On February 23, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden held a virtual bilateral meeting. Prime Minister Trudeau summed up his February 23 meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden saying, "The President and I discussed the ambitious new Partnership Roadmap, based on shared values and priorities, that will guide our countries' work together over the coming years."

The "shared values and priorities" referred to come out of a neo-liberal play book. This can be seen from the material they released after the meeting and from their acts, neither of which make the economy sustainable or contribute to nation-building. On the contrary, the measures are part of nation-wrecking at home and abroad.

"In the face of COVID-19, of climate change, of rising inequality, this is our moment to act," Trudeau said. "Job one remains keeping people safe and ending this pandemic. This afternoon, the President and I discussed collaboration to beat COVID-19, from keeping key supplies moving and supporting science and research, to joint efforts through international institutions. We're standing united in this fight," he said.

Both the U.S. and Canada have used the pandemic to justify pay-the-rich schemes. From the beginning, ruling elites have been unwilling to marshal the considerable resources of each country to defend the people instead of providing the means for the rich to become richer. This has resulted in 512,000 COVID-19 related deaths and mounting in the U.S. and tremendous hardship for working people of both countries.

Two days after the grandiose statements were made at the Summit, Biden demonstrated in practice the traditional U.S. method of "keeping people safe" by unleashing the U.S. war machine to bomb Syria. Trudeau did not utter a peep in opposition to the continued aggression and destruction of the countries of West Asia and North Africa, which involves Canada through the NATO war alliance. On the contrary, he expressed the same enthusiasm of "keeping people safe" through war, destruction and pillage. 

On February 26, a virtual meeting was held between Canada's Foreign Minister Marc Garneau and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken which declared a "commitment to address human rights and needed reforms in Cuba." The joint statement from the two leaders could just as well have declared: "Share our neo-liberal values or we will bomb you!" They demand subservience to the U.S. drive for world hegemony by presenting this "value" as fighting for freedom and democracy. Canada has become integrated into the U.S. war machine and the power of the Pentagon backs the administrations of both countries, while more and more laws and regulations are passed which consider any discussion questioning their motivations to be sedition, treason, against the national interest and a threat to national security.

Presenting themselves as those who will provide the fundamental constitutional problems of both U.S. and Canadian societies with solutions, Trudeau said: "The past year has revealed all sorts of inequalities in our societies, and now more than ever, it is time to act." The past year in fact saw more than 20 million people in the U.S. alone demonstrate for more than 100 days straight prior to the U.S. election, along with millions more in Canada and around the world, against state-organized racist police violence, impunity and more funding for police while social programs for the people continue to be privatized and the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

The trial of the former police officer who killed George Floyd begins March 8 in Minneapolis. The Mayor and Minnesota's Governor declared their version of "it is time to act on inequalities" by militarizing and occupying the city with thousands of heavily armed police and soldiers and telling the people to stay away. Their actions are similar to the lockdown and military occupation of Washington, DC for Biden's inauguration with its open threats to violently suppress the people if they dare show their faces. The military's show of force also sends a blunt message to the political representatives of the rich, including Biden, that they better not step out of line when serving the ruling oligarchy and war economy, "or else!"

Trudeau also used the Summit to make it clear Canada wants to be part of "Buy America" by being considered an integral part of the U.S. economy. This is the opposite direction Canadians are calling for when they demand the economy be self-reliant and contribute to creating a safe natural and social environment under the control of the workers.

"Today, the President and I discussed leveraging supply chains and support for businesses," Trudeau said. Emphasizing the "shared value" of paying the rich through marshalling public funds to support the private business cartels and monopolies of the global oligarchs, he added: "Here in Canada, innovation and clean energy will play a critical role in our plan to rebuild our economy. The President and I discussed the importance of clean growth to create new opportunities for Canadians and Americans, and also to protect the environment and fight climate change."

To date, the Trudeau government's greatest "innovation" involving "clean energy" has been to take the money-losing boondoggle Trans Mountain Pipeline project off the hands of its private U.S. owners who were desperate to dump it and pay them a fortune in public funds. The government then further mobilized the state's police powers, including the courts, to ram through the pipeline to Vancouver over the objections of many Canadians who do not want anything to do with it. Arrests, jailing and violent police attacks on opponents of the pipeline are mounting daily. Attempts to put jobs and sustainable development, workers and environmentalists into irrational separate categories to justify the criminalization of both will not create a viable direction for the economy.

September 8, 2018. Protest in Vancouver against building of  the Trans Mountain pipeline

On the issue of innovation, clean energy and rebuilding our economy, Trudeau was possibly also referring to the Alberta government's disastrous pay-the-rich scheme of investing billions of public funds into the Keystone XL pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast that Biden cancelled because it competes with similar projects already underway and the green investments of former Vice President Al Gore. The main "sharing" going on between a gushing Trudeau, visibly relieved that his like-minded friend has become the president, and this like-minded U.S. president, appears to be the sharing of schemes to pay the rich and a deep commitment to serve the oligarchy.

To further muddy the waters and militarize the people's concern over climate change and to use the issue and public funds to enable certain global oligarchs to make billions in a so-called green economy, Trudeau said, "We must continue to take meaningful action to respect the Paris Accord and achieve our goals for a net-zero emissions future."

The only "net-zero" appears to be when Canada builds pipelines and the U.S. cancels them.

"Finally, we also discussed ways to build a stronger and more peaceful world. To protect our citizens and our communities, we must work together," Trudeau said. He did not reveal if Biden's discussions of his plan for a "more peaceful world" included bombing Syria two days later.

Working together "includes strengthening continental defence and combating violent extremism. And around the world, we must defend our shared values and interests, for example, by renewing alliances and supporting multilateral institutions," Trudeau said. "Canada and the United States are each other's closest allies, most important trading partners, and oldest friends," Trudeau gushed.

Canadians need a nation-building project of their own doing, to make Canada a zone for peace with an anti-war government and to change the aim of the economy from one integrated into the U.S. war machine based on maximum private profit for the few to one that serves the people and works with others in a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit for all humanity, not competition and war.

This means as a first priority taking Canada out of the NATO and NORAD war alliances and all other entanglements with the U.S. war economy and military machine. It requires forging a new direction for the economy. This remains a priority.

For the joint statement of President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau at the conclusion of their meeting, with comments by TML Monthly click here.

February 18, 2021. Montreal car caravan in support of Cuba

TML Monthly fully concurs with the statement released by  the Canadian Network on Cuba and its National Spokesperson and Co-chair Isaac Saney, following the communiqué issued by Global Affairs Canada on the February 26 meeting held between Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The criminal U.S. blockade of Cuba and campaign of disinformation and covert actions to achieve regime change are despicable and must be ended. For Canada to adjust its policy to match this U.S. aim as a price of "friendship" and "partnership" with the U.S. clearly reveals its adoption of extremist ideological beliefs which cause and justify violence against an entire people. Canada's government must be called on to change its policy. The government can be held  to account by stepping up actions which express concrete solidarity with the Cuban people.

The Canadian Network on Cuba is outraged by the communiqué from Global Affairs Canada summarizing the February 26 virtual meeting between Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. It is an open declaration that Ottawa, in lock-step with the United States, arrogates to itself the right to intervene in the affairs of countries across the globe, particularly in the Americas. As the follow-up to the so-called Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership launched by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden in their own February 23 virtual meeting, the communiqué not only violates international law, norms and conventions but also reeks of the discredited colonialist mentality and practice of foisting on independent countries imperial arrangements that they do not want or accept.

The declaration of the Trudeau government's "commitment to address human rights and needed reforms in Cuba" is not only a slander against Cuba but an intolerable interference in the sovereign affairs of Cuba and violation of its right to self-determination. Global Affairs Canada is deliberately parroting the disinformation of the U.S. State Department about Cuba. Nowhere in the communiqué is there a mention of the real violator of human rights in Cuba: the ongoing U.S. economic war and campaign of subversion against the heroic island nation. Nowhere is there even an inkling that Garneau took Blinken to task for not addressing the Trump regime's deceitful and duplicitous designation of Cuba as a sponsor of terrorism: an act of blatant opportunism and cynicism, flying in the face of the reality that it is Cuba that has been the victim of all manner of terrorist attacks carried out with the complicity, participation and sponsorship of Washington.

If the Trudeau government is truly interested in the cause of democracy, then it should unequivocally and unambiguously demand the end of U.S. economic sanctions and other aggressions against Cuba. Since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution more than sixty years ago, the objective of Washington's strategy has centred on the negation and extinguishment of Cuba's right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence. This effort to asphyxiate Cuba is the principal obstacle to this proud island nation's social and economic development, costing the people of Cuba in excess of U.S.$100 billion.

Ottawa's open alignment with U.S. policy is deeply disturbing and alarming. We call on Canadians to repudiate it with the contempt it deserves. The February 26 communiqué harkens back to a bygone era where great powers acted with impunity against and with utter disregard for the nations of the Americas. The peoples of the Americas and the world have time and time again resoundingly rejected this method and mode of thinking. The great anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries bear witness to this.

If the Canadian government truly stands for democracy and the well-being of the peoples of the Americas and the world, it must uphold and practice a foreign policy based on equality and respect for sovereignty and the right of self-determination, abandoning and renouncing colonialist and imperialist mindsets and policies.

February 28, 2021. Car caravan for Cuba in Ottawa

(March 2, 2021)

March 1, 2021. Demonstration in Haiti against the Jovenel Moïse dictatorship

The Haitian Coalition in Canada Against the Dictatorship in Haiti (CHCCDH) -- a group of some 30 organizations and individuals recently formed in Montreal, in the name of Haiti's sovereignty and the right of its people to self-determination, sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which raised the demand for Canada to revise its policy towards Haiti.[1]

"The CHCCDH is deeply concerned about the political situation in Haiti and by Canada's unconditional support for the illegitimate and unconstitutional rule of Mr. Jovenel Moïse, whose mandate expired on February 7, 2021 under Section 134-2 of the amended Haitian Constitution. The Canadian government is supporting and financing the ruling dictatorship as well as the Haitian National Police, which has been transformed into the regime's militia. Thus, it is supporting criminals in Haiti. We believe that this constitutes a violation of the ethics and principles of non-interference which must guide Canada's relations with Haiti.

"Let us remind ourselves that massacres are being perpetrated daily under Moïse's dictatorship by armed gangs attacking the population in working-class neighbourhoods. These gangs operate completely unchecked, to the point of demanding and obtaining a minister's dismissal. Kidnappings and assassinations have become a daily recurrence for the Haitian people. The UN recorded 234 cases of kidnappings in 2020. Terror is spreading and settling in. The National Police, transformed into the armed wing of the state, is repressing citizens' protests, persecuting political opponents and targeting journalists. Summary executions, arbitrary arrests, and the use of live ammunition against demonstrations organized by opponents of the government have become the norm. No one in being spared in this wave of repression. The Haitian people reject with all their might this new dictatorship that is flouting the most basic human rights of citizens.

"As a means of ensuring his continuity, Moïse has set up a Provisional Electoral Council that has neither been sworn-in nor is constitutional, whose mission is to organize the next elections he is planning along with the complicity of Canada, the United Nations, the OAS and other countries of the international community. In light of the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights, we invite Canada to dissociate itself from the dictatorial project of Jovenel Moïse, which has already begun trampling upon all the democratic gains of the Haitian people."

Note

1. The CHCCDH is a group of personalities, organizations and associations evolving within various sectors of Canadian society. Its aim is:

1. to denounce the non-respect of the Haitian Constitution, the dismantling of institutions, the systematic violation of the rights and dignity of Haitian citizens, the installation of a generalized climate of terror and of political persecution, the arbitrary and dictatorial practices of the de facto government of Jovenel Moïse;

2. to listen to the demands of the Haitian people and express our solidarity with their struggle and their right to self-determination;

3. to mobilize the Haitian community in Canada and create synergies with the Haitian diaspora around the world.

The CHCCDH can be contacted on Facebook or by email at coalitioncontredictature@gmail.com 

(Translated from original French by TML.)

On February 25, a motion was tabled in the House of Commons to "condemn the National Firearms Association (NFA) and statements made by Sheldon Clare, President, on February 16, 2021 in a video posted online with regards to the introduction of Bill C-21," draft legislation concerning gun control.[1]

The motion, moved by Liberal MP Pam Damoff, was adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, with Conservatives abstaining. It quotes words spoken in a few moments of a one-hour-and-12-minute video entitled C-21 Attack on Firearms Owners,  speech which the motion deems to be "extremely dangerous." The motion was amended just before adoption to specify that it be tabled in the House of Commons, thus construing it a matter of national political importance.

The motion condemns what any reasonable person would deem to be legitimate public discourse. It follows an unfolding modus operandi whereby matters of concern to the people -- such as racism, "extremism," and, in this case, increasing incidents of gun violence -- are used to both divert from and lend legitimacy to the growing assault on freedom of speech and opinion. It seems that every stereotyped motherhood and apple pie issue is being played to the hilt to advance a police state in which any utterance can be used to criminalize and defame. The attack on the NFA is an easy target because of the bad rap "gun-defenders" have got.

The motion also raises the serious question of the extent to which the political discourse and activities of the people are being surveilled and monitored. It raises concerns about how the security forces are implementing their defence of "democratic institutions" from the activities of "bad actors," both foreign and domestic. Who then watched a 72-minute video to determine that it contains, in the words of MP Damoff, the utterance of "extremely dangerous words?" In a situation where it is well known that Members of Parliament have generally become nothing more than highly-directed mouthpieces for the upper echelons of the ruling elite as a whole and their political parties in particular, the motion presented by Damoff must be viewed in the context of an official campaign, not the spontaneous or happenstance, outraged concern of an individual Member of Parliament as it is presented.

The motion reads: "That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security condemn the National Firearms Association and statements made by Sheldon Clare, President, on February 16, 2021 in a video posted online with regards to the introduction of the Bill C-21 which states: '...revisit their old wood-working and metal-working skills and construct guillotines again (laughter). That would really be the best kind of Committee of Public Safety to get this reestablished. If they want to make it about public safety that was the way. The sound of this person's voice is not one that is joking. He was not joking. I don't think they understand that this is not New Zealand, this is not the United Kingdom, this is not Australia. This is a country made up of people who been here for thousands of years, our aboriginal people, immigrants from Europe who fled tyranny, who fought against tyranny and .... know tyranny when they see it. And this my friends is tyranny.'"

In Committee, MP Damoff stated that the video had "close to 7,000 views," and that "Words matter." She went on to say, "We saw in the U.S. on January 6 what happens when inflammatory words provoked insurrection and violence. We've seen it here in Canada with someone breaching the grounds of Rideau Hall and someone else following NDP Leader Jagmit Singh. I know it sent a chill down my spine to hear talk of building guillotines when referencing the Committee ... by the NFA and its leadership."

"We need to shut-down this kind of language, this way of talking and thinking that it's okay to talk about building guillotines and laughing," she said. "We need to condemn this kind of language."

The remarks in question occur 45 minutes into the video which features four individuals from the NFA broadly discussing Bill C-21, how the Liberals have gone about its enactment, and matters related to registered gun-owners who use their weapons for legitimate purposes versus the problem of gun-related violence. It presents the NFA's plans to tackle what it believes to be unwarranted legislation that violates gun-owners' rights. Among other things, the NFA believes that Bill C-21 has nothing to do with tackling criminal violence, that it will not receive Royal Assent before the end of the current Parliament, and that the Liberals are using Bill C-21 as a pre-election campaigning ploy.[2]

In response to the motion, the NFA's Sheldon Clare issued a press release: "I am surprised that Liberal parliamentarians have time to watch our popular NFA Talk podcast. Perhaps the country would be in better shape if the Liberal government actually started working for the Canadian people instead of against them. It astounds me that any Canadian would still support the Liberals after their many scandals and their tyrannical attack on the firearm, airsoft, and air gun communities -- not to mention the economic damage that this Liberal government has caused. I make no apology for any comments made during our NFA Talk podcast -- like them or not -- we have the right to free speech, at least for now. Nothing said advocated violence against anyone. The firearms licence, registration, and classification system are all failed Liberal gun control and warrant challenging. The May 1, 2020 Order in Council and Bill C-21 proposing a sweeping theft of people's lawfully obtained property is also unacceptable. The NFA maintains that our strong Canadian firearms heritage and culture matters, and we shall continue to defend it with vigour."

Notes

1. Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms) was tabled in the House of Commons on February 16. The legislation enacts regulatory restrictions on firearms previously instituted by Order-in-Council in May 2020, capturing over 1,500 various types of weapons and establishing a buy-back program for individuals in possession of such weapons. The National Firearms Association has been opposing the regulations since that time, including through a court challenge.

Criminal defence legal firm, Robichaud, wrote at the time of the Order-in-Council: "... the Liberal government has banned over 1,500 models of firearms affecting approximately 90,000 firearms with an aim to prohibit ‘military-style assault weapons.' Historically, 'military-style assault weapons' i.e. the ones used by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), in war-time and peacekeeping activities, have already been inaccessible (via prohibited status) since June 27, 1969 when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, received royal assent. ... This previous legislation already bans all the current weaponry used by the CAF with the possible exception of the C3A1, as it does not appear on the prohibited firearms regulation to the Criminal Code or the new order. Considering Canadians' inability to legally access military grade (or even low grade automatic) firearms for over 40 years, it remains unclear, what legal 'military-style assault weapons' this order is seeking to inhibit or what this undefined term means."

The Liberal government says the purpose of Bill C-21 is "to combat intimate partner and gender-based violence and self-harm involving firearms, fight gun smuggling and trafficking, help municipalities create safer communities, give young people the opportunities and resources they need to resist lives of crime, protect Canadians from gun violence, and subject owners of firearms prohibited on May 1, 2020 to non-permissive storage requirements, should they choose not to participate in the buyback program."

2. Portion of transcript of NFA video that provides context for quote in MP Pam Damoff's motion re: building of guillotines:

"Sheldon Clare (NFA President): The thing we have to do here folks, is we have to get involved politically. Really take this seriously. No more of this nonsense about vote-splitting. This is about do or die, the Liberals must be defeated in the next federal election. We're pushing hard in our court cases; Guy Laverge is working really hard for us to make sure that we're going to be successful in our intervention, and with Solomon Friedman running the Parker vs Canada case to help defend all of us but, boy-oh-boy, the Liberals must be defeated. That is it, that's the bottom line. And then we have to hold the Conservatives to their promises, to their illusions and everything and make sure they understand that this is not fooling around, we're not backing off, this has to get sorted. They can't throw us under the bus.

"Charles Zach (NFA Executive Director): I'd just like to piggy-back on that for a second as well because people are really mad now, we're not just disappointed but they are hopping mad. And they want to do something and I'm getting, you know, e-mails from people saying 'let's do a march,' you know, 'let's storm the capital,' blah blah blah, and I'm going 'Don't waste your time,' okay? 'I've done this already and you know, it had no effect.' So they say 'what can we do.' And I say, 'Here's what we can do: We need to marshal those people who are unaffiliated with us, who are free-riding on the good work that we are doing, and others. They need to get involved with us, or at least donate, but they do need to pony up and get involved politically at the local level. Right? And try to elect people that are pro-gun who are committed to getting rid of these draconian laws and that's the way this is going to go because in the end, the only way we are going to vanquish this is by getting rid of the Liberals and that's it, not marching ...'

"Charles Zach: Amen, brother."

On February 17, the National Firearms Association (NFA) recorded a podcast on the issue of pending gun control legislation being brought in by the federal Liberal government which the NFA is strongly opposed to. In the course of the podcast, the president of the NFA, Sheldon Clare, who lives in Prince George, BC, criticized the Liberal legislation as "tyrannical."

Furthermore, he jokingly related a conversation that he had previously with an unnamed NFA supporter who "suggested that we needed to revisit our old wood-working and metal-working skills and construct guillotines again." Clare added "that would really be the best kind of committee of public safety, to get that re-established."

News outlets since then have reported that the House of Commons Sergeant-at-Arms has been alerted to Clare's comments and has been pressed "to consider those comments in the context of several threats made against MPs in the last year." In addition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security voted to condemn the comments made by Clare calling them "dangerous" and potentially "leading to violence," especially in light of the recent storming of the U.S. capitol by Trump supporters and threats to certain MPs.

Responding to this criticism, Clare rejected the idea that his comments were advocating violence. "I've merely related comments from upset people who have a real big problem with tyranny," he said. "And I think that the virtue-signalling woke liberal left has a problem with being called out as being tyrants."

In my opinion, the issue with this whole affair is not whether we support the NFA's or the Liberal Party's stand on gun control. Nor is it whether we stand on the left, right or centre side of the political spectrum. Nor whether we agree or don't agree with Clare's remarks or the unnamed person he was quoting.

Rather the issue has to do with freedom of speech which many would argue is under attack on a number of fronts today. Does anyone seriously believe that the "unnamed person" is advocating the construction of a guillotine outside Parliament that will execute MPs? The reference is clearly "over the top" and hyperbolic like comments sometimes made by angry constituents saying that such and such politician or public official should be "hung" or "drawn and quartered" or "tarred and feathered."

I would argue that such comments do not constitute criminal advocacy or a security threat. To say they do, is to put political discourse, with its often intemperate and raucous remarks, under the realm of police powers, threatening the civil rights of individuals, including freedom of speech.

This is not a minor issue these days. Indeed, the state security apparatus of various countries, including Canada and the U.S., have already brought in or are considering even more repressive and invasive measures to restrict or interfere with the rights of the people, all under the rubric of protecting against "extremism" which often comes down to simply being critical of government and its institutions.

In addition, the big social media technology companies, like Facebook and Google, which are private organizations, are arbitrarily censoring and de-platforming individuals and organizations from across the political spectrum using "identity politics" and "foreign interference" claims as weapons.

In this context, threat inflation itself becomes a threat.[1]

Note

1. "Threat inflation typically relies on misrepresenting the facts, or presenting them in the most alarming way possible." (The American Conservative, June 20, 2016).

(With files from Global News.)

Crimes Committed in the Name of the Greater Good

Mitting Inquiry's Revelations on the Scope of
British Undercover Policing

Phase I

The proceedings of the "Undercover Policing Inquiry" with retired judge Sir John Mitting as chair (Mitting Inquiry) taking place in Britain at this time are confirming the many crimes carried out by the British undercover police against social and political activists for which they have never been held to account. The scope of the inquiry is to investigate the crimes committed since the Vietnam War. Because the activities of the secret police are by definition considered legitimate to preserve the rule of law and empire, the Mitting Inquiry is held under the framework of the thought material of the British Empire that everything was done for the greater good and, "on balance," was "a good thing."

The Mitting Inquiry began hearing evidence on November 2, 2020 but it was in fact launched in 2014 by then Home Secretary Theresa May. She launched the Inquiry after it was revealed that police had covertly monitored the campaign for justice over the racist murder of black youth Stephen Lawrence in 1993. The aim of the covert operation was to discredit the campaign and to exonerate the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the police force for London, from accountability for "institutional racism."

Revelations which came to light in 2013 showed that four undercover officers had been required to feed back "intelligence" about the campaigns for justice over the death of Stephen Lawrence. This "intelligence" consisted of finding "dirt" and "disinformation" that could be used to discredit members of the Lawrence family and their supporters.

Overall, the Mitting Inquiry is due to scrutinize the deployment of around 150 undercover officers who spied upon and infiltrated more than 1,000 political groups across four decades. The evidence covers the period from 1968, when the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was set up to infiltrate and undermine the movement against the Vietnam War.

Ostensibly, the setting up of a public inquiry opened up the path for revelations on the "full scope" of undercover policing. It does not, however, cover the actions of "spycops" outside England and Wales despite their being active in around 20 other countries during their deployment. In particular, the perfidious activities of the British state in Ireland are outside its remit, not to mention India, Greece, Kenya and other parts of the British empire and the rest of the globe.

The Mitting Inquiry has no set end-date, but is expected to conclude around 2026. Two undercover policing units -- the SDS and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit -- have particular prominence for the Inquiry however its work is not restricted to these units, the Undercover Policing Inquiry website informs.

From 2014 to 2020, despite demands from the Lawrence family and campaigners for justice, the veil over the extent of the responsibility at the highest levels of power in Britain had been a constant source of frustration. The lawyer for the Lawrence family stated in their opening submission in November last year:

"The extent to which Sir Paul Condon [the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time] knew and/or authorized the spying must be examined. Indeed, it must not stop at Commissioner level because, of course, policing was, until recently, the responsibility of the Home Secretary, which may explain why shortly after the Public Inquiry was announced a former Home Secretary met with Baroness Lawrence denying any knowledge or involvement in the issue."

Indeed, the proceedings began with a wholesale denial that "SDS personnel did not infiltrate or target justice campaigns (including the Lawrences)."

The activities of the "spycops" are nonetheless indisputable. The focus of the Mitting Inquiry has therefore been to keep as much information under wraps as possible. Belying its designation as a "public inquiry," live streaming of the proceedings has been limited under the pretext that it poses a "security risk." As the proceedings take their course, it is becoming ever more clear that the inquiry is in danger of being in contempt of its own aims, namely to "get to the truth about undercover policing across England and Wales since 1968 and provide recommendations for the future." The seeds for this lie in its very terms of reference when Theresa May stressed that the inquiry should look at "historical failings" and that "any allegation that the police misused this power [undercover policing] must be taken seriously."

In other words, not surprisingly, the Mitting Inquiry is prejudiced to draw the line between use and misuse of police powers rather than drawing back the veil to uncover the truth of how these police powers are and have been fundamental to the state's attempts to disorient and crush the people's movements. Their use is synonymous with their misuse which is what the inquiry seeks to cover up. Furthermore, the inquiry sets out to make that those who authorize the use of these undercover police powers are led even further away from being held to account.

As the lawyer for the Lawrence family pointed out, what appears to be actually happening is a secret inquiry in which officer after officer is hiding behind a pseudonym and a screen.

The extent of the activity of the spycops is already public knowledge. The Counsel to the Tribunal, David Barr, QC, noted this in listing what the undercover agents had done during their deployments:

- deceived more than 30 women into long-term intimate relationships,
- fathered children with some of these activists,
- stole the identities of dead children to provide convincing cover stories,
- deceived grieving families, and worked to prevent them learning the truth,
- undermined anti-fascist, anti-racist, environmental, and other social justice campaigns,
- were responsible for the blacklisting of thousands of workers for wanting safe working, conditions or being politically active.

The first phase of the Mitting Inquiry, dealing with the period 1968-1972, was completed in 2020. The next tranche of evidence is due to be heard beginning in April or May.

Special Demonstration Squad

Following the demonstration against the Vietnam War in March 1968 in Grosvenor Square, where the U.S. Embassy was then situated, in which mounted police viciously rode into the demonstrators, the Special Branch created the SDS who went deep undercover, living as activists among various anti-war groups. The scope of the SDS rapidly widened and it began concerning itself with all instances of so-called disruptions and threats to public order. It also provided intelligence on "subversion" to MI5, the United Kingdom's domestic "security service."

MI5 and the Home Office

One of the police barristers, Oliver Sanders, QC, representing 114 spycops, provided the following information to the Mitting Inquiry:

- MI5 and spycops were so allied that MI5 considered funding the SDS,
- They liaised to ensure they did not duplicate spying, which might have resulted in spying on each other's officers,
- MI5 recommended tips to SDS spycops, and they asked for specific information,
- Most SDS intelligence reports were copied to MI5 with the file reference numbers of the people or group already added,
- The SDS was "a politically neutral cog as part of a much larger apparatus."

Claims of Police Lawyers

Richard Whittam, QC, representing a group of undercover police and their managers, said of the "abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong" activity of the spycops who deceived women into relationships, that, nonetheless, spycops committing crimes is essential for national security and the prevention and detection of other people committing crime.

This line of argument is at this precise time being given the force of law by the Cover Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) bill before the British Parliament, which is on the way to receiving Royal Assent. The new law authorizes criminal activity including murder, rape, torture, perverting the course of justice and all other crimes committed by undercover police agents and other intelligence services. It confirms that police powers are not just a matter of particular overly zealous police forces, but refer to the arbitrary powers of the executive and the judiciary in the spheres of war and peace, crime and punishment and any other matters which come under their purview. The Mitting Inquiry's inference is that even the "abuse" of the law is acceptable because it is all done for "the greater good."

The justification heard at the Mitting Inquiry regarding the police killing of Kevin Gately and Blair Peach during a 1970s anti-racism protest was particularly shocking and appalling. According to the police who appeared at the inquiry, there would have been more death and injuries it if wasn't for the undercover police ensuring that demonstrations were policed properly.

The stealing of dead children's identities, was said to have been regrettable but necessary to prevent risk of exposure. This echoes justifications put forward in the House of Commons for legalizing criminal acts of undercover police whose cover must be prevented from being blown.

The arguments put forward at the Mitting Inquiry repeat its recurrent and underlying theme that it is the violent tendencies of protesters which are the problem. The evidence of the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS) into the killing of Blair Peach pointed out that when the "police unit responsible for killing Peach had its lockers searched, weapons found included a crowbar, metal cosh, whip handle, stock ship, brass handle, knives, American-style truncheons, a rhino whip and a pick axe handle." In this way, evidence exposes the direction of the inquiry to turn the spotlight away from the actions of the police, and to blame their victims.

People in the U.S. Determined to Decide What Constitutes Justice,
Not "Law Enforcement"

No Let Up of People's Protests

May 28, 2020. Protest in Minneapolis days after George Floyd was killed

The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd on May 25, 2020 begins on March 8. Videos and photos give witness to the brutal killing while George Floyd cried out in agony, "I can't breathe!"

The city has been turned into a zone even more militarized than the Capitol in Washington, DC during and after the inauguration of Joe Biden as president. Heavily-armed National Guard are occupying the city centre. Military Humvees and armed soldiers will monitor checkpoints and restrict entry to the city and forcibly prevent people from gathering and demonstrating. Office workers in downtown Minneapolis have been ordered not to go to work for however long the trial takes.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is reported to have set aside an immediate expenditure of $4.2 million for extra policing of Minneapolis to suppress the people and an additional $35 million to pay for military reinforcements during the trial "to quell unrest" as the U.S. media call it.

The day after Floyd's killing, the Minneapolis Police Department fired all four of the officers involved. On May 29, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman charged Chauvin with only third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter which aroused tremendous protest.

On June 3, Hennepin County prosecutors added the more serious second-degree murder charge against Chauvin and also charged each of the three other former officers -- Thomas Lane, J. Alexander Kueng and Tou Thao -- with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.

A judge has decided that Chauvin will stand trial alone in March with the other three officers involved in the killing of George Floyd to be tried in August. The reason given was space constraints in the courtroom as it relates to COVID-19.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who is leading the prosecution, released a statement disagreeing with the court's decision to separate the trials:

"We respectfully disagree with the Court's decision to sever three of the defendants from the other and its ruling on the timing of the trials.... As we argued several months ago, and as the judge agreed in his November ruling, we believe all four defendants should be tried jointly. The evidence against each defendant is similar and multiple trials may retraumatize eyewitnesses and family members and unnecessarily burden the State and the Court while also running the risk of prejudicing subsequent jury pools."

Attorney General Ellison reiterated that the prosecutors "are confident we can get a conviction."

The same judge that agreed last November with Attorney General Ellison changed his mind after the appeals of the defendants. Why he now presents COVID-19 as an obstacle was left unexplained. The virus was just as bad last November and no vaccines were then available to inoculate all the participants.

There is reportedly a split among the four former officers in terms of their defence strategies. The rookie cop Thomas Lane has said he was just following orders. Lane's lawyer argues, "What was my client supposed to do but follow what his training officer said? Is that aiding and abetting a crime?" Others refute Lane and the other two officers' argument as all three could have restrained Chauvin at any time during his nine-minute-long killing of Floyd.

Lane's lawyer refers to the video where as Chauvin holds his knee on Floyd's neck for nine minutes until he passed away, when Lane says to Chauvin that they should turn Floyd on his side so he can better breathe while they wait for an ambulance. Chauvin says, "No." Lane and the other two accept Chauvin's "no."

The Minneapolis police union is paying for the court costs of its four accused members. The union has not pushed back on the firing of Chauvin but is looking to have the other three officers reinstated.

An NBC News item says:

"Minneapolis is among many municipalities across the country where union labour agreements and state employment laws make it difficult to fire police officers. The issue has come under fresh scrutiny in the wake of Floyd's killing. The 46-year-old Black man's death in police custody has focused attention on a wide range of policing matters, including the lack of a national registry of officer misconduct and the obstacles in disciplining problem cops.

"Experts say arbitration plays an outsized, and often overlooked, role in saving the jobs of officers accused of serious misconduct. 'I would say this is one of the most important accountability issues,' said Stephen Rushin, a Loyola University Chicago law professor who published a study on arbitration in 2018. 'If you can't remove bad officers, it's going to be really hard to improve a police organization.' [...]

"'Anytime the police department tries to discipline someone, the union can come up with a half-dozen cases of someone who did worse and got no discipline at all,' said Bicking, who is now a board member of the Minneapolis-based advocacy group Communities United Against Police Brutality. 'What do you do now? You can't ever discipline anyone because you've never disciplined anyone. It's a Catch-22.'"

The defence seeks to return to the issue that the state and its police power have a legal right to use force. When an agent of the state uses force, the violence is officially not a crime and cannot be considered a crime. According to this argument, none of the police can be found guilty of a crime because no crime was committed.

The book and film To Kill a Mockingbird and other Hollywood movies follow a definite script: certain police officers are bad while others are good, certain administrators are good and try to get rid of the bad apples and others stand in the way of them doing so. Anything goes that diverts attention away from the reality of the U.S. and what the human relations reveal: the fight of the people for their political empowerment and modern democratic institutions and social forms where they can discuss and decide how to solve problems and those issues that affect their lives and control the outcome.

The people of the U.S. want nothing to do with this worn-out script about bad apples. They are expressing their claims, the claims the people are entitled to make on society and for arrangements which bring into being a polity based on recognizing the principle that all its members are equal. Such a polity must define rights anew, by virtue of being human, and provide them with a guarantee. What constitutes justice is for the people to decide, not their oppressors and law enforcers.

Justice for George Floyd!
No to Police Violence and Impunity!
All Out for Equality and Justice!

Rome Is Burning

Anniversary of Declaration of COVID-19 Pandemic

Global Response Required to Overcome
Global Pandemic and Its Effects on Health
and the Economy

Situation in Canada

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca