengthens provisions in the fight against terrorism, is directed against the radicalization of "lone wolves" via the Internet. But watch out for collateral casualties. There is obviously a great temptation to use the law against anti-establishment sites outside the Islamic sphere that advocate militant activism or support national liberation movements. In reality, it is all about how "terrorism" -- a highly elastic concept -- is defined.

The first site blocked for condoning terrorism now shows this message.

During parliamentary debates last fall, the anti-terrorism bill, which was tabled by Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, was denounced as inappropriate for the threat it claims it will eradicate and overly draconian. It strengthens surveillance of the Internet and Article 4 of the law permits the administrative blocking of sites that condone terrorism or incite the commission of terrorist acts.

Condoning terrorism, as with condoning war crimes, was previously punishable under the 1881 Press Freedom Law, which regulates freedom of expression in France. The new law removes from the relatively protective scope of the 1881 Press Freedom Law the offences of "incitement to terrorism" and "condoning terrorism." These have now been integrated into a specific article of the penal code, on the basis that these acts do not constitute "abuse of freedom of expression [...] but are activities directly responsible for terrorist acts." This will permit the government to more severely suppress such acts while giving more powers to investigators working on these files, including the power to infiltrate groups and recourse to wiretaps and electronic eavesdropping. The law also permits websites that condone terrorism to be blocked, without the approval of a judge. The process is expeditious: if the editor and host of a site do not respond to the demands of the judicial police [responsible for law enforcement and criminal investigations -- TML Ed. Note] for its removal, the Internet service providers are ordered to block access without delay. This measure mirrors the provisions to block child pornography sites, and although ineffective, constitutes another impediment to freedom of expression. There is no means of defence against administrative blocking, a process which is completely opaque and arbitrary: the Interior Ministry makes the offending content inaccessible and does not have to justify its decision. Thus, not a shred of evidence of the dangers posed by the Islamic-News website has been presented. As the icing on the cake, the Interior Ministry has given itself the means to log the IP addresses of visitors to these sites by redirecting them to a homepage under its control. This is rather disturbing when we also know that the government plans to expand administrative blocking to sites that promote racism or anti-Semitism -- actually anti-Zionism -- offences that will also be removed from the 1881 Press Freedom Law in order to facilitate and strengthen sanctions against such sites.

Worse still is that the offences subject to administrative blocking are not clearly defined: the definition of terrorism given by the European Union is wide enough to allow the suppression of union or non-violent political action (illegal strikes, the blocking of computer systems, the occupation of roads, or public or private buildings for demonstrations): "a structured group of more than two persons, established over time and acting in concert to commit terrorist offences [...] to threaten one or more countries, their institutions or their population, with the intent to intimidate them and to change or destroy the political, social and economic structures of the country." Support for a radical social movement or a struggle like that of the Palestinian movement may well end up subject to charges of condoning terrorism. The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) already considers a photographic exhibition on Hamas a glorification of terrorism and has requested it be banned.

Control of the Internet has been the constant concern of successive governments for the last 10 years because this space for freedom of expression is also often a space for dissent. But never before has a government gone so far with such draconian measures. The pretext of anti-terrorism has been used to justify the unprecedented monitoring of the Internet and the strengthening of executive power with the implementation of expeditious administrative justice. This takeover of the Internet is of use to the government in creating a diversion and closing ranks at a time of unprecedented economic, social and political crisis.

(bourgoinblog.wordpress.com, March 18, 2015. Translated from original French by TML.)

39th Anniversary of Palestinian Land Day

Long Live the Palestinian People and Their Steadfast Resistance! Oppose Zionist State Terror!

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

March 30 marks the 39th anniversary of Land Day. On March 30, 1976, six Palestinians from Arab villages inside the Green Line were shot and killed by Israeli forces while protesting the order to confiscate 5,500 acres of land from the Galilee. Since then, Land Day has been commemorated by Palestinians inside Israel as well as in the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and around the world by all justice-loving humanity.

This year's commemoration comes amidst increasing pressure from the Zionist occupying power in Israel to politically isolate and economically starve the Palestinian people. This is not only collective punishment for their steadfast resistance, but to prevent them from holding Israel to account on the international stage, for instance through the International Criminal Court, for its war crimes and other violations of international law. The imminent possibility of this seems to unleash further violence and aggression by the Zionist occupying forces.

The brutal crimes committed by the Zionists in Gaza during July and August 2014 weigh heavily on the conscience of the peoples of the world who wish to see the Zionists held to account for their crimes, past and present. Meanwhile, under the protection of the U.S. imperialists and their allies, such as the extremist pro-Zionist Harper government in Canada, the Zionists continue to stoop to new lows to justify their crimes and evade justice.

As well, the occasion of Land Day this year is more important than ever as the Zionists intensify the theft of land through the expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories.

These acts of aggression against an occupied civilian population and racist discrimination against Arab Israelis by the Zionist government of Israel are provocative and genocidal acts meant to "disappear" an entire people and deprive them of their inalienable right of return to the lands of which they have been so brutally dispossessed. It must not pass!

On the occasion of Land Day 2015, TML Weekly calls on Canadians to step up support for the just struggle of the Palestinian people for their right to be and their right of return to their homeland.

Long Live Palestine!
Long Live the Palestinian Resistance!
Hands Off Gaza!
End the Occupation!

Stepped Up Zionist Criminality Under
Netanyahu Government

Demonstration against Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, March 7, 2015.

The Israeli legislative election was held on March 17. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party prevailed in the election. During the campaign, Netanyahu cynically did his utmost to attack the Palestinian people and their rights on a racist basis, and to fearmonger and warmonger about Iran.

A report from Democracy Now! states, "Netanyahu closed out his campaign with a vow to oppose a Palestinian state, reneging on his nominal endorsement of a two-state solution in 2009. Netanyahu also vowed to expand the illegal West Bank settlements and issued a last-minute plea to supporters denouncing a high turnout of Arab voters."

Even the Israeli Zionist organization Peace Now pointed out in 2013 that the Netanyahu government, since taking office in 2009, "[with] its policies and actions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem [has disclosed] a clear intention to use settlements to systematically undermine and render impossible a realistic, viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"These policies and actions include:

- Construction, tenders, approval of future construction, and planning for future construction in settlements located deep inside the West Bank, east of the approved route of Israel's separation barrier;

- A record level of tenders, approval of future construction, and planning for future construction in settlements in East Jerusalem;

- Construction, tenders, approval of future construction, and planning for future construction in settlements in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem whose location renders their expansion especially problematic if not devastating to a future peace agreement;

- Adopting a formal policy that favors ‘legalizing' illegal settlement construction -- leading both to additional illegal construction and new illegal outposts, and to the establishment of new settlements for the first time in decades.

- Preferential funding for settlers and settlements, including funding projects intended to build support among Israelis for keeping settlements -- including settlements deep inside the West Bank -- as a permanent part of Israel."

The latest round of peace talks broke down in April 2014 due to the Zionists' persistence in building more settlements even as the talks were underway and amidst other acts of bad faith bargaining and intransigence.

This state of affairs makes clear that with the reelection of Netanyahu as Prime Minister, the Palestinians do not have a willing partner with whom to negotiate and that they can only rely on their own resistance and resourcefulness, and the support of the peoples of the world, to attain justice.

March 7, 2015 demonstration in Tel Aviv.

Palestine Joins International Criminal Court

The Palestinian Authority tendered its application to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) on January 2. On January 7, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon confirmed that the Palestinians will formally become a member of the ICC on April 1. The court's registrar said that jurisdiction would date back to June 13, 2014, i.e., prior to Israel's brutal assault on Gaza known as Operation Protective Edge that killed more than 2,200 people, the vast majority of whom were civilians.

A March 17 report from Mintpress informs, "Palestine plans to lodge its first complaint against Israel for alleged war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in just a couple of weeks.

"Mohammad Shtayyeh, minister at the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, told AFP, ‘One of the first important steps will be filing a complaint against Israel at the ICC on April 1 over the (2014) Gaza war and settlement activity.'

"Palestine, a United Nations observer state, will officially join the ICC on April 1, having acceded to the Rome Statute, the ICC's founding charter, on Jan. 2. The court now has jurisdiction over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

"Palestine lodged a request for the ICC to investigate possible war crimes in its territory on Jan. 1, the day before it acceded to the Rome Statute.

"The court has since opened a preliminary examination into the situation, which it said it would analyze in ‘full independence and impartiality.'

"[Last month] Israel responded to the court's announcement by calling on the 122 member states of the ICC to stop funding the court.

"The ICC ‘represents no one. It is a political body,' said Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He also stated: ‘We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia and in Germany simply to stop funding it.'

"France, Britain, Germany and Italy told Reuters that they would ignore Israel's call."

Zionist Economic Blackmail

Since January, Israel has been withholding the more than $100 million in taxes it collects every month on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, which is devastating the economy. This is economic blackmail to get Palestine to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) explained the situation in its January 2015 bulletin:

"The longstanding economic crisis in Gaza was further exacerbated in January by Israel's decision to freeze the transfer of tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), in retaliation for the Palestinian accession to the International Criminal Court. As a result, some 70,000 civil servants on the PA payroll only received a proportion of their December 2014 salaries, while the fate of January 2015 salaries is currently unclear. This exacerbates the ongoing problem of another 40,000 civil servants and security personnel recruited by the Hamas authorities who have received no salary since April 2014, except for a one-off humanitarian payment in September 2014.

"The ongoing salary crisis, compounded by one of the highest unemployment rates in the world (nearly 45 per cent), has further undermined the food security of the population and had a direct negative impact on the provision of basic services, including health, water and sanitation, and emergency responses.

"The frustration of the Gaza population is heightened by the slow disbursement of funds pledged by member states during the October 2014 Cairo Conference for the reconstruction of Gaza, a factor that severely handicaps the ability of humanitarian and development actors to face the enormous recovery and reconstruction workload. The approximately 100,000 people who are still displaced following the July-August hostilities are particularly affected. On 27 January, UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency] suspended its self-help cash assistance programme for refugee families, and the UNDP's [United Nations Development Programme] programme for the non-refugee population in Gaza is similarly compromised due to severe shortcomings in funding.

"In his most recent briefing to the Security Council, the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs warned that the situation in Gaza is becoming ‘increasingly worrisome,' and that a ‘combination of the failure to rectify the persistent governance and security issues and the slow pace of reconstruction has created an increasingly toxic environment.'

"To address the most critical humanitarian needs of 1.6 million vulnerable Palestinians, the Humanitarian Country Team, in partnership with the Government of Palestine, launched its Strategic Response Plan for 2015 on 12 February. The Plan requests U.S.$705 million to fund humanitarian interventions across the oPt [Occupied Palestinian Territories], 75 per cent of them projects in the Gaza Strip.

"Even if fully funded and implemented, these interventions alone cannot stop the ongoing deterioration in Gaza, or prevent a new cycle of violence. That would require more significant measures, including the lifting of the Israeli blockade; consolidation of the GNC [Government of National Consensus] and a resolution of the salary crisis; the disbursement of pledges made for the reconstruction of Gaza; reinforcement of the ceasefire; and the re-opening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt."

The U.S. has also threatened to cut U.S.$440 million in aid it sends to the Palestinian Authority if its application for membership in the ICC is not withdrawn. 

Intensification of Theft of Palestinian Lands

Settlement protest, Adu Dis, Palestine, March 6, 2015.

On February 12, Dr. Riyad Mansour, Ambassador and Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General, the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, in which he detailed the intensified actions of the Zionist occupying power to deprive the Palestinians of their lands. The letter is excerpted below:

"I regret to inform that conditions in the Occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, are worsening as Israel, the occupying Power, continues its illegal and provocative practices, especially in connection with its settlement activities and collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

"In grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, notably Article 49 and Article 33, Israel persists with its colonization of the Palestinian land, the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property, and forced displacement of Palestinian civilians. The occupying Power persists with gross collective punishment and reprisal against the entire Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip, foremost by way of its inhumane blockade. The cumulative effect is one of increased humanitarian suffering, frustration and hopelessness threatening to completely destabilize the situation.

"Despite the rising tensions and risks, Israel is systematically committing these crimes as a matter of policy. It does so in defiance of world opinion and blatant contempt for international law, including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which the State of Palestine has acceded and will soon become a State Party. Unquestionably, the lack of accountability has fostered this Israeli impunity, which it is high time for the international community to confront as a matter of a legal, political and moral responsibility, with full knowledge that such illegal actions have and continue to obstruct the achievement of a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

"In the recent period, the Israeli Government has moved forward on decisions to expand several settlements in the West Bank through various deceitful and illegal measures. This includes the issuance of military orders for the confiscation of thousands of dunums of Palestinian land by declaring them as so-called ‘State lands' and declaring other areas as so-called ‘closed military zones.' Throughout nearly half a century of this belligerent military occupation, all such measures have served one Israeli agenda: to forcibly displace the Palestinian population and colonize and de facto annex massive areas of Palestinian land, in grave breach of international law and in contradiction to the two-State solution on the pre-1967 borders.

"[... O]n 9 February, Israel issued a military order declaring large areas of land extending from Occupied East Jerusalem to Bethlehem, to Al-Khalil to the Dead Sea as ‘closed military zones.' Here, it is relevant to note that the Palestinian Government had previously declared its intentions to create a nature reserve and build an airport in this area of Palestine. Moreover, it should be noted that approximately 18% of the West Bank has been designated as a ‘closed military zone for training' by Israel, affecting at least 38 Palestinian communities and thousands of Palestinian civilians.

"At the same time, Israel continues unabated with settlement activities in Occupied East Jerusalem, aggressively targeting the City with this illegal campaign. In the recent period this has involved the advancement of plans for the construction of thousands of units under the guise of ‘tourism' and ‘building hotel rooms' in several distinctly Palestinian neighborhoods of the City, including in Jabal Al-Mukabber, Sheikh Jarrah, Beit Safafa and Wadi Al-Joz.

"All such plans are clearly aimed at entrenching Israel's illegitimate control of the area with the establishment of more ‘facts on the ground' further linking the illegal settlements and further isolating Occupied East Jerusalem. This involves ongoing attempts by the occupying Power to implement the so-called ‘E1' plan, including various schemes and repeated attempts to forcibly displace thousands of Palestinian Bedouin families in that area. We once again draw the attention of the international community, underscoring the threats of such Israeli actions to the contiguity of the State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem. In this regard, Palestinian civilian protests against these actions continue to be met with aggression, with the Israeli occupying forces destroying, for the fifth time this week, the ‘Bawabat Al-Quds' (Jerusalem Gateway) protest village near Abu Dis, tearing it down with bulldozers and confiscating property, including the personal belongings of the protesters.

"Further, in blatant connection with its illegal settlement campaign, Israel, the occupying Power, continues to demolish Palestinian homes and properties in direct breach of the clear prohibitions in international humanitarian law. In this regard, we must draw attention to the recent order issued by the Israeli Prime Minister for the demolition of 400 Palestinian structures in so-called ‘Area C' of the West Bank, the majority of which have been built with European Union funding support for schools and homes and economic development in this area. Also, on 27 January, an Israeli court issued an order for the confiscation of hundreds of dunums of Palestinian land in the village of Beit Ula northwest of Al-Khalil. In addition, the Israeli occupying forces have posted notices for the confiscation of another 2,000 dunums of private Palestinian land in the village of Shuyukh northeast of Al-Khalil.

"These deliberate, illegal and systematic Israeli actions are seriously undermining the Palestinian presence and viability of Palestinian communities in this area. In the month of January 2015 alone, Israeli demolitions in ‘Area C' resulted in destruction of 86 structures, including homes, water pipelines, cisterns and tanks, agricultural vehicles and fences, and the displacement of 117 people, including children. Such arbitrary and wanton destruction, which is clearly aimed at causing misery and making life unbearable for the Palestinian civilian population, constitutes a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and violates numerous human rights, including the right to property, to adequate housing, to livelihood, to education and to development.

"Of course, the occupying Power also continues apace with its demolitions in Occupied East Jerusalem. On 9 February, the Israeli occupying forces demolished a Palestinian home, again in the Silwan neighborhood, which has been heavily targeted by such destruction. The demolition rendered 14 members of the family of Ahmad Mahmoud Al-Abbasi homeless and the family was even prevented from removing its belongings from the home before it was demolished.

"In this regard, [the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)] had documented that, in the year 2014, at least 590 Palestinian-owned structures in "Area C" and Occupied East Jerusalem were destroyed by Israel. This resulted in the forced displacement of 1,177 Palestinians, the highest number since OCHA began monitoring the displacement of the civilian population under Israeli occupation in 2008.

"Regrettably, while the international community has long recognized the illegality of all of these Israeli actions, has repeatedly condemned them and called for their cessation, the failure to enact consequences for Israeli violations and contempt has led to a situation of total impunity that has made more and more implausible the achievement of the two-State solution, despite the firm Palestinian and global commitment to this solution."

Update on UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on 2014 Gaza Conflict

The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict continues its work, despite the attempts of the Zionists to scuttle it.

On March 9, the Commissioners issued a press release in which they informed that they have handed a letter to the President of the Human Rights Council requesting a deferral until June 2015 for their report. The release states, "The report was due to be presented to the Council on 23rd March 2015. The Commissioners have indicated their desire for more time in order to assess the information that they have collected -- much of which has only been received in recent weeks. They appreciate the concerns of all the victims and witnesses who have testified to the Commission and want to reassure them that they intend to do justice to their submissions. These are complex issues -- weighing the facts and considering the legal questions that arise is something that should not be rushed under any circumstances."

On February 3, Professor William Schabas resigned as Commission Chair, to ensure the Zionists' accusations of bias on his part could not be used to derail the Commission. President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Joachim Ruecker (Germany), later that day appointted Commission member Mary McGowan Davis to replace Professor Schabas as Commission Chair.

In related news, Al-Haq, an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organization based in Ramallah, West Bank, issued 'Divide and Conquer: A legal analysis of Israel's 2014 offensive on the Gaza Strip.' Al-Haq writes:

"Between 8 July and 26 August 2014, Israel carried out a massive offensive against the occupied Gaza Strip, codenamed ‘Operation Protective Edge.' According to documentation jointly compiled by the Palestinian human rights organisations Al-Haq, Al Mezan, Aldameer and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, a total of 2,215 Palestinians, including 1,639 civilians, were killed during the offensive. Of these victims, 556 were children. In terms of civilian objects, the organisations documented damage to 32,028 Palestinian residential houses. A documented 43,503 Palestinian families, including 125,079 children, were affected by the destruction and damage to residential house.

"Al-Haq's publication 'Divide and Conquer' [...] addresses select aspects of Israel's conduct of hostilities and puts the offensive in the wider context of the occupation and an ongoing unlawful closure. In particular the publication discusses Israel's attacks against hospitals, ambulances, journalists and media buildings. Furthermore, it challenges Israel's policy and practices concerning legitimate targets, the Hannibal Directive, the notion of voluntary human shields, and knock-on-the roof warnings that lead to mass forcible displacement. The publication casts a dark shadow on the behavior of Israel's self-proclaimed ‘moral' army as it reveals that Israel did not comply with international humanitarian law. Rather, it is apparent that Israel intentionally misconstrued norms of international law during combat."

To read the full report, click here.

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca