|
February 24, 2018 - No. 7 Successful Challenge to Federal Candidate Nomination Process Thousand Dollar
Registration Deposit
• Ruling
Without the Consent of the Governed Successful Challenge to Federal Candidate Nomination Process Thousand Dollar Registration Deposit Struck Down Canadians will no longer have to pay a $1,000
registration
fee when they stand as candidates in federal elections. The
requirement was struck down as unconstitutional by the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench in October 2017 in a Charter Challenge filed by
Kieran Szuchewycz after he unsuccessfully attempted to register
as an independent candidate in Calgary-Heritage in the 2015
Federal Election. Section 3 of the Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
states: "Every
citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the
members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and
to be qualified for membership therein." Presiding Justice A.B. Inglis
ruled that the
deposit requirement violates Section 3 and declared the related Canada
Elections
Act
provisions "of no force and effect." To bolster her argument, Justice Inglis suggested that the collection of 100 nomination signatures (50 in less populated ridings) is sufficient to prove the seriousness of a candidate. Szuchewycz had also challenged the nomination signature requirement, as well as the requirement for the person witnessing the signatures to appear at the time of formal nomination. Szuchewycz actually provided $1,000 when he attempted to register; he failed because he was unable to bring the witness to the signatures to Calgary from his hometown Edmonton. The returning officer for Calgary-Heritage failed to advise him that he could have filed the papers by fax, and had his forms notarized instead of having the witness appear in person. In any case, Justice Inglis upheld the requirement for nomination signatures and related provisions. In a letter sent to the political parties without representation in the House of Commons, Szuchewycz communicated his views on the Court's decision: ... [T]his wealth test, first introduced in the Dominions Elections Act of 1874, is now a thing of the past. No longer will candidates need to prove they have $1,000 dollars hanging around to exercise their Charter right to stand for election. While serious administrative restrictions remain on smaller parties and independent candidates, not to mention a practical mainstream media blackout, I hope this decision will give your parties the ability to stand a greater number of candidates across Canada and provide the diversity of choice and vision our country desperately needs. In a time when democracy appears to be receding, and we feel we have no say in the direction of this country, small parties and small people must stand up for what they believe in and offer a fresh alternative to the well connected careerists, dishonest politicians, and the wealthy elite who dominate the political establishment. I think you will agree that it is only through the increased political participation of ordinary Canadians that our political system can be reclaimed. In the wake of the Alberta Court's ruling, Elections Canada announced that it would immediately comply and no longer enforce the invalidated sections of the Canada Elections Act unless the government successfully appealed it. Candidates in the December 11, 2017 federal by-elections were not required to pay the deposit. On November 27, 2017, Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould announced her government would not appeal. Elections Canada Recommendations on Candidate RegistrationIn the report of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to the House of Commons following the 2015 Federal Election, the CEO proposed eliminating the requirement for 100 signatures in the candidate nomination process. The report, entitled An Electoral Framework for the 21st Century, stated: "The benefit of requiring prospective candidates to collect 100 signatures is marginal at best. The signatures do not represent support for the candidate. All that is required to sign the nomination paper is that the person reside in the candidate's electoral district. In fact, candidates can obtain signatures by going to public locations such as malls or community centres, and the signatures obtained do not necessarily equate to votes at the polls. As well, verifying the names and addresses of 100 electors to confirm that they reside in the electoral district is a time-consuming task for [Returning Officers] and delays the confirmation of the candidate's nomination. [...] The requirement for a witness to file the document suggests that the candidate is only reluctantly accepting the nomination. Moreover, the obligation to obtain signatures from electors acts as a barrier to people exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to be a candidate." The House of Commons Committee on Procedures and House Affairs, in its review of the CEO's recommendations, rejected dropping the nomination signature requirement. "After reviewing the recommendation," it reported to the House of Commons: "The Committee ... remains convinced that the signature requirement serves its purpose as a disincentive that reduces the number of frivolous candidates." Ruling Without the Consent of the Governed TML Weekly asked Anna Di Carlo, National Leader of
the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (MLPC), her opinion on the
elimination of the $1,000 deposit for candidate nomination. ***Anna Di Carlo: It is welcome. The MLPC appreciates the efforts of Kieran Szuchewycz to have it struck down. What the story of Kieran's experience with the nomination process reveals and is the most worrisome, in my opinion, is the failure of the Returning Officer in his riding to notify him of measures he could have taken to validate his nomination. It is quite possible the Returning Officer did not even know about them, but the fact there is no redress for Kieran is particularly egregious. It is an example of the kinds of problems Canadians face when trying to get nominated. The process in no way resembles an affirmation of the right to elect and be elected. On the contrary, it is designed to make sure the polity is kept out of power. MLPC candidates face all kinds of obstacles. Generally, the MLPC has candidates who know the law better than the Returning Officers so they are able to prevail. The MLPC is also well versed and deals with whatever problems are encountered in a manner which does not force individual candidates to hire their own lawyers to interpret the electoral act for them. On one occasion, one of our candidates had to go in front of a judge to get his ruling on a most minor matter and the judge had never even read the electoral act. The candidate had to explain it to him and inform him of what he was being called upon to do. TMLW: What are some of the issues surrounding the nomination of candidates? ADC: There are many. They go to the core of the aim of the electoral act which is kept hidden. In fact, participating as a candidate in an election on a conscious basis is a very rich learning experience in how the electoral system called a representative democracy actually works. Far from enabling citizens to elect and be elected, it disenfranchises the electorate and disempowers the polity. The MLPC encourages Canadians to participate as candidates as part of building a movement for people's empowerment. TMLW: Can you please elaborate this further. ADC: The Alberta Court's ruling striking down the $1,000 candidate registration deposit, the recommendation of Elections Canada to eliminate the nomination signature requirement, and the cartel parties' recommendation that the signature requirement remain in place, all reflect the patchwork approach to electoral reform in ways that do not address its fundamental flaw: it does not give rise to a system that puts the decision-making power in the hands of the citizens as members of a body politic.
In a body politic which recognizes the citizens as the source of power, membership in that body politic confers equality. In Canada, however, the body politic is recognized in name only. The system inherently distinguishes between those who rule and those who are ruled, those who govern and those who are governed, the sovereign and those who are subjects of the sovereign. The representatives appear to be of the people but are, in fact, of the sovereign. There is no equality because you are either a member of one lot or the other. Trudeau repeatedly makes the point that he is part of the privileged class which has no idea what it is like to belong to the side that has no access to privileges. This shows that references to citizens as equal members of the body politic are only to fool the gullible because the "sovereign" makes the rules, defines the rights enshrined in the Constitution and the limitations on rights exercised in the name of a higher purpose of some kind. Today this higher purpose is more often than not "national security." National security is made synonymous with what are called Canadian values, and limitations are imposed to curtail the activities and speech of those who do not conform to the values determined for them. The aim of elections is to get these "citizens" to consent to "the sovereign" acting in their name. They mark the ballot with an X to hand over their proxy to someone who they are led to believe represents them when in fact the person is a representative of the "sovereign" which represents the state -- itself an instrument of force. As in the rest of the
party-dominated system called a
representative democracy, the process of candidate selection in
fact negates the fundamental democratic rights of citizens to
select candidates who stand for election and to set the agenda of
the discussion during an election and establish the mandate they want
applied by a government they elect. Through the electoral
process they are not even able to render a serious verdict on the
tenure of the out-going government. The example of how the Trudeau government conducts its affairs illustrates the point very well. The Prime Minister issues what are called mandate letters to all the ministers, setting agendas and aims that he says he received a mandate during the election to implement. They may have no bearing whatsoever on what Canadians would like to see happen and are, in any case, not under their control. Then the Prime Minister claims that consultations, and townhalls, take place -- even if these are seen to be phony. And then the government commissions the Privy Council to set up a website to "track" its performance and render the verdict! It is not only pathetic but truly ridiculous. But the monopoly media and those who call themselves pundits and experts discuss it as if it has democratic merit. The emperor is able to strut around naked saying he is wearing a gorgeous suit of clothes not only because he has a retinue of sycophantic courtiers describing the non-existent suit of clothes and declaring it is gorgeous but, most importantly, because the people are naked -- they are stripped of power to defy the rule. They have no means of collectively expressing what they, as a polity, think. The "best" they are offered is to appeal to the rulers to be more fair or more magnanimous, less arrogant, etc. In all of this, the rulers clearly have no interest in guaranteeing the right to an informed vote. The participation of the people in elections is to give the rule of those who have usurped power by force the appearance of having the consent of the governed. The process was established to defend powerful private interests and today these interests operate on a global basis, not a national basis. To speak of sovereignty today has become anathema. The removal of the $1,000 deposit is a welcome development because it removes one obstacle to citizens being able to stand as candidates regardless of their financial ability. It does not change the exercise of privilege by those with economic and political power to curtail and limit the exercise of the right to elect and be elected of all citizens. It is considered "common wisdom" that only candidates selected by the political parties of the establishment stand a reasonable chance of getting elected, based on all kinds of things outside the control of the electorate. TMLW: Can you explain what the candidate nomination requirements are about? ADC: Candidate nomination requirements are supposed to give some sort of legitimacy to how candidates have been selected, but it certainly isn't working today. In addition, the candidate requirements are said to establish an "even playing field" because they apply equally to all. They are said to make sure "frivolous" candidates are discouraged. Who decides what constitutes a "frivolous" candidate and the criteria used to render judgment are yet another matter which goes to the core of a system that is corrupt. The criteria have their origins in the era when only white men of property were enfranchised. Both the nomination signatures and the nomination fee made sense to these men of property whose democracy was designed to keep out the hoi polloi -- which comes from the Greek for "the many." Getting 200 signatures from among the limited body of men entitled to vote at a time the size of a constituency could be as small as 3,000 was seen to be "representative" of this constituency. Nowadays 100 signatures are required to apply to be nominated in constituencies comprised of 85,000 to 145,000 people. The "parties" at that time were oligarchic. The representatives of the propertied classes with seats in the Parliament formed the "parliamentary bench." So too in the past, the nomination fee was linked with ensuring that men of property were the only ones who could stand as candidates and the fees were actually used to pay for the election itself; the cost of self-governance. As time passed, the workers' movement for empowerment
led first to universal manhood suffrage and then to universal suffrage.
"Mass parties" were created to represent non-oligarchic interests and
their membership comprised what was called "extra-parliamentary"
pressure. The role of the mass party was to lobby the parties with
seats in the parliament to succumb to their pressure. So long as there
was a connection between those seeking election and their constituents,
they might succumb to the influence of the constituents. But nowadays
the lobbying and influence which is effective is that exerted by
private interests.
It was only much later, well into the sixties, that the concept of "frivolous" candidates emerged as part of official political vocabulary to marginalize the people challenging the rule of the propertied classes. The problem which people who try to democratize the process face is that eliminating these requirements, such as by eliminating/increasing/lowering the quantity of money or signatures required, does not change the aim of the process which is to claim that the rulers have the consent of the governed. Today, even the appearance of ruling with the consent of the governed no longer exists. More and more, the slogan, "Not In My Name!" is raised at protest meetings. You can note also that because of this, arguments are beginning to abound about the need to protect national security by means of military rule. As the party system came to dominate the system of representative democracy, political parties took over the function of nominating candidates. Today, candidate selection and nomination are listed as one of the most important roles of political parties. This is repeated over and again even as the system is falling to pieces. Fake or phony party membership lists have become endemic in nomination races where the party elites line up what are called star candidates. In the party leadership campaigns major battles are breaking out about legitimate and non-legitimate memberships. The more the crisis of party membership deepens, with less than one per cent of the Canadian population being members of political parties, the more the political parties introduce schemes to cover up the failure of their system called a liberal democracy. Instead of making sure the polity can participate in decision-making, democracy is equated with "choice" -- choosing a candidate for election is akin to choosing a product to consume in the market. This is why the Liberal Party replaced the quality of a "Liberal Party Member" with that of a "Registered Liberal," mining registration from anyone who has visited their website and signed to receive a newsletter or registered a "like" on a promo item. Mechanisms are required that enable the people to select candidates from amongst their own peers on the basis of working out their own social, cultural and economic programs to move the society forward. By nominating those who genuinely represent the interests their collective has worked out, a new quality is born. Trudeau Government's Electoral Reform Agenda Liberals Make Cyber Security the
|
The Attorney General of
Canada (the government) argued
in
Court that the long-standing requirements for a deposit and
nomination signatures serve the purpose of deterring "frivolous"
candidates. In her judgment, Justice Inglis argued the $1,000
deposit has "the potential to prevent a serious and impressive
candidate from running in an election," agreeing with Szuchewycz,
who represented himself in the court proceedings. Justice Inglis
concluded that "many non-frivolous candidates might be prevented
from participating due to limited financial means, and a
frivolous candidate might easily be able to meet the deposit
requirement." She stated: "I find that [the deposit] constitutes
a measurably significant restriction on the right to play a
meaningful role in the electoral process and as such breaches s.
3 of the Charter."
Since coming to power in
2015, the Trudeau government has
taken measures that seriously further undermine what is called
the democratic process. A contributing factor has been the series
of governments that have pushed through the neo-liberal
anti-social offensive and claim they have a mandate to do so, a
claim the people do not believe to be true. This has time and
again raised questions about the system of representative
democracy, which is not seen to represent the people's interests
but only those of the rich.
The government proceeded to
hold phony consultations in
contrived town hall meetings across the country. When this didn't work
for it, it hired a company to conduct more
phony consultations via a website, hoping for a different result.
This too fell flat. All of this provides convincing examples that
public opinion is not established through marketing and public
relations campaigns. This experience has deepened the credibility and
legitimacy crises in which the democracy is mired. The government's
highly
anti-democratic behaviour on its electoral reform agenda
culminated in a change of Minister and the government declaring
it would no longer pursue its reform of the voting system.
|
|
Trans Mountain Pipeline Dispute Between BC and Alberta
Splitting the Polity in the Service of
Contending Private Interests
Demonstration in Vancouver, November 29, 2016, after Trudeau government
gave go-ahead to
Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
The NDP governments of Alberta and BC are locked in a battle over the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby, BC, where bitumen would be loaded onto tankers for export to Asian markets. According to the main actors, the dispute pits those who defend the interests of the workers against those who defend the interests of the environment. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley claims that the BC government is acting illegally and its actions are an attack on Canadian workers. BC maintains it is acting within its authority to protect the environment, especially the coastal waters.
The fight is said to have heated up when British Columbia Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman announced on January 30, that he would hold consultations about new regulations requiring more study of the consequences of a bitumen spill and more certainty around spill response time, clean-up and mitigation. Heyman stated that restrictions on increased transport of bitumen would apply until studies were completed. BC Premier John Horgan has since stated that it was never BC's intention to stop bitumen shipments before the study has been completed.
In response to Heyman's announcement, the Alberta government withdrew from talks on the purchase of electricity from BC's new Site C Dam, and announced a ban on the import of BC wines. Premier Notley declared BC's proposal illegal and unconstitutional, and demanded that the federal government intervene. She has appointed a 19-member panel, which includes representatives from government and the oil and financial monopolies, to consider further retaliatory action.[1]
BC NDP government is proceeding with construction despite large-scale
opposition to Site "C" Dam on the Peace River.
What is of interest, however, is that apart from comments from the BC Minister of the Environment, nothing has actually taken place to merit all of Notley's retaliatory measures. Her desperation is such that she is making declarations fit for Athena pontificating about Canada's "national interest."
"This project was approved
in the national interest and
it
must be built in the national interest. We are not going to stand
down until that happens," Notley said. "This is not a fight
between Alberta and BC. This is BC trying to usurp the
authority of the federal government and undermine the basis of
our Confederation."
The Alberta NDP government has also started a petition with the message "Tell Premier Horgan and the BC government to stop standing in the way of working Canadians."
The use of threats and counter-threats, retaliatory measures and power plays has become common place in a world based on money relations. One of the members of the 19-member panel appointed by Notley is Peter Hogg of the law firm Blakes. Blakes has published an opinion piece by Hogg on its website which argues that the actions of the BC government risk a breach of the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
The NWPTA is an accord between the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that "creates Canada's largest barrier-free interprovincial market." It expressly says, "Article 3: No Obstacles -- Each Party shall ensure its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between, among or through the territory of the Parties" and contains an enforceable dispute resolution mechanism.
The article suggests that if BC were to pass a law restricting movement of bitumen, producers and shippers could seek an injunction to delay implementation of the law until a constitutional challenge is heard. The article does not mention that the Alberta government has violated the NWPTA with its ban on wines from BC. Neither BC nor Alberta has mentioned the existence of this agreement. Instead Alberta has demanded that the Trudeau government intervene and on February 19, the BC government announced that it will be formally challenging the ban through the Canadian Free Trade Agreement's dispute settlement process.
Commentators are suggesting
that the Alberta NDP
government
is acting to derail Jason Kenney and the United Conservative
Party and present the NDP as the "defenders of Alberta." This
ignores that it is Kinder Morgan, builder of the Trans Mountain
pipelines, and other oil monopolies who are calling the shots and
demanding regulatory changes to allow them to do as they please.
It indicates that contention between the oil monopolies is
heating up at the expense of Canada and Canadians which has
nothing to do with protecting either workers' interests or those
of the environment.
All of this is taking place as the Trudeau government has announced it will replace the National Energy Board with a whole new regulatory regime. Is the real aim of this Alberta-BC dispute to put the spotlight on the Trudeau government to bring about regulatory changes demanded by the monopolies, who are threatening to take their investments elsewhere?
Despite National Energy Board and federal approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Kinder Morgan still requires permits from municipalities and the provincial government.[2] As well, Kinder Morgan faces legal challenges from the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby, the Squamish Nation, the Coldwater Indian Band, the Musqueam Indian Band, the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the Living Oceans Society who have all requested judicial review of the National Energy Board decision approving the pipeline.
There is also a serious question about whether the BC government has fulfilled its duty to consult with the Indigenous nations. The 2017 BC Supreme Court decision Coastal First Nations v. British Columbia (Environment) upheld the stand of the Gitga'at First Nation and Coastal First Nations that the provincial government was required to make its own decision about whether to issue a provincial Environmental Assessment Certificate for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project, and to consult with First Nations before doing so. The court also stated that BC could impose additional conditions.
Kinder Morgan claims that the permitting process is being used to delay and obstruct construction. Its position is that nothing should delay its construction schedule. In December 2017, Kinder Morgan was successful in getting the National Energy Board to rule that it could begin construction in the City of Burnaby without complying with several bylaws. The City of Burnaby argued that Kinder Morgan was responsible for the delays because it had not complied with the requirements to obtain permits.
It should also be noted
that, in 2007, the Kinder
Morgan
pipeline in Burnaby was breached by a third party causing
extensive damage to nearby homes and causing 78,000 litres of
crude oil to spill into Burrard Inlet poisoning 15,000 metres of
shoreline. Kinder Morgan was fined $150,000.
There is certainly evidence that Kinder Morgan has been allowed to ignore National Energy Board conditions with impunity. Another example of contempt for existing law and regulations was Trans Mountain's placement of anti-spawning mats in rivers without permission, which it was ordered to remove. In addition, various experts have charged that Kinder Morgan has a record of "skimping on safety measures."
Equating National Interest with Demands of the Monopolies
A constant theme from the federal and Alberta governments is that the Trans Mountain pipeline is in the "national interest." The National Energy Board's mandate is to regulate in the public interest, but governments no longer refer to the public interest, and speak instead of the "national interest." National interest is then equated with the narrow interests of the monopolies who make all the decisions concerning what is produced and how it is produced. Having declared that a project is in the "national interest," nothing can be permitted to stand in its way. It would seem to de facto render the affirmation of the right of the Indigenous nations to prior consent regarding projects which are carried out on their traditional lands and unceded territory a danger to the national interest. So too the affirmation of what are deemed to be regional or local interests, for example local bylaws or provincial regulations, would also be seen to endanger the "national interest."
In its complaint to the
National Energy Board in
December
2017, Kinder Morgan stated that it was experiencing delays
related to the permitting process. It stated that it must have "a
clear line of sight on the timely conclusion of the permitting
and approvals processes before it will commit to full
construction spending" and that it had set its 2018 budget
accordingly.
In this way, it seems that Kinder Morgan is demanding that permits be provided irrespective of whether it has itself fulfilled its obligations and, where it is blocked by local or provincial governments, it will turn to regulatory bodies to use their police powers within the context that the "national interest" is at stake. All of it is presented as a matter of rule of law, defence of the Canadian Constitution and the like. What the facts reveal however is the extent to which the oligopolies have directly taken over and rule through police powers. The existing constitutional arrangements in fact permit rule through police powers but in the past this has been kept in check because disputes were more likely to be resolved using dispute-resolution mechanisms. These are now flouted in the most self-serving manner. For the Notley government to be appealing to the Constitution is a sign of impotency, while the NDP government in BC waffles because it too is impotent.
The claim that building the
Trans Mountain pipeline is
going
to fix the economy does not hold water either. It would be
laughable if it were not a matter of the real turmoil and hardship
faced by the workers, farmers, small businesses, Indigenous
peoples and the degradation of the environment. For the working people,
whose years
of resistance brought the NDP government to power so as to deal
with things differently, it's deja vu
all over again. They have
long-since discarded the fiction that more shipping of raw
resources is a "solution" to anything.
The interests of the working people, Indigenous peoples and the environment of Alberta and BC lie in rejecting the old conscience of society which claims we have a civil society that upholds the public interest. The working class must set a new direction for the economy with the aim of solving the problems in a manner that favours the people. This is what nation-building is all about at this time.
Notes
1. The non-government members of the panel are: Frank McKenna (TD Bank Group, former New Brunswick premier), Anne McLellan (former deputy prime minister and federal minister of natural resources), Jim Carter (ATB Financial and former Syncrude president), Peter Hogg (law firm Blakes' scholar in residence), Peter Tertzakian (Arc Financial), Trevor Tombe (University of Calgary economist), Ginny Flood (Suncor) and Janet Annesley (Husky).
2. DeSmog Canada reports that Kinder Morgan may be in violation of a condition laid out by the National Energy Board requiring it to file a quality management plan at least four months prior to manufacturing any pipe or major components for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. National Energy Board notices stated that the documentation Trans Mountain filed in February 2017 was incomplete. "The quality management plan requires Trans Mountain to supply documentation regarding the qualifications of pipeline contractors, vendors and suppliers, quality auditing of manufactured pipe and the preservation of pipe during shipping and storage," DeSmog Canada points out. Documents submitted to the National Energy Board by Trans Mountain confirmed that pipeline manufacturing contracts were awarded between May and July of 2017 and pipe manufacturing began in October 2017, despite the fact that the requested documentation has not been submitted.
(With files from CBC, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, National Observer)
150th Anniversary of Birth of W.E.B. Du Bois
The Legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois -- Paul Robeson
|
|
William Edward Burghardt "W.E.B." Du Bois was born on February 23, 1868 in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. His stands as a political activist, human being, author, editor, sociologist, historian and Pan-Africanist earned him a place of great honour as an American leader second to none. W.E.B. Du Bois did his studies at Humboldt University of Berlin, Harvard University, Harvard College, Fisk University and the school of life. He died at the age of 95 in Accra, Ghana, on August 27, 1963.
On this occasion, TML
Weekly is
posting the tribute to Du
Bois of Paul Robeson, another great American leader, second to
none.
***
W.E.B. Du Bois in 1909 in his office at University of Atlanta.
Casting my mind back, my first clear memory of Dr. Du Bois was my pride in his recognized scholarship and authority in his many fields of work and writing. In high school and at college our teachers often referred us to standard reference works on sociology, race relations, Africa and world affairs. I remember feeling great pride when the books and articles proved to be by our Dr. Du Bois, and often loaned these to my fellow-students, who were properly impressed by his universally respected and acknowledged authority.
|
|
The Negro students joined the [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)] which Dr. Du Bois helped to organize and build; we read religiously The Crisis of which he was editor for so many years, and in which he wrote clearly, constructively and militantly on the complex problems of the American scene, on the Negro question, on Africa, and on world affairs. He called upon the American people, and particularly upon the whole labor movement, to understand the need for unity in the struggle of the working masses, including the Negro, for a decent standard of living.
We spoke of Dr. Du Bois as Our Professor, The Doctor, The Dean, with great respect, paid close attention to his pronouncements, and many of us followed him proudly marching down New York's Fifth Avenue in a protest parade led by the NAACP for civil rights. Dr. Du Bois talked and wrote and marched for civil rights. He insisted upon first-class citizenship for all Americans, upon full equality of opportunity, dignity, legal rights for us all. And he directed universal interest and attention to our Negro history and our rich African ancestry, to give us solid background for our struggle. All this way back many, many years ago, long before I graduated from college in 1919. Our good doctor, this great man, understood our situation, and our world, and was often a lone but clarion voice pointing out the urgent need for change.
Dr. Du Bois was a distinguished historian as well as a
social
scientist. We often talked about the wealth and beauty of our
folk heritage, particularly about Negro music which he loved and
found deeply moving. He often stressed the importance of this
special contribution to American culture. We had interesting
discussions about the likeness of our Negro folk music to many
other folk musics throughout the world.
Du Bois (front row, sixth from right) at 20th annual session of NAACP,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1929.
Our professor was not only a great and recognized
scholar, he
was also our most distinguished statesman. His knowledge of world
affairs, his founding of the Pan African Congress, his continuing
work in many capitols of the world for African independence, made
him widely known and respected abroad, and beloved in Africa. His
book The World and Africa was
one of the first important books on
modern post-war Africa, and helped to point out and focus
attention on the continuing exploitation of Africa by the "free
world." We of the Council On African Affairs were very fortunate
and proud when Dr. Du Bois joined our organization as Chairman in
1949. His knowledge, experience and wisdom, together with our
very able and devoted Executive Secretary, Dr. Alphaeus Hunton,
helped us to make some meaningful contribution to the struggle of
the African people, particularly in South Africa.
W.E.B. Du Bois (second from right) at the Pan Africanist Congress in
Brussels, 1921.
Fifteen years ago, when we built the Negro newspaper Freedom, under the very fine editorship of our friend and colleague, the late Louis Burnham, Dr. Du Bois was one of our very frequent and most brilliant contributors. His clear, forthright, informative article on Africa, on the Negro in America, on the changing world situation added stature to our publication.
Association, discussion and work with this great man were always richly rewarding.
Probably as a result of his
research and work in
sociology,
his close scientific observance of American history and social
scene, his keen and continuing interest in Africa and in
international affairs, Dr. Du Bois became a strong supporter of
Socialism as a way-of-life. He followed the rise of the Soviet
Union with understanding and appreciation, and made friends with
the whole socialist world. He welcomed not only their rejection
of racism, but also, as a social scientist, he appreciated their
constructive and practical interest in, and effective
governmental activity for the welfare of the vast majority of the
people. Dr. Du Bois said many times that he believed the 1917
Russian Revolution was the turning-point in modern history, and
was of first importance in the shaping of a new world with the
emergence of many other socialist lands.
So that it was logical, and deeply moving when, in 1961
--
having the whole world picture in focus, Dr. Du Bois became a
member of the Communist Party of the United States, and still
later became a welcome and honored citizen of Ghana, in his
beloved Africa. He followed with deep concern the independence
struggles in various parts of Africa, and knew that these
struggles must be won, so that Africa and the African people
could develop their great potential. With his brilliant mind, his
far-reaching education, his scholarly academic background, Dr. Du
Bois was nevertheless a very much down-to-earth human being, with
a delightful and ready wit, a keen and mischievous sense of
humor, and enjoyed life to the full. I especially remember his
gay spontaneous laughter.
2011 photo of centre named in honour of Dr. Du Bois in Accra, Ghana.
And I remember particularly a wonderful Thanksgiving dinner at his home in Grace Court in Brooklyn about ten years ago. He had invited some guests from the United Nations, because he knew they had heard and read about Thanksgiving, but had no personal experience and understanding of this special American holiday. So this was as typical a Thanksgiving dinner and evening as he and his wife Shirley could make it, with the good Doctor a gay and witty host, explaining everything step by step -- from turkey and cranberry sauce to pumpkin pie and early American history. After the delicious dinner, over coffee and brandy before the log fire burning in the spacious living room fireplace, he spoke of Frederick Douglass, whose portrait hung over the mantel, and of his place in American history. That day is a happy and cherished memory.
I also remember so well the political campaigning of
Dr. Du
Bois when he was candidate of the American Labor Party of New
York for the U .S. Senate. In the usual free-for-all scramble
which American political campaigns involve, Dr. Du Bois always
remained calm and dignified. He never descended to shrill attack
or name-calling, but discussed the real issues with brilliant
speeches in which he combined his keen intelligence and trenchant
humor. All of us worried about how he, at the age of 82 and
seemingly fragile, would withstand the grueling pace of the
campaign. But Dr. Du Bois took care of his health as
intelligently as he did everything else, and those who planned
meetings at which he would speak knew that if he was scheduled
for 10 p.m. for half-an-hour, then no matter what the
unpredictable state of the meeting, at 10 o'clock precisely Dr.
Du Bois would walk onto the platform, speak brilliantly for
half-an-hour, rest a while, then go on his way.
The more Dr. Du Bois observed and understood world
events,
the more he recognized that peace was a prime issue in this
nuclear age. And so, typically, he became associated with peace
movements all over the world, and worked actively for peace. In
1949 he became Chairman of the Peace Information Center here in
our country, and was later indicted, tried and acquitted for his
leadership in work for peace.
W.E.B. Du Bois (right) and Paul Robeson (centre) at the World Peace
Conference, Paris, 1949.
When Dr. Du Bois and Shirley came to London in 1958, we were living in a flat in Maida Vale. Soon after their arrival, Eslanda and I went to Moscow for a long visit and turned our flat over to the Du Boises. We were very happy when they told us they had enjoyed their stay there, and we had thus helped to make their London visit comfortable. After they left we felt we should put a plate on the door saying "Dr. Du Bois slept here."
|
|
My last memory of Dr. Du Bois is in London, in less happy circumstances, in 1962. The doctor, then 94 years old and very ill, had been brought to London for a very serious operation. He was tired and weak, and we worried about how he could stand the ordeal. I was ill in a London nursing home at the time, and felt very sad and helpless about the Doctor's condition. So that when my wife, who visited him regularly in the hospital, told me that he wanted very much to see me and had asked especially for me, I got up and went to London University Hospital and we spent some time together. Ill as he was, he told me about his work on the Encyclopedia Africana; we talked about the progress of the Negro revolt at home in America, about the power and influence of the Socialist world, about the marvelous coming-of-age of the African people.
I visited him once again in the hospital, and was delighted and greatly relieved to find him miraculously improving. This was in August 1962.
While I remained in the London nursing home, still ill, Dr. Du Bois recovered from his operation, got up and with Shirley traveled to Switzerland where he rested in the sun, went to Peking where they attended the October Celebration, on to Moscow where they attended the November Celebration, and back again to London in late November, where Dr. Du Bois visited me in the nursing home. He gave a fascinating account of his trip and experiences, which he had enjoyed immensely.
That was the last time I saw him. He and Shirley went on to Ghana where a marvelous welcome awaited them.
My cherished memories of Dr. Du Bois are his brilliant and practical mind, his intellectual courage and integrity, his awareness of the world and of our place in it -- which helped to make us all also aware. His fine influence on American thinking, and on Negro thinking will continue to be incalculable. We admired, respected, appreciated and followed him because he was clear and forthright, because he was militant with a fighting strength and courage based upon wide knowledge, great wisdom and experience. I remember too his deep kindness.
Dr. Du Bois was, and is in the truest sense an American leader, a Negro leader, a world leader.
(Originally published in Freedom Ways, 1st Quarter, 1965)
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca