TML Monthly Supplement

No. 6

February 28, 2021


Discussion on Matters of Concern to the Polity

• New Laws and Regulations Purporting to Oppose Hate
Propaganda and Violence by "Extremist Entities"

- Pauline Easton -

Federal Liberals Prepare Self-Serving Attack on Freedoms

- Diane Johnston -

• Creating a Taboo to Suppress Criticism of
Canada's Political Institutions

- Elaine Baetz -

Problem of Secrecy and Secret Activities of Intelligence Agencies

- Christian Legeais -

Racist Platform of the Canadian Nationalist Party

- Steve Rutchinski -

Latest Anti-China Motion in the House of Commons

- Louis Lang -

Discussion on Matters of Concern to the Polity

New Laws and Regulations Purporting to
Oppose Hate Propaganda and Violence
by "Extremist Entities"

On February 21, the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) hosted a zoom meeting to discuss new laws and regulations which purport to oppose hate propaganda and the promotion of violence by "extremist entities." In the opinion of CPC(M-L), this is an important discussion. At issue is not whether the state is behind terrorist violence or racism or anti-communism or whether its definition of extremism is per se self-serving. They are. States such as that of Canada, created according to Hobbesian Covenant Thesis, are ruled by police powers -- that is to say by arbitrary discretionary powers in the hands of the executive and judiciary as well as intelligence agencies, police and armed and special forces. Not only that, these entities swear an oath of allegiance to the person of state, a fiction created for the purpose of providing a raison d'état, a reason for the state. This fictional person of state wields a sword in one hand, representing power over all matters to do with war and peace, and a bishop's staff in the other, representing all matters to do with accepted values, crime and punishment. Since the creation of this model of nation-state after the English Civil War in the 1660s, these values have been those of the ruling class whose propertied interests and rule it defends.

Under this model, legislatures were created that were said to represent the sovereignty of the people, even though all representatives swear allegiance not to the people but to the sovereign. In Canada, the "sovereign" is the Queen of England declared to also be the Queen of Canada. Even though this is said to be a ceremonial position only, the sovereign wields powers that are not at all ceremonial, Prerogative Powers, directly and through the ministries, judiciary, top civil servants and all those whose main mission is to perpetuate the sovereign's rule. This is where the political police also play a key covert function to eliminate any threat to this rule using any means fair or foul. No matter what reforms take place, they are fundamentally imbued with anti-worker, anti-people and racist ideology as a matter of course and, since the onset of the Cold War in the 20th century, with anti-communism as well.

Recognizing the role of the state, constituted to establish the kind of rule which presently exists, is all the more important at a time the fight of the people for the affirmation of their rights takes centre stage. Canada forms part of the imperialist system of states with the U.S., Britain, France and its integral parts such as Canada are the main teachers by negative example. They are mired in crises and the times demand equality and that the rights of all be provided with a guarantee.

The times also demand that problems within a country and between countries be settled peacefully, and honourably, in a manner which benefits the peoples of the world. Far from being guided by the interests of the peoples, the countries which are based on serving imperialist interests are using all the tools in their arsenal to establish their own hegemony over rival powers. To even question who they serve is taboo. All of this inflames passions and even rage which is precisely why such taboos must be questioned and such matters of concern must not be kept outside the purview of thought and speech.

All of it is to make sure that today the struggle of the New against the Old is derailed into attacks on individuals, and the criminalization of opinion, speech, thought and conscience as well as organization. The claim of the rulers is not to be contested: they get to decide both the crime and the punishment. In the name of national security and the national interest, the criteria used to determine who is "legitimate" and who is "illegitimate," what thought is "legitimate" and what thought is "illegitimate," are secret, arbitrary and self-serving. To even question who they serve is taboo. It is precisely such taboos which must be questioned and not allowed to be kept outside the purview of thought and speech. If what are called Reasonable Limits on rights are not seen to be reasonable, the polity is in trouble. Unity can only be built on the basis of an informed public opinion, not by disinforming public opinion so as to make sure no opposition can contest the anti-national and anti-people rule which is being established at an increasingly rapid rate.

All of this is taking place at a time the consequences of the neo-liberal anti-social agenda have shown themselves to be disastrous in the form of increased poverty, hunger, disease, drought and harm to the natural and social environment. When we see within the U.S. Senate itself accusations and counter-accusations of sedition, treason and who is and who is not a patriot, the effect is to provide a justification for the police powers to take charge, as took place when the Pentagon took charge of the Capitol for the inauguration of Joe Biden in Washington, DC in January. This was as much a threat to Biden to toe the line as to anyone else.

And now we see the response of the federal police on the occasion of the trial of the killer of George Floyd due to take place on March 8. Minneapolis has been turned into an armed fortress even greater than the one established for Biden's inauguration. This is the response to the people's movement in the U.S. for equality and to end police impunity and to defund the police. It is supposed to send a clear message to those demanding police accountability and an end to the use of violence against the people, to the workers fighting for their rights, and the people fighting for proper medical attention, jobs, food and housing to support Biden, "or else." And, of course, opposition to the impunity is made the target of attack under the guise that it poses a threat to national security and the national interest. All of it is presented in terms of the need to protect the constitutional order which is why the people insist on holding political discussion on how matters can be dealt with in a manner which realizes their aims, not those of the rulers. 

There is no doubt that in the U.S., as in all countries of the world where the regime is not constituted by the people, the working class and people of all origins together with the Indigenous nations will learn how to deal with the new situations they are facing as they persist in their fight for equality and a form of rule which ensures that justice for the people prevails.

The response can only be to fight in a manner that permits the emergence of a modern political personality that takes the form of political arrangements which involve the people in taking the decisions which affect their lives. The real issue is to recognize equality conferred by membership and affirm the right to speech, conscience and organization so as to work out together what that means today, in the form of interventions which uphold the interests of the people.

CPC(M-L) is participating in this discussion so as to engage everyone in working out what it means to be political within the situation by analyzing how this issue called domestic terrorism poses itself, along with ideological extremism and who decides. We will follow up with discussion on the significance of the impeachment charges against Trump. The likelihood of losing was ever-present so what was that all about? Our approach is based on the fundamental question that this topic poses, which is how to engage in and affirm the human right to speak and the right to organize under the current circumstances in a manner which defends the rights of the people and their claims on society, claims they are entitled to make by virtue of being human.

We want to start by reiterating clearly that CPC(M-L) is today and has always been opposed to terrorist attacks in all their forms, whether individual or collective. The Party has successfully opposed all attempts in the past to eliminate CPC(M-L) by claiming it was violent or advocates violence or that it is not a legitimate political force. The imprisonment of its activists and defamation of its leaders so as to isolate the Party and defeat it all failed to achieve their goal because CPC(M-L) is a political entity which responds to the needs of the times. Under all conditions and circumstances the members of CPC(M-L) organize to give the striving of the people for empowerment courage and conviction. The aim of defeating CPC(M-L) was and has always been to make sure the people do not become political themselves.

Today too we will continue to champion the defence of the rights of the workers, women, youth, national minorities, Indigenous peoples and Quebec, and of the fighting peoples of the world and the right to be of sovereign nation-states. Attacks against them based on declaring them illegitimate, sponsors of state terrorism, genocide, and not fit to live if they refuse to be enslaved and do the bidding of the ruling elites, will not pass. To try to rescue what are called the liberal democratic institutions by falling back on methods that have been shown always to have recourse to crimes of various sorts conducted by political police and Prerogative Powers is not what people expect of a modern democracy. The people reject the creation by rulers at all levels of spectres of dangers to haunt them. They face enough real dangers. Long ago, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels proclaimed to the world -- let us put the bourgeoisie's spectre of communism used to haunt Europe to rest with a Manifesto of Our Own -- Workers of All Countries Unite!

The political movement of the people for the New is the very antithesis of what constitutes a conspiracy or conspiracy theories. A political program is not a conspiracy! It does not submit to the self-serving limitations the ruling class sees fit to impose on rights to speech, conscience and action in the name of national security and interest. To speak is a human right, necessary to humanize the natural and social environment. CPC(M-L) calls on everyone to speak out on this matter of serious concern to the polity.

Haut de page

Federal Liberals Prepare Self-Serving
Attack on Freedoms

The Trudeau government is going all-out to present the perfidious view that inimical forces of one sort or another are to blame for the dissatisfaction of Canadians with the political process and cartel party system. A recent mantra blames foreign actors and their disinformation, spying and infiltration. This is said to be carried out by either willing agents or dupes or ideological adherents of countries which seek to undermine Canada's liberal democratic institutions. Whatever the case, they  need to be checkmated and criminalized.

Some people are past masters at championing the U.S. constitution as the paragon of democracy and they are using the recent events on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, while others used the sad occasion of the fourth anniversary of the shooting at the mosque in Quebec City to further criminalize the people's opposition. They target the people's opposition to police impunity, mistreatment of minorities, women, Indigenous people and children, war, regime change and policies which undermine the well-being of the social and natural environment to once again enact so-called anti-hate legislation. The Liberal government is shamefully attempting to use the resolve of the people to put an end to all manner of hate crimes to assault their right to conscience and criminalize those who are fighting for rights, opposing war, and striving to bring the New into being. This issue merits serious attention and discussion.

During the January 29 meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Lyne Bessette, the MP for the Quebec riding of Brome-Missisquoi, in reference to the Quebec City mosque shooting four years ago, said: "Islamophobia motivated this act." Regarding the victims of that massacre, she added that shortly after the attack, "we learned that their aggressor had been radicalized via social media. So we know that Canadians are often exposed to hateful, violent, extremist, even radicalizing content when they navigate on digital platforms."

Addressing herself to Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose mandate letter includes the creation of new regulations for social media platforms, she asked him to update the Committee "on the essential work the government is doing to protect Canadians online."

Acknowledging that "this individual radicalized himself on social media before he committed that act on January 29," Guilbeault reported that for some months his and other ministries (Justice, Public Safety and Innovation) have been working towards the presentation of a new bill, with regard to "regulatory framework around the issue of hate speech," as well as "juvenile pornography, incitement to violence, incitement to terrorism and the sharing of non-consensual images."

"Only a few countries in the world have addressed this problem," he said. "At the public service and political levels, we've had meetings, discussions with the representatives of these countries with regard to looking at how we could adapt these models to the Canadian reality."

He also reported that he had recently had discussions with Australia's eSafety Commissioner, "to fully understand how they set up their system" and with regard to elements that had to be given "careful attention."

"Of course we, like everyone else, are concerned with the issue of protecting freedom of expression," he said. "But just as freedom of expression in the physical world has been delineated over the years through our laws and court judgments, we are also trying to see how we can reproduce the same framework that exists in the physical world for the virtual world."

"While we recognize that everyone has the right to freedom of speech," Bessette then commented, "rules are in place to limit speech when it becomes hateful, offensive or racist. Social media have played a major role in amplifying hateful messages aimed at the most marginalized communities, violating their rights without being held responsible."

She then asked Guilbeault to explain how he was planning on holding social networks accountable for the publication and dissemination of such content.

"We're [...] going to do it through the presentation of the bill," he said, noting that its purpose is "to define a new regulatory framework in Canada. And platforms will have to conform."

Guilbeault further explained that regulators would be hired to put the new regulations in place and monitor platforms with regard to hate speech and that various avenues were presently being explored, such as the possibility of imposing fines for non-compliance.

"And you're right, it's an issue of concern to more and more Canadians. You may have noticed earlier this week the publication of a survey carried out by Abacus for the Canadian Race Relations Foundation," he said. It "reveals that the vast majority of Canadians have acknowledged" that they have been "the victims of violence on social media, with women and racialized populations at the top of the top of the list," and that "a strong proportion of Canadians are asking the government to intervene."

On the same day, which marked the fourth anniversary of the massacre at the Quebec City mosque, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh said: "The Muslim community is still reeling from the horrific attack that took place at the mosque in Quebec City four years ago. For communities to feel safe, the Liberal government must tackle head-on hate and alt-right groups that are growing in numbers in Canada. Without action today, it will just be a matter of time before the next attack. We need action now. People deserve to feel safe in their communities." The press release points out: "Justin Trudeau must move beyond nice words and take concrete actions. People who face [I]slamophobia, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination shouldn't feel alone in this fight. They deserve to know that their government is on their side. I am on your side."

Jagmeet Singh followed through by tabling a motion in the House of Commons, passed unanimously by MPs, calling for a ban on the Proud Boys and other measures to dismantle white supremacist groups in Canada. On February 3, the Ministry of Public Safety announced the addition of 13 groups deemed violent to the list of terrorist organizations, including the Proud Boys.

How all these things are decided and on the basis of what criteria, such as what constitutes speech with the intent of causing violence or "illegal content" on social media is a serious concern, particularly when the police and security agencies equate opposition to NATO and NORAD and the integration of Canada into the U.S. war machine with disloyalty or subversion.

(With files from Hansard, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and NDP Press Release.)

2017 Shooting at Quebec City Mosque

On January 29, 2017, a lone shooter, Alexandre Bissonnette, burst into the Centre Islamique Culturel de Québec, shooting and killing six men and injuring 19 others as they prayed.

The shooting took place just days after the publication of the U.S. presidential decree banning citizens of seven countries with predominantly Muslim populations from entering the U.S. and closing U.S. borders to refugees.

An outpouring of compassion, solidarity and social love was the response of Quebeckers and Canadians, who immediately went into action to stand and grieve as one with people of the Muslim faith.

Vigils, rallies and ceremonies across Quebec and Canada were immediately organized, as people came together to condemn this barbarous act and offer heartfelt condolences and support for the families, friends and community who had lost their loved ones and for Muslim communities who are the target of state-organized and state-inspired Islamophobia. People expressed the sentiment that if the Muslim community and all communities are not thriving, free to express their right to be, and free from violence being exercised against them, then neither are the Quebec and Canadian people.

January 30, 2017. Vigil in Montreal.

In Montreal the day after the tragedy four years ago, thousands gathered outside the Parc metro station. Organizers there prevented the representatives of the cartel parties and the monopoly media from speaking, holding them accountable for their part in the tragedy through their insinuations, depiction and innuendo regarding Muslims and in this they were strongly supported by the crowd.

January 29, 2021. Vigil in Montreal.

That stand was reiterated again this year in Montreal, through the holding of the commemoration, the only physical event, at the same venue, on an extremely cold day and despite the pandemic. Speakers pointed to the fact that various communities in Quebec and in Canada have suffered and continue to suffer state-organized and state-promoted racist attacks. The solution, they said, is to take up our social responsibility to condemn such attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Haut de page

Creating a Taboo to Suppress Criticism of
Canada's Political Institutions

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recently conducted a study into the relationship between Facebook and the federal government. It examined email exchanges between a member of Canadian Heritage Minister's (Steven Guilbault) political staff (Owen Ripley) and Facebook's Canadian Head of Policy (Kevin Chan). The exchange involved a request by the Facebook exec that the Heritage Minister's staff member circulate a posting for a job at Facebook's public policy department. The Heritage Minister's staff member agreed to circulate the posting "to a few people who might be good candidates," and the Facebook exec communicated that Facebook was open to hiring on a temporary basis so that the person could return to working for the government.

At the study, this email exchange was said to be improper because the Ministry of Canadian Heritage was in the midst of drafting new broadcasting legislation which would impact Facebook (Bill C-10), the implication being that it didn't look good. In spite of the appearance of impropriety, the Committee learned that it was not in fact improper. The discussion simply affirmed that there is a revolving door through which people move back and forth between the private and public sectors. (Bill C-10 has now passed second reading and is back with the Heritage Committee for study.)

In the discussion, however, disconcerting accusations arose that the NDP had raised this matter with the aim of questioning and damaging the integrity and credibility of government institutions, including the civil service. The Heritage Minister offered his opinion "that everybody in this country has a responsibility, a duty, and especially elected officials, to ensure that we protect our institutions." He said, "The last thing we should try to do is to somehow diminish them in the hope that we could score points. There are other ways we can score political points. Of course we're political adversaries -- I understand that -- but certainly not at the expense of our institutions."

This attempt to create a taboo on any criticism of government institutions in the name of defending those institutions sounds very much like the claims of the security agencies which say that "discrediting of liberal-democratic institutions in order to advance alternative governance models" is a threat to national security. Surely the very definition of democracy gives the people the right to decide what governance models and institutions suit their needs.

One need look no further than the shenanigans of the cartel parties and their governments to see what has brought the democratic institutions, cartel parties, government and House of Commons into disrepute.

After refusing to put an end to the first-past-the-post system of counting votes as he had promised he would do in the election that first brought the Justin Trudeau Liberals to power in 2015, the Trudeau government put the police and the bureaucracy linked to the Privy Council in charge of dealing with perceived threats to the elections. Prime Minister Trudeau in rejecting the system of representation recommended by the all-party Special Committee on Electoral Reform said:

"If we were to make a change or risk a change that would augment individual voices -- that would augment extremist voices and activist voices that don't get to sit within a party that figures out what's best for the whole future of the country, like the three existing parties do -- I think we would be entering a period of instability and uncertainty. And we'd be putting at risk the very thing that makes us luckier than anyone on the planet."

This, like the Heritage Minister's opinion that the institutions of government should not be criticized in order to protect them -- a declaration that defends privilege and the status quo -- are made to sound normal and responsible, as being in the public interest. Even as police powers have taken charge of elections and deciding what is in the "national interest," the Liberal government continues to present itself as the champion of democracy and its institutions. 

The central point of governance is to control the decisions which affect our lives. How to achieve this is nowhere raised as a problem which requires solution. The role now being circumscribed for the Canadian people is to sanction others who do not represent them to rule in their name and they are not to criticize them or their institutions.

The problem, identified by Canadians time and time again, that our electoral system -- called a representative democracy -- and our "democratic institutions" do not represent the view of the majority of the population, is not acted on. The fact remains that the electoral system itself is designed to keep the people disempowered and to perpetuate a ruling caste which pays the rich.

Taboo or not, people will continue in their striving, giving voice to their demands for a society which is suitable to them, that meets their needs and in which they are the decision-makers.

Haut de page

Problem of Secrecy and Secret Activities of Intelligence Agencies

March 14, 2015. Demonstration on Parliament Hill against Bill C-51.

The TML Monthly article of February 7, "Governance of Police Powers Does Not Protect Rights or Democratic Values," points out: "What is referred to as rule of law is actually subordinate to the police powers which routinely act behind closed doors in the name of national interest and national security."

The issue of secrecy and the activities of a secret political police under the guise of protecting national security is an important element of disinformation. The aim is to allow the Canadian state to engage in criminal activity to achieve an undisclosed objective. Recourse to police powers, in the name of protecting national security and to disinform the polity so that it cannot intervene in a manner which favours its interests, is not acceptable. The state says Canadians should sacrifice and give up their rights and struggles in the name of protecting national security, which it equates with protecting society as a whole. To dispute such an assertion is not only itself taboo but is considered to be and is treated as a threat to national security.

In 2015, the Harper government's second anti-terrorism law, Bill C-51, which the Liberal Party voted in favour of along with the Conservatives, amended several other laws including the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. The amended Act gives the secret service the power to engage in disruption activities just about anywhere. This law says that CSIS can "take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce the threat" to the security of Canada. While CSIS has illegally engaged in rights violations and disruption activities since its inception, Bill C-51 enshrined this illegality in law.

Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party voted in favour of Bill C-51 but, in the face of massive popular opposition to this law, on the eve of the federal election it promised to annul "the problematic elements of Bill C-51" and to present "new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms." This masquerade of defending rights and freedoms and Canadian values, and of prohibiting the transgression of the limited rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, became law with Bill C-59, the National Security Act, 2017, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.

In Bill C-59, it is said that the police powers can "take measures ... that would limit a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" only if "a judge ... issues a warrant authorizing the taking of those measures." The measures "that would limit a right or freedom" are, amongst others: "(a) causing, intentionally or by criminal negligence, death or bodily harm to an individual; (b) wilfully attempting in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice; (c) violating the sexual integrity of an individual; [and] (d) subjecting an individual to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, within the meaning of the Convention Against Torture."

Already, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates that the limited rights set out therein must be exercised within "reasonable limits" and may be restricted by a rule of law "as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Bill C-59 enacted the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act which entered into force by decree in July 2019. It created a new federal entity, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA).

The amendments to the CSIS Act also deal with surveillance and disruption activities carried out in violation of other countries' sovereignty. This law allows CSIS to conduct disruptive activities abroad without the consent of the targeted country. Also in the name of protecting national security, CSIS can be called upon to "assist the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs."

These disruptive activities which violate the sovereignty of other countries are an element of Canada's conduct in international affairs. They include providing assistance to and cooperating with the government of a foreign state or one of its institutions for the purpose of bringing about regime change in a targeted country. An example of this is Venezuela, where Canadian diplomats intervene and carry out all kinds of activities for regime change. Canada's leadership and involvement in the Lima Group as well as the Organization of American States is another example. Passing laws to make it "lawful" to violate the fundamental principles on which the United Nations is founded and which guide international conduct is then used to back up Canada's demand that all countries must be rules-based according to the demands of the U.S. imperialists.

The integration of Canada into the security apparatus of the United States and the Five Eyes intelligence agencies is made lawful through the CSIS Act, which provides that Canada "enter into an arrangement or otherwise cooperate with the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof or an international organization of states or an institution thereof."

Secrecy and protection of sources are a sine qua non -- an essential condition of legislation and security agencies dealing with matters said to concern "national security." Consider security certificates and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Under that law, the fact of knowing the charges which are brought against a person, of having at one's disposal the evidence or the allegations which are brought against a person, all is at the discretion of the police powers and so-called security agencies. Reports submitted by these agencies, be it the Canada Border Services Agency, CSIS or others, can be written or rewritten in their favour with full impunity, with the tragic consequences of arbitrary detention, the separation of families, the detention of children, deportation and different forms of treatment and torture.

This method is used against refugees and migrants in a situation of irregularity in the name of protecting national security. Immigrants or refugees can be removed from the country without being given the reasons why. By virtue of Section 86 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Minister of Immigration can use exactly the same procedures but which are expedited, to obtain what are called "light security certificates." It is not the same heavy-handed procedure compared to the security certificates used a few years ago that is being used today. The security certificate procedure has been abandoned because the people targeted were defending themselves too vigorously. This "light security certificate" procedure has been used hundreds of times over the past few years mostly unbeknownst to Canadians.

This law also confers immunity to security service agents. This includes the right to commit offences, make false statements, violate their "duty of candour" to the courts, and the like.

All these measures have been adopted systematically over the years, again mostly unbeknownst to Canadians. The police powers which comprise the state protect themselves through laws passed by Parliament while engaging in disruptive activities to prohibit and stifle all popular resistance against rights violations. Since 2001-02 following the adoption of the anti-terrorism law, no matter what cartel party formed the government, the state has continuously renewed the measures which it claims are "balanced exceptional measures," directly aimed against the struggles of the workers, Indigenous peoples, refugees, immigrants, migrants, the Quebec people and communities of all kinds.

These "anti-terrorist" laws, presented as exceptional laws, have created states of exception that have become permanent. This has created a dangerous situation at the present time. Clearly this is unacceptable restructuring of the state to permit the erstwhile covert activities of a political police to act openly with the protection of sources and impunity on grounds of national security and the necessity to integrate Canada even further into the security apparatus of the U.S. war machine. 

Attempts to disinform the polity in order to violate the rights of the people and their collectives and carry out attacks against the struggles of the people with impunity is a very poor way to give legitimacy to claims of being progressive, humanitarian and law-abiding. It only serves to create giants with feet of clay.

Haut de page

Racist Platform of the Canadian Nationalist Party

The leader of the Canadian Nationalist Party (CNP), Travis Patron, has been charged with "wilful promotion of hate," for a video he made warning against the "Parasitic Tribe." Zionist organizations lodged the complaint that the expression is anti-Semitic while the Nationalist Party claims it is in fact Biblical. Based on the CNP's program, literature and actions, there is no doubt of the party's racism. However, on what grounds is it to be outlawed when the party cites not only the Christian Bible but Canadian Prime Ministers Sir John A. Macdonald and Mackenzie King as mentors and ideologues for its program?

In the video Beware the Parasitic Tribe, Patron quotes from the Bible, Book of Revelations, chapter 3 verse 9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie." The Zionists claim this is anti-Semitic because, they say, it equates Judaism with the synagogue of Satan. Biblical scholars, however, explain Revelations 3:9 quite differently. According to them, the quote is taken from a letter allegedly from Jesus to his followers, acknowledging their faith in the face of persecution. Jesus was a Jew, they say. He was not anti-Semitic. "Synagogue of Satan" they say refers to those who were persecuting the church of Jesus who called themselves Jews but who were not following the ways of Judaism.

Reports indicate that it is widely accepted by Biblical scholars that those who wish to use the verse to justify hatred against all Jews are misrepresenting its intent, and are ignorant of the Biblical context and the fact that Jesus and the putative authors of Revelations were Jews. This logic applies to anti-Semites and Zionists alike so why has the matter been taken up by the political police?

The CNP was founded by Patron in June 2017 and officially registered with Elections Canada in 2019. Its official short name is the Nationalist Party, not to be confused with the Nationalist Party of Canada, formed in 1977 by neo-Nazi Don Andrews but never formally registered with Elections Canada.

The first action of Patron's party was an August 2017 rally in Toronto. It was organized to coincide with the convergence of U.S. neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organizations in Charlottesville, Virginia, an event where 32-year-old Heather Heyer was run over and killed in cold blood by a racist as she protested against the gathering.

Every attempt of the CNP to promote racism and all forms of hate, from that initial 2017 Toronto rally onward, has been militantly opposed, not by the Zionists, but by Canadian youth because its program is anti-worker and racist to the core. It calls for a return to the racist Immigration Act of 1952; repeal of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Employment Equity Act; withdrawal from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that Canada signed in 1969, and more. Party literature and its immigration platform take their  inspiration from William Lyon Mackenzie King, who is quoted speaking in the House of Commons in 1957 saying: "The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population."

They also quote Sir John A. Macdonald, from an 1885 House of Commons Debate saying: "The truth is, that all natural history, all ethnology, shows that, while the crosses of the Aryan races are successful -- while a mixture of those races which are known or believed to spring from a common origin is more or less successful -- they will amalgamate. If you look around the world you will see that the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics."

Macdonald is also quoted in Nationalist Party literature speaking about the legal status of Chinese immigrants who built the railway: "We are in the course of progress; this country is going on and developing, and we will have plenty of labour of our own kindred races, without introducing this element of a mongrel race to disturb the labour market, and certainly we ought not allow them to share the government of the country."

The charges laid against the leader of the CNP could rightly be laid against the Canadian state, officials and apologists as well as its most iconic leaders from its inception. Macdonald's sentiments against Chinese migrants are easily recognizable in the refusal of the federal government today to provide status for all migrant workers and students whose work is essential and who contribute tremendously to our present-day economy. What then are the government, the cartel parties and the political police up to?

According to past practice and the modus operandi of the Liberal Party and its allies since the Second World War, you release a test balloon to see if it flies. If there is protest, come through with a "moderate" version of the same balloon and voilà, mission accomplished. Another version of this modus operandi is to first attack Nazis and neo-Nazis, let them off scot-free but then apply the accusations, crime and punishment against the people's forces.

The other shoe will drop soon enough. It always does.

Haut de page

Latest Anti-China Motion in the
House of Commons

On February 22, an anti-China motion was introduced in the House of Commons accusing China of "genocide."[1] The private member's opposition motion was put forward by Conservative Michael Chong (Wellington--Halton Hills, ON), and says: "(a) in the opinion of the House, the People's Republic of China has engaged in actions consistent with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, commonly known as the 'Genocide Convention,' including detention camps and measures intended to prevent births as it pertains to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; and (b) given that (i) where possible, it has been the policy of the Government of Canada to act in concert with its allies when it comes to the recognition of a genocide, (ii) there is a bipartisan consensus in the United States where it has been the position of two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People's Republic of China, the House, therefore, recognize that a genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, and call on the government to officially adopt this position."

The motion carried following a recorded 266 yeas and zero nays. Members of the Trudeau cabinet were all absent for the vote with the exception of Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau who rose and stated for the record, "I abstain on behalf of the Government of Canada." A Bloc Québécois amendment to the motion was also passed calling on the International Olympic Committee to move the 2022 Winter Olympics "if the Chinese government continues this genocide."

Trudeau made the vote on the non-binding resolution a free vote for Liberal MPs. According to a statement Garneau released the day of the vote, it was an exercise in parliamentary democracy, so each member could make a determination based on available evidence. In fact, by both supporting and avoiding taking a position on the motion, it looks more like a crass pragmatic manoeuvre on the part of the Liberal government so that it can have its cake and eat it too. Garneau's statement had that written all over it. It said while the government was deeply disturbed by the "horrific reports of human rights violations in Xinjiang" and takes any allegations of genocide extremely seriously, Canada has the responsibility to work with others in the international community to ensure any such allegations are subject to a credible, independent investigation.  Four days later, Garneau and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken held their first bilateral meeting "to advance work on the Roadmap for a Renewed U.S.-Canada Partnership launched by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Joe Biden at their virtual meeting on February 23, 2021." A readout of their meeting said that one of the things the two agreed on was the need to coordinate and more closely align their approaches to China.

This follows another hostile motion against the People's Republic of China (PRC) that was introduced on the floor of the House in November 2020, which claimed that China was "threatening Canada's national interest and its values" and called for the government to "combat China's foreign operations in Canada."[2] It passed with the support of all four opposition parties and a handful of Liberal MPs, coming just days after the House of Commons subcommittee on international human rights released a report condemning China for committing "genocidal acts" against the Uyghur Muslim minority. That committee is typically used to come up with "background" to justify Canada’s foreign policy, especially when using "human rights" as a pretext for interfering in the affairs of other countries and peoples is on the agenda. In this case, like for all its "studies on the situation in Venezuela" aimed at justifying Canada's role in the U.S. regime-change operation there, the committee’s report aligns with the "evidence" provided by the host of one-sided "witnesses" it called to testify before it. These included U.S.-funded NGOs and other dyed-in-the-wool anti-China figures claiming to be defenders of democracy and human rights, with none of those whose investigations and experience debunk the "Uyghur genocide" narrative invited to present their case.[3]

This ongoing campaign to demonize China is inspired by U.S. imperialist interests to isolate China and wipe it out as a global economic competitor. The economic and self-serving opposition to China is fueled by powerful private interests which are also fueling the so-called democratic uprising in Hong Kong, the reversal of the One China policy as concerns Taiwan and the U.S. war machine. Fabricating stories about what is taking place in China has nothing to do with the creation of modern democratic systems or sorting out problems on a peaceful political basis. This pretense to defend Muslim peoples has everything to do with pushing identity politics to divide and conquer. To believe that the likes of the U.S. and Canada give a damn about the Uyghurs is a real stretch of even the most turgid imagination. Self-serving promotion around issues raised in these resolutions, which is geared to create fears of foreign interference and foreign powers using Canadians as agents acting on their behalf, is to justify the strengthening of police powers in Canada to limit speech, so-called hate propaganda and a lot more. Now they have added the heinous crime of genocide to their lexicon of buzzwords which trivializes the meaning of the words and distorts the historical record to justify crimes in the present.

February 24 marked the 133rd anniversary of the first full-scale attack on labourers of Chinese origin in Vancouver in 1887 organized by Keep Canada White official circles which also promoted anti-Chinese propaganda. One attack after another took place against the Chinese. The federal government collected upwards of $23 million in Head Tax from Chinese citizens before the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 effectively halted arrivals from China altogether. In 1925, houseboy Wong Foon Sing was kidnapped and tortured on orders from BC's Attorney General, who said he was suspected of killing a housemaid from the Shaughnessy subdivision of Vancouver.

Canada was founded on the basis of committing genocide against the Indigenous nations and the racist treatment of Chinese, Japanese and East Indians as well as declaring the superiority of the so-called English and French "founding nations" to the detriment of all others. 

To say, after everything the Canadian state has done for over 100 years, that some Canadians may be acting on behalf of a foreign power whether consciously or without their knowledge and the state must defend us strains credulity. It is to take a page out of the playbook which justified the internment of not only the Japanese -- whose houses, land and fishing fleets then all went into the hands of the Keep Canada White proponents -- but also Germans, Ukrainians, Japanese, Italians, communists and others who were also interned during World War II claiming they were enemy aliens.

Providing the secret security services with impunity to monitor, restrict and criminalize activities of those the state has labelled as actual or potential enemies, spies and ideological extremists is not going to solve a single problem facing the people. It is an act which sows the wind and no amount of propaganda aimed at wrecking political cohesion and disinforming the people's striving for empowerment will help those who are doing such things avoid the whirlwind which will come their way. So long as the criteria are to be kept secret in the name of national security, what is being promoted is to permit security services like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment to surveil all opinions regarding politics and international affairs with no concern for what Canadians feel, think, or want. Self-serving polls financed by the very same forces doing such things are part of the problem, not a solution.

It is clear that this latest motion against China was inspired by accusations originating from both the Trump and Biden administrations. As the motion indicates, "there is a bipartisan consensus by two consecutive administrations that Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims are being subjected to a genocide by the Government of the People's Republic of China." Investigation has revealed that the original accusation that China is committing genocide, made by Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who is virulently anti-China, and the subsequent agreement by Biden's Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, stem from a single source: a June 2020 paper by German researcher Adrian Zenz. Far from being "one of the world's leading scholars on the People's Republic of China," as he claims, Zenz is in fact an avowed far-right Christian fundamentalist and anti-communist whose main work consists of attacking the Chinese Communist Party. He is affiliated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and neo-conservative Jamestown Foundation in Washington, DC. A close review of Zenz's research reveals flagrant data abuse and outright falsehoods.[4]

Shame on the Conservatives for proposing the motion and on all the cartel parties in the House of Commons who went along with it without hesitation. Whatever the Liberal Party government is up to with its silence and abstention on the motion will be revealed as it further conspires with the U.S. administration to attack China, justify bogus extradition proceedings against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, and shenanigans to get two Canadians imprisoned in China released. This is the kind of discourse which claims to be speaking on behalf of Canadians and is used to determine Canada's "national interest."

The recent issue of TML dealing with anti-China propaganda points out: "These private interests have taken over the U.S. state, to which they have subordinated the Canadian state. They use their apparatus of disinformation and budgets to put the full weight of their states behind wiping out their competition. The people of the countries which comprise the imperialist system of states are supposed to take sides."

Writing about such matters in 1996, TML pointed out: "All the human rights groups should think about these matters extremely seriously. In so far as the PRC is concerned, it is right to oppose this interference in the internal affairs of other countries under the pretext of defending human rights. All human rights groups, all political parties, all peace- and justice-loving people of the world should denounce and oppose U.S. imperialism and all other imperialists and reactionaries who are providing justifications for interventions, aggressions and war. At the same time, they must fight for human rights in their own countries which requires profound deep-going transformations in the constitutional, legal-juridical, economic, political and cultural fields. Only those countries and peoples who have provided constitutional guarantees for the rights of all members of society, including human rights, equal political rights, women's rights, etc. will have the moral right to speak about the same internationally. If this is not done, there is a danger that even with the best wishes in the world, one will become an apologist and spokesperson of U.S. imperialism and other imperialists and reactionaries. These imperialists are relying on utter confusion about the question of rights amongst their own people and the world's people in order to find pretexts to continue to violate civil and political rights of their own people and to divert them from even discussing the modern definition of human rights. No one must become a tool of their interventions in the internal affairs of other countries and justify their aggressions against others. Such a situation holds grave danger for the peoples of the world including that of a cataclysmic inter-imperialist world war. The working class and the broad masses of the people must be in the forefront to ensure that this does not happen."


1. The legal definition of genocide under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) is: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

2. See "'Yellow Peril' Hysteria All Over Again," Pauline Easton, TML Weekly, December 19, 2020.

3. See "Subcommittee report declaring 'Uighur Genocide' dominated by researchers and groups funded by CIA cut-out, National Endowment for Democracy," Aidan Jonah,, February 22, 2021.

4. See "U.S. State Department accusation of China 'genocide' relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue,"Gareth Porter and Max Blumenthal,, February 18, 2021.

Haut de page

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



Website:   Email: