|
November 18, 2017 - No. 37
Quebec Bill 62
National Assembly
Blames Women and Youth to Cover Up Its Own Cowardice
- Marxist-Leninist
Party of Quebec -
PDF
 
• Bill 62 Is
Irrational and Should Be Repealed
- Georges Côté -
Trudeau Liberals Pass Transport
Modernization Act
• Workers Reject Liberal Attack on Their
Dignity and Rights
Opposition to Blackmail by the Monopolies in Transportation Sector
• Nation-Wrecking in Northern
Manitoba
• Deeds Not Words Needed to Reverse
Nation-Wrecking
• U.S. Owners Threaten to Shut Down Huron
Central Railway
U.S. Warmongering in
Asia
• Anti-War Protests Greet Trump in Korea
- Philip Fernandez -
• Joint Statement of International
Associations of Lawyers
• Protest in Canada
End the U.S. Blockade
of
Cuba!
• U.S. Announces New Restrictions
on Trade and Travel to Cuba
• United Nations Issues Another
Massive and Resounding Rejection
of U.S. Economic Blockade of
Cuba
- Isaac Saney, Canadian Network on Cuba -
• U.S. Blockade Is the Main
Obstacle to Scientific Development in Cuba
- Yenia Silvia Correa -
• Actions in Canada in Support of
Cuba's Resolution at UN
• "We Will Persevere, with the
Consensus of Our People and Especially the Patriotic Commitment
of the Youngest Cubans"
- Cuban Foreign
Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla -
Hands Off
Venezuela!
• Oppose Trudeau Government's
Continued Interference in Venezuela! No to U.S.-Led Attempts at
Regime Change!
• Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Strongly Rejects
Decision of Canadian Government
- Venezuelan People's Power Ministry for
Foreign Relations -
• Toronto Meeting on "Resolving the
Venezuelan Crisis" Denounced
• Prime Minister Trudeau, Let the
Venezuelan People Live in Peace
- Hugo Chavez Foundation -
Supplement
Amazon Pay-the-Rich Scheme
• To Be or Not to Be in Control of Their Lives
Confronts
the Working Class
- K.C. Adams -
Quebec Bill 62
National Assembly Blames Women and Youth
to Cover Up Its Own
Cowardice
- Marxist-Leninist Party of Quebec (PMLQ)
-
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory which is only achieved
with
heavy losses on one's own side. Such is the conclusion which can
be drawn from the passage of Bill 62 by the Quebec National Assembly on
October 18. The bill is justified on the grounds that the less than one
per cent
of women in Quebec who wear a face-covering garment are somehow
responsible
for blocking society's path to progress because they are somehow
depriving 100 per cent of the population of the enjoyment of
their rights.
 The government's claim that
it is defending public
right and
a civil democracy is based on a convoluted notion of separation
of church and state called an "unfinished" struggle. This
struggle is presented in the most out of context and absurd way.
That separation of Church and State was settled in Quebec in 1874
when the British Privy Council decided the case of Joseph
Guibord. It stopped the interference of the Church in matters
pertaining to the civil authority thereby settling the issue that
the state was secular not ecclesiastic and the civil power,
not the ecclesiastic power of
the Church, prevailed over temporal affairs.[1]
Despite
this, the Church continued its oppressive rule over temporal affairs
because it served the ruling circles to maintain feudal relations
in the countryside. This continued until it was smashed in the
1950s and 1960s in order to create a massive pool of cheap labour
to serve U.S. imperialist expansion into Canada at which time
Quebec provided the highest returns on investment. That period of
economic expansion and social and cultural changes in Quebec was
called the Quiet Revolution.
The problem today is not of some church power
controlling the
state and temporal affairs but that private interests have seized
control of that aspect of the civil power which previously served
what was called the public good. To blame a tiny number of women
who wear a face-covering garment for allegedly oppressing other
people who do not share the beliefs this garment allegedly
represents is pathetic. It is a miserable attempt to divert
attention from what is blocking the progress of society as well
as from their own cowardly refusal to address the real issues
facing the economy and society. Several years back it was the
"criminal" construction workers who were "using violence" on the
construction sites and so-called depriving other construction
workers of their rights, all while the rights to association
and collective bargaining of the entire collective of
construction workers were under brutal attacks by private
monopolies and governments in their service. Two years ago it was
the "non-law-abiding municipal workers" who were "invading and
vandalizing" city council and depriving the residents of
Montreal of their right to municipal services, all while
services were being privatized with a noted deterioration for
users and the City of Montreal was transferring huge amounts of
public money to private promoters.
In the case of Bill 62, attacking those women who are
the
most vulnerable shows cowardice indeed. That's why Liberal MNAs
always have to preface their interventions with a phrase about
how they stand for "women's equality," just like the old habit of
those who say "I'm not a racist but..." before launching into
racist epithets. These parties use their positions within
government and state to pay the rich at the expense of the very
public good they claim to defend with this bill.
 The attempt to blame this
tiny number of women for the
problems facing Quebec society is not only absurd, it is
cowardly. These women need the backing of the state to defend
them, not attack them and everyone knows it. For this reason, the
Liberals ploughed ahead by concocting a second reason to justify
this huge diversion. They used the passage of this bill as an
occasion to wreak revenge on students who dared defy them in
2012. The students struck hard against the real corruption
involved in the privatization of education and the construction
of facilities in the education sector and the government hit
back by providing a new wretched definition of minority rights
according to which those who stand up to defend the right to
education are a minority whose actions are depriving the majority
of the enjoyment of their rights. Scraping the bottom of the
barrel, the Liberals' wretched argument claimed that the Student
Associations have no legal persona and are therefore not
representative of the student bodies despite being elected. The
revenge motive is evident in the fact that when intervening on
Bill 62 in the National Assembly, Liberal MNAs never miss an
opportunity to say that "face-covering garment" will also apply
to those wearing masks when participating in protests, such as
during the broad student movement of the Spring of 2012 against
the Liberal government's tuition fee increases. The Liberal
municipal government of Montreal attempted to criminalize the
wearing of face-covering garments by students with bylaw P-6, but in
June 2016 the Superior Court of Quebec struck down P-6 as
unconstitutional.
Criminalizing the fighting students and blaming them
for all
the problems in the education sector was used to divert attention
from the fact that there is money for education but it is used to
pay the rich -- stolen by corrupt private arrangements the
government is making with its cronies in the construction
industry and other sectors which provide services for private
gain.
Always people are blamed for oppressing the rest of the
people and depriving them of their rights. But arguments in
defence of rights are not legitimate so long as they cover up the
role of the state and who controls the decision-making power and
the role of governments to pay the rich and to deprive the people of
what belongs to them by right.
It all goes back to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission
whose
mandate was to examine "the cause of a malaise" existing in
Quebec because of "tensions" between "dyed-in-the-wool" Quebecois
and "newcomers." The Couillard government is pushing the same
racist anti-people line as the Marois and Charest governments
before it, even though when they won the elections in 2014 the
Liberals declared that "diversity" had won over "disunity." The
aim is to divert from the problems of the economy and society in
the 21st century. There is no desire to sort out anything, just
to find ever more wretched ways to pay the rich. Keeping in mind
that the Quebec election is scheduled for 2018, it is clear the people
have to formulate their own demands so as not to fall into the
trap of taking sides on the "opposing views" of diversionary
issues. This is the main way the rich and their representatives
depoliticize and marginalize the people to ensure they make no
headway in putting forward their own demands and affirming the
rights of all.
The ruling elite resorts to diversion, like this one
that
there is a problem with the religious neutrality of the state and
so-called divisions amongst the people, to split the people,
create incidents for which the people are being blamed so as to
justify the use of police powers and smash any attempts to create
a political movement which empowers the people. The fact that by
an amendment that was presented by the Liberals the bill extends
to public transportation -- the space in which it says that
delivery and reception of public services must be done with
uncovered faces -- shows that this is a deliberate policy to cause
trouble and divert the people from uniting on the basis of
fighting for new arrangements that defend the rights of all and
solve economic and political problems.
The attempt to hide and divert from the problems facing
the
affirmation of rights in Quebec and Canada will fail because the
striving of the people for empowerment takes the form of their
defence of the rights of all. The passage of this bill by the Couillard
Liberal majority government in the National Assembly brings them
nothing but shame.
It will be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Note
1. Montreal printer Joseph Guibord
was denied ecclesiastic burial by the Catholic Church when he
died in 1869. He had been excommunicated because he was a member
of the Institut Canadien de Montréal which promoted works
blacklisted by the Church, including the writings of the French
Enlighteners such as Diderot and Voltaire. Under Montreal Bishop
Ignace Bourget who was acting in concert with the Papacy in Rome
under Pope Pius IX, the denial of burial was part of a bid by the
ecclesiastic forces to become the authority in all matters of a
temporal nature. On November 21, 1874, the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council ruled Guibord would be buried in
Côte-des-Neiges
Cemetery whether or not the Church agreed. This ruling put an end
to the pretense of the Church as the supreme authority over temporal
affairs in Quebec.
Bill 62 Is Irrational and Should Be Repealed
- Georges Côté -
On October 18, the Liberal government of Philippe
Couillard adopted Bill 62 by a vote of 66 to 51 with no abstentions.
Bill 62, An Act to foster adherence to State
religious neutrality and, in particular, to provide a framework
for requests for accommodations on religious grounds in certain
bodies (modified title), was first introduced in June 2015
by Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée. Vallée said
that Bill 62 is
aimed at "laying the foundations for a cohesion that is needed in
Quebec." It is part of what successive Quebec governments for more than
10 years now have
called working out "living together" ("le vivre-ensemble"). Eight
sessions of special hearings and eight meetings of the
Committee on Institutions were held prior to the bill's adoption.
 When the Liberals were brought back to power
in
2014,
defeating the Parti Québécois (PQ) government of Pauline
Marois,
government leader Philippe Couillard proclaimed that the election
was "a victory of diversity over disunity." The reference was to
the PQ's Charter of Quebec Values, introduced in the
National Assembly at the end of 2013, and said to be one of the main
reasons for the PQ's defeat in the election. Since then, the
Liberal government has been working on one version after another
of Bill 62.
The charter of values
or a law to codify what are called "reasonable accommodations"
and what people wear, how they behave and how they express their
beliefs is being used to incite passions in Quebec to divert
people from uniting in action to change the direction of the economy
and deal with the serious problems Quebec is facing as a result
of the anti-social offensive launched to pay the rich.
In 2007-2008 the Liberal government of Jean Charest
created
the Bouchard-Taylor Commission to investigate what it called a
"malaise" and "tensions" between Quebeckers of immigrant and
French-Canadian origin. This was a regurgitation of the old British
divide and conquer tactics which opposed the creation of a Quebec
nation based on all its inhabitants and declared that Quebec was "two
nations
warring in the bosom of a single state" in a struggle "not of
principles, but of races." This was said at a time when people of
different nationalities, languages and religions had united in
the rebellions of 1837-1839 against colonial rule.
Similarly today, "tensions" and "malaises" are created to prevent the
people from taking any initiative.
When the Couillard government took power, it mandated
the Quebec Commission on Human and Youth Rights to hold
a year-long consultation on "systemic discrimination and racism
in Quebec" but announced on October 19 that the mandate has been
withdrawn due to a "crisis" it had caused amongst the personnel of
the Commission. It has instead decided to launch a forum to
"increase the value of diversity and fight against
discrimination," the details of which are yet to come.
The entire law is presented according to the liberal
outlook
of balance between the rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter of Human Rights
and Freedoms and the limits imposed by
social cohesion or "living together," including what the law
calls the need for communication between people, the need for
identification and for security.
The preamble states, "[T]he Québec State and its
institutions
are founded, among other things, on the principles of the rule of
law, separation between the State and religious institutions, and
the State's religious neutrality." The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
recognizes
fundamental freedoms such as freedom of conscience, religion and
expression, and values such as equality between men and women. It
adds that "the rights and freedoms of the person are
inseparable from the rights and freedoms of others and from the
common well-being." It then says that religious neutrality is
necessary to ensure that all are treated without discrimination
on the basis of religion. In this respect it directly addresses
the conduct of public service personnel, who are specific targets
of this law.
At no point in the deliberations on the bill, whether
in
committee or in a session of the National Assembly, was any
example provided of the alleged discrimination committed by
public service personnel on a religious basis. No facts were given
that would illustrate that this problem exists. Furthermore,
nowhere is it said why a law is required to govern such
situations should they take place. Public service bodies already
have codes of ethics for cases of discrimination. The Human
Rights Commission can also be called upon; workers have unions to
defend them, and other measures. The law introduces a solution to a
problem
without showing that the problem exists in order to justify the use of
arbitrary powers of the state to intervene against employees and
public service personnel and against the organizations themselves
in the name of non-discrimination.
Services with Face Uncovered
On this topic the law simply states,
"Personnel members
of a body must exercise their functions with their face
uncovered.
"Similarly, persons who request a service from a
personnel
member of a body referred to in this chapter must have their face
uncovered when the service is provided."
Despite the minimalist text, the discussion on this
subject
in the various circles of power has been long and convoluted and,
once again, no data is presented on the phenomenon of providing
or receiving public services with a covered face, nor on why it
is a problem for Quebec society if it exists. Why a law is
required when the different public services have norms that
govern things like clothing is not raised. It is hard to imagine
a person renewing their driver's license or health insurance
card, which requires a photo, without revealing their face.
All of it goes to show that the aim of the law is not
to
ensure the proper functioning of public services, despite what
the law and Couillard government representatives say. If this
were the case, the government would not be so hell bent on
destroying them with neo-liberal funding cuts and
privatization.
According to the law, the measures concerning the
uncovered
face for public services aims "to ensure quality communication
between persons and allow their identity to be verified, and for
security purposes."
 Let's take an example. On August
15, Minister
Vallée adopted
amendments that, among other things, extended the application of
the law to public transportation. Here is what she had to say in the
National Assembly on October 4, when that body debated the Committee on
Institutions' report on Bill 62.
"The obligation to have one's face uncovered in our
society is, for me, quite logical, and fits precisely with
these values of living together and the importance of ensuring quality
in our communications... Just
recently history has shown how uncomfortable people are when
people voluntarily hide their faces. Remember, on August 20 [a
demonstration in Quebec City to support welcoming Haitian
refugees following the regressive measures of Trump in the United
States] ... the incidents that took
place here, nearby in Quebec City, people were wearing hoods,
sunglasses, with scarves covering their faces, completely
obscuring who they were. This does not signal integration into
society, on the contrary ... Some of those
people used public transportation, and that caused some fears.
So, the obligation to have one's face uncovered is simply an
obligation that falls within the framework of living together and
is completely legitimate."
In this way she reveals not only a deeply disturbing
racist
outlook but the intention to declare whatever the government
wants to declare as the "delivery and reception of a public
service," which comes under the category of the criteria of
"communication, identification and security." The police powers
will decide when and under what conditions these criteria apply,
because "fears are aroused" among the public.
In the case of youth wearing masks at demonstrations,
why the
youth have to protect themselves from the criminalization and
repression of the state is passed over in the
name of "living together."
By extending the application of the law to public
transportation, the government shows its intent to create
maximum tensions by making everything arbitrary, hoping that this
prevents people uniting in action in defence of the rights of
all.
Confronted with the accusation that the government is
seeking
to criminalize the use of the public space, the government has
invented the concepts of "interaction" and "extension of public
space." It says Bill 62 would apply only in the case of an
interaction of a person of authority in a public service with a
person who receives a public service. When the person moves in
the "extension of the public space" the ban does not apply.
The Minister said at an October 24 press
conference,
"Take, for example, public transit ... To achieve the aim of
identification, an employee of a transportation company can ask a
person to uncover their face to check the validity of their
ticket if the fare requires a photo. As we know, in the vast
majority of cases, tickets are magnetic without photos. Take, for
example, the OPUS card in Montreal. On the other hand, in
Montreal certain tickets, for example, discounted tickets, are
provided with a photo and identification is required at the
outset by the Montreal Transport Service. So this
interaction, which is the verification of identity, can be
required and obviously must be done with face uncovered. However,
once you have taken your seat on the bus or the subway, you are
moving into the extension of the public space. The law does not
intend to govern the extension of the public space."
The example is given of how this would function in the
context of a library. "In the library, for identification and
communication purposes, a person who comes to a public library
must have his or her face uncovered when interacting with an
employee of the library. Such a requirement is not required when
moving through library aisles when viewing a document."
The simple fact that people in positions of power
consider
such situations while saying they do not want to criminalize the
use of the public space shows that this is precisely what they
have in mind. This alleged protection of the "extension of the
public space," ceases to exist when a person of authority
interacts with the person for reasons of "communications,
identification and security." This means that youth who are
gathered in a park and have their faces covered stop being part
of the "extension of the public space" if a person in a position
of authority decides to interact with them because he interprets
their clothing as a security or communication problem, which
"raises fears" among people. The same thing applies with regard
to Muslim women who wear a face veil. A difference is interpreted
as a justification for creating conflicts and deploying police
powers against the people.
Early Childhood Services
An entire section of Bill 62 is devoted to
early
childhood educational services. Here, the obligation to provide
and receive services with the face uncovered includes a series of
obligations to ensure that "children's admission is not related
to their learning a specific religious belief, dogma or practice
and that the activities organized by subsidized childcare
providers do not involve learning of a religious or dogmatic
nature."
Claiming that the obligation of the state is to promote
religious neutrality, this section of the act is a near
word-for-word replica of the Parti Québécois' Charter of
Values
which banned wearing the veil in these services. In this regard,
Bill 62 and the deliberations on it among those in power were
marked by the assertion that the role of the State as guarantor
of rights and freedoms is threatened or disturbed by the power of
a religious institution or belief. There is no evidence that
either Quebec or Canada are threatened by the return of
ecclesiastic state power. There is plenty of evidence, however,
that the direct usurpation of state power by private monopolies
and oligopolies and their supranational institutions are a matter
of serious concern for the workers and the people. Yet the
parties which have formed a cartel in the National Assembly do
not agitate for the state to stop representing these private
interests in its relations with the people and their
well-being.
The very act of passing laws and other measures that
aim to
"settle" differences between people by means of arbitrary police
powers shows that it is the act of an authority that refuses to
address problems of society and of the economy which are at the
basis of divisions and insecurity for different sections of the
people.
 The "principles" and "parameters"
that the Liberal
government
and the National Assembly as a whole are trying to enshrine in
law, are in fact the acceptance, in the form of "values," of the
Islamophobia that comes from the wars of aggression and regime
change that are led by the United States and in which Canada is
participating. These "principles" and "parameters" set the terms
under which the State is to manage and criminalize behavior.
People's behaviour, dress codes and beliefs are hypocritically
being made the issue and a notion is peddled that security lies
not in the defence of the rights of all but by controlling how
people behave, dress and relate to each other. This can never
create a "living together" that is secure and peaceful for the
people. Quite the contrary; the persistence of the ruling elite
to "sort out" these matters through police powers leads to one
crisis after another and it must be stopped.
Bill 62 is irrational and creates all sorts of problems
for
the people and should be repealed. It is a reminder to the
workers and the people of Quebec of how much the Liberal
government and the National Assembly are in conflict with the
demands of society, with the need to sort out the problem of
building a modern Quebec that takes up the challenges of
harmonizing individual interests with collective interests and
both individual and collective interests with the general
interests of society. There is zero chance that such a reckless
and self-serving approach as that of the Liberals and their
claims to defend rights as abstractions can even begin to sort
out the problems of society today. What is required is to firmly
defend the rights of all and to provide a new direction to
economic, political and other affairs.
Trudeau Liberals Pass Transport Modernization Act
Workers Reject Liberal Attack on
Their Dignity and Rights
  
The House of Commons on November 1 passed the Trudeau
Government's Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada
Transportation Act and other Acts respecting transportation and
to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
The bill, essentially unchanged since its introduction on May 16,
was sent to the Senate for adoption.
 The bill increases the
allowable percentage of foreign
ownership of Canadian airlines from 29 to 49 per cent. This
provision in the bill also states that a single investor can hold
up to 25 per cent of the voting interests of a Canadian carrier,
and an international carrier can own up to 25 per cent of a
Canadian carrier.
The bill includes the new mechanism of Long-Haul
Interswitching for rail shipments denounced by many as further U.S.
annexation of
Canada's economy. Interswitching allows shippers of goods served
at their home location by a single rail carrier to use another
carrier to perform the longest part of the journey starting from
a recognized interchange point. Under previous legislation,
interswitching was available to shippers located 160 km from a
recognized interchange point. Bill C-49 extends this distance up
to 1,200 kilometres, placing interconnection or Long-Haul
Interswitching within the reach of railway monopolies now
operating mostly in the U.S. thus increasing their access to the
Canadian railway network.
Bill C-49 also maintains without change the section
requiring
railway monopolies to install audio-video recorders in locomotives,
Locomotive
Voice and Video Recorders (LVVRs), that also gives them access to the
recordings. This section
has been kept despite railway workers' strong opposition to this attack
on their dignity and privacy. Workers consider
constant audio-video recordings of them at work an additional weapon
for the railway
monopolies to use to spy on them and take arbitrary
disciplinary measures against them to undermine their defence of their
rights. The recordings, which would include private conversations with
fellow workers, become yet another attack on workers' ability to do
their job with peace of mind, on which the safety of the railway and
the public depend. Furthermore, the aim is to make criminalizing
workers' behaviour the issue in rail safety, rather than the
deregulation,
self-monitoring and crew reductions demanded by the railway monopolies.
The Trudeau government has maintained throughout the
process
its neo-liberal imperialist mantra according to which a bill
allowing deregulation, privatization and attacks on workers is a
"modernization" of the transportation systems to make them more
competitive and profitable. The government pushes the imperialist
mantra of balancing the competitiveness of the railways and their
aim for maximum profit with the safety of workers and the public.
Workers' privacy concerns apparently have to be addressed within
the employers' outlook and rights, and not according to the
workers' outlook and rights. That is not balance but rather
dictatorial and arbitrary.
 Rail workers reject
the Trudeau Liberals' fraudulent balance in which monopoly right
trounces workers' rights. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
National Legislative Director Don Ashley told Workers'
Forum: "The Liberals just voted down all the amendments that
have been proposed to restrict the scope of the use of the
recordings. They are talking about safeguards but there are no
safeguards in the legislation. They have left it to be handled by
regulation. But we know that the bureaucrats favour the employers
more so than the governments. We have no faith in any regulation
to protect our rights. Transport Canada is not favourable to the
unions. They haven't even developed the regulations, so they
can't tell us how they are going to mitigate the impact of the
bill."
The rail workers organized in the Teamsters Canada Rail
Conference and Unifor have pledged to continue to defend workers'
rights and public safety. They are calling on all workers to join
them in this struggle. They are also lobbying members of the
Senate to oppose the railways' access to the content of the
recordings and intend to launch court actions against this
section of the Act.
The Rail Section of Unifor has launched a petition
calling on
Senators to amend Bill C-49 to eliminate any requirement for LVVRs. The
petition points
out that the installation of LVVRs violates the privacy rights of
rail workers and is likely to increase the stress level of those
who are being monitored, which could in turn reduce safety. It
says the LVVR technology will likely be used by the railways as a
disciplinary tool. It also points out that no discussion has
taken place and no plan has been presented as to how the Transportation
Safety Board intends to maintain the integrity of the LVVR data
once locomotives enter U.S. territory. Finally, the petition says
Bill C-49 will open the door for other transportation employers
to adopt LVVRs, making privacy violations a government-sanctioned
norm and standard.
Opposition to Blackmail by the Monopolies
in Transportation Sector
Nation-Wrecking in Northern Manitoba
Increasingly troubling events are happening in
Churchill
and throughout Northern Manitoba. U.S. rail company Omnitrax
refuses to repair the damaged rail line connecting the
municipalities of Gilliam and Churchill, isolating the North and
damaging the economy. Also, the Port of Churchill has been closed
since the summer of 2016 for which Omnitrax is responsible. The
people of Northern Manitoba denounce this situation where a
foreign private company can cause such havoc and damage to their
lives. They demand the federal and provincial governments assume
their social responsibility and organize the immediate repair of
the rail line, reopen the Port of Churchill and hold
Omnitrax to account for liabilities.[1]
With insufferable arrogance, Omnitrax informed the
municipality of Churchill on November 1 that it would now charge up
to 30 per cent more for fuel being transported to the beleaguered
community by ship even though the necessity to bring in fuel by
ship is a direct result of its refusal to repair the rail line.
The price of fuel at the pump is expected to rise from about
$1.70 per litre to over $2.
 The main rail line of the
Hudson Bay Railway Company
(HBRC),
which Omnitrax owns and controls, runs from The Pas to Churchill.
The northernmost part of the line was severely damaged by spring
flooding and neither Omnitrax nor any government agency has
mobilized workers and resources to repair the line. Further
exacerbating the situation, Omnitrax informed those Northern
Manitoba municipalities serviced by HBRC on rail lines still in
operation that fuel shipments would be reduced. Reduction of fuel
shipments by rail means a large increase in fuel trucks on the
highways of the area, a major safety concern particularly in
winter.
The Omnitrax attacks have extended to its Manitoba
workforce
with reports of layoffs of rail line personnel in operations,
maintenance and local company offices, and the movement of
equipment south possibly into the United States. The Omnitrax
owners do not deny these facts, calling them ways to "limit their
losses" from a rail line and a port they claim are not
economically viable. Many see it as preparations to move all its
equipment and assets out of the province and abandon its
responsibilities altogether.
For their part, the Trudeau and Manitoba governments
have
denied any social responsibility for the Omnitrax wrecking and
refuse to take decisive action to defend the people. Calls are
becoming louder and louder insisting the two governments seize
Omnitrax assets, remove the company from the operation of the
rail line and port, mobilize state resources to repair the rail
line immediately and restart operations, reopen the port, and
pursue Omnitrax for damages.
Instead of taking action to change the situation, all
the
Trudeau government has done is issue impotent threats of legal
action and probes, while Omnitrax continues to wreck the economy,
interfere in the lives of the people with impunity and block them
from having a say and the control necessary to solve
problems.
The people demand action not lawsuits that resolve
nothing in
practice, such as Trudeau's threat last month to sue Omnitrax for
$18.8 million if it does not fix the rail line by November 12.
Mr. Trudeau, no repairs have started and your deadline is upon
us! Rail cars do not travel on lawsuits in court; they travel on
viable rail lines! What does Trudeau intend to do now? Where is
he headed with this?
The $18.8 million refers to a pay-the-rich scheme in
2008 for
Omnitrax to repair, upgrade and maintain its Manitoba northern
rail line, which is the only land connection to the subarctic
community of Churchill on the coast of Hudson Bay. The Manitoba
government also poured massive amounts of state funds into
Omnitrax. The U.S. owner was supposed to reciprocate with a
similar level of investments to upgrade the line but never
did.
 Like a broken record,
Omnitrax replies to all legal
threats
with a refusal to fix the rail line and operate the railway and
Port properly without continuing state funds that guarantees maximum
profit for its U.S. owners. Omnitrax also warns that it would not
consider selling any of its Manitoba assets and "rights" without
state funds buying them at a price it dictates. It declares no
social responsibilities come with its ownership of vital
infrastructure and furthermore the state has no right to
interfere with its ownership rights without paying dearly. It
bought the rail utility and port in Northern Manitoba years ago
because it believed the utilities would turn a handsome profit
but now say they are "not economically viable" and wants to be
compensated for the lower rate of profit on its investment.
The people demand the government burst Omnitrax's
bubble of
imperialist arrogance! They demand the state seize Omnitrax's
rail, port and other assets in Manitoba. They demand the
government establish a state enterprise to run the vital rail and
port infrastructure in Northern Manitoba in cooperation with the
people who live and work in the area and under their control. The
federal and provincial governments should hand over to the state
enterprise all available Omnitrax assets and make available any
additional human resources, material and equipment necessary to
repair the damaged rail line and operate the railway and Port of
Churchill according to the say, demands and needs of the
people.
Note
1. In further developments
regarding Omnitrax, on November 16 it was reported that Toronto-based
investment firm Fairfax Financial Holdings will partner with two
Manitoba ownership groups to attempt a purchase of Omnitrax's assets in
the province, including the Churchill rail line and port. The federal
government and its negotiator, former clerk of the Privy Council Wayne
Wouters, have structured a deal with a consortium of two potential
ownership groups -- One North and Missinippi Rail LP. Omnitrax signed a
memorandum of understanding with Missinippi Rail in June this year to
purchase the rail line and port for $20 million. Missinippi was later
joined by One North to consolidate interests in buying Omnitrax's
Manitoba assets. Both groups represent First Nations and communities
along the rail line to Churchill.
Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, also the MP for Winnipeg South,
said in a November 16 press release that this partnership "would enable
a sustainable business approach that results in a safe and reliable
rail line." In the same press release, Fairfax President Paul Rivett
claimed that Fairfax has "deep
experience in infrastructure projects" and has "the necessary
operational expertise to run shortline railways in partnership with our
investee company AGT Foods. The key is that the plan has to be viable
and profitable in the long term as a business."
The Canadian Press reports that the announcement of the possible deal
came two days after Omnitrax issued notice on November 14 of its intent
to
file a complaint under NAFTA alleging unfair treatment by the Canadian
government. The notice said the federal government's decision to end
the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on western wheat and barley in 2012
drastically cut grain shipments along the rail line and through the
Port of Churchill. It said the open market allowed producers to use
southern rail lines and Canadian-owned ports.
"Article 1102 of the NAFTA requires that Canada provide to investors or
investments of the other NAFTA Parties treatment that is 'no less
favourable' than it provides to its own," the 22-page notice from
Omnitrax states.
"Through the steps it has taken to undercut the [rail line] and its
market position relative to Canadian-owned railways, the Government of
Canada has de facto discriminated
against
Omnitrax
to
the
benefit
of
its
Canadian competitors."
Readers of TML will recall
how the Harper government imposed a phony plebiscite on farmers in the
name of providing them with a "choice" of how to ship and sell their
grain, to
then justify legislating the Wheat Board's public monopoly out of
existence, in the service of various private agricultural monopolies.
Ironically, Omnitrax's Canadian president, Merv Tweed, was a
backbencher in the Conservative government when it made that decision,
the Canadian Press points out.
The federal government later on November 14 retaliated with a
lawsuit against Omnitrax, alleging the monopoly "failed to repair and
maintain the rail line in violation of a 2008 agreement that saw the
company receive $18.8 million in federal aid for maintenance and
upgrades." While the lawsuit seeks repayment of the money, news
reports make no mention of redress for the harm to residents of
Northern Manitoba by Omnitrax's neglect of the line, nor the problems
caused by neo-liberal free trade agreements that do not permit Canada
to exercise control over its infrastructure and economy.
Deeds Not Words Needed to
Reverse Nation-Wrecking
The people demand action not words to
stop
nation-wrecking of their region!
 The Canadian Transportation
Agency (CTA) informed
Omnitrax on
November 3 of the start of a formal probe to determine whether
its subsidiary Hudson Bay Railway has breached sections of the Transportation
Act that cover service obligations
and
discontinuation. This formality began the stage of legal
adjudication called pleadings, in which the company and state
complainant
will submit written documents to explain their sides of the story.
The media quote an email from a CTA spokesperson, "The
CTA will strive to resolve this case within 85 business days from
the date of the letter." That would mean, at best, February 27,
2018 and in all likelihood much later, assuming that the probe
leads to anything at all. These words and legal manoeuvres do
nothing to address the burning issues of a damaged rail line that
Omnitrax refuses to fix and the Port of Churchill it refuses to
reopen. The people demand deeds not words and legal probes!
The Trudeau government is stalling while the people are
demanding immediate action that removes the wrecker Omnitrax from the
picture and re-establishes these vital instruments of the economic life
of the area. Rail workers in the region note that when it comes to
declaring certain public services "essential services" for purposes of
breaking workers' struggles to defend their rights and public services,
governments do not spare a moment to pass back-to-work legislation.
Such self-serving definitions and high-sounding concerns underscore the
illegitimacy of governments that serve private interests and not the
people's needs, as rail service to Northern Manitoba is without a
doubt an urgently needed essential service that governments must ensure.
The people of Northern Manitoba demand that economic
and
social life be invigorated in Churchill and the region based on
local needs, say and control. For example, a consortium made up
mainly of First Nations and municipalities has proposed to
acquire the Omnitrax rail line and port. This could be the basis
of a state enterprise to control and run these vital
utilities. The Trudeau government, besides stalling and refusing
to
break the impasse with Omnitrax, dismisses local initiatives and
says instead it wants "long-term solutions" within its Arctic
Policy Framework. The people reply angrily that this framework is
not fixing the problem in the here and now. The delays are
endangering their lives, well-being and economy.
 The federal government's
Arctic Policy Framework seems intended to prevent local communities
from taking initiatives to build their regions. The Framework goes over
the heads of the people with plans to build trade corridors in the
North to serve imperialist empire-building and military preparations.
The Framework negates nation-building and replaces it with imperialist
control, privatization as experienced with Omnitrax, deregulation and
negation of the people's right to exercise control over those issues
that affect them.
The people point out that changes to state arrangements
since the 1990s for purposes of privatization and deregulation have led
to the current disastrous situation where those in the north find
themselves without their critical means of production. The region's
mill, rail and port infrastructure sit idle and cannot be used because
of some faraway imperialist dictate.
Nation-building in the 21st century requires a
new
direction and aim for the economy to serve the people not the
imperialists. Nation-building cannot proceed unless the
imperialists, such as Omnitrax are deprived of their power to
impose their dictate on the people. For the people of Northern
Manitoba,
nation-building must begin now with deeds not words to rebuild
their vital infrastructure and put it under their control to
serve their needs not the aim and demand of some profit-mad
foreign imperialist.
U.S. Owners Threaten to Shut Down
Huron Central Railway
Time for a new pro-social
direction and aim for the
economy!
Industrial workers in Northern Ontario and
elsewhere are discussing the necessity for a new direction for
the economy. The current direction under the control of competing
private interests is not working. Dysfunctional is a word often
used to describe the state of affairs. Competing private
interests are unwilling to allow the actual producers, and others
directly affected in the North, to plan their economy in a
rational way with a common aim to develop the overall
interrelated economy in an all-sided way to meet the well-being
and economic security of the people and guarantee the economy's
extended reproduction.
The aim of private profit for competing parts is
wrecking the
economy and social fabric of the region. A modern interconnected
economy of industrial mass production needs cooperation, overall
planning and a common pro-social aim to be successful. The
foreign-owned Algoma Steel mill in Sault Ste. Marie is in
bankruptcy protection under the Companies'
Creditors
Arrangement
Act
(CCAA) for the third time in the last twenty years with no end in
sight even after three years. Now the foreign-owned Huron Central
Railway is threatening to close if it does not receive state
funds to serve its private interests. This is nation-wrecking not
nation-building.
Huron Central Railway is privately owned and controlled
by
the U.S. imperialist monopoly Genesee & Wyoming (G&W).[1] It has threatened to shut down
unless the federal and provincial governments grant it state
funds to repair and maintain the railway line's infrastructure.
G&W leases the line from CP Railway, which does not pay for the
line's upkeep. G&W says the income from transporting industrial
goods the 292 kilometre stretch between Sault Ste. Marie and
Sudbury is insufficient to meet its aim and goal for company
profit and ensure the rail line is in a good and safe condition
according to federal standards. G&W pleads that the revenue
necessary to maintain its operating infrastructure is draining
money from private company profit and the U.S. owners do not
accept lightly any lowering of their rate of profit, which they
consider their monopoly right.
To cease railway operations would negatively affect the
economy along the line including the operations of three major
industries: the Algoma Steel mill in the Sault, Domtar paper in
Espanola, and Eacom lumber operations in Nairn Centre. These
three companies account for 88 per cent of the line's traffic,
amounting to 12,000 carloads annually. Huron Central is
considered the only viable transport option for those operations
and many others along the line. It discontinued passenger service
some time ago.
To meet its aim for private corporate profit, G&W
says it
needs millions of dollars per year in "survival funding" from the
federal National Trade Corridor Fund matched by a similar amount
from the Ontario government. If the pay-the-rich state funds are
not provided, the monopoly says it will cease operations in
2018.
This is not the first time G&W has asked for funds
and
threatened to shut down if state money was not given to them. The
City of Sault Ste. Marie and the federal and Ontario governments
handed over $33 million to G&W in 2009 for "track bed
improvements, rail replacement and bridge upgrades."
 Pay-the-rich schemes and
attacking the claims of the
working
class on the value it produces using weapons such as CCAA are the
norm of the economy's present direction under the control and
narrow aim of the imperialist monopolies. Industrial workers and
other Canadians are questioning this direction with its aim for
maximum private profit at the expense of the economy, its actual
producers and others. To operate smoothly without crises, the
modern socialized economy of industrial mass production needs
cooperation amongst all its interconnected parts and a modern aim
that favours the working people and general interests of society.
The present direction of state interventions to pay the rich to
maintain and increase their private profits under threat of
liquidation is destructive to the economy and leads to no good as
do the attacks on the working class using the CCAA and other
state-organized weapons.
Taking value out of the economy to serve and meet the
aim of
private profit does not work. Pay-the-rich schemes, theft of what
belongs to workers by right through state-organized weapons such
as CCAA and other anti-worker legislation, extorting concessions
from workers with threats to close operations, and forcing state
anti-social austerity on the people and society with cutbacks to
social programs and public services amount to nation-wrecking. A
new pro-social direction and aim for the economy is necessary to
serve the common good and nation-building.
Note
1. Genesee & Wyoming Inc. is a U.S. holding company
that owns or
maintains interests in railroads throughout the world, including
the United States, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Australia,
Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In addition to its ownership
of Freightliner, G&W controls more than 24,900 km of owned and
leased track, with more than 5,300 km under additional
track-access arrangements. It owns controlling interests in 122
freight railroads, either directly or through subsidiaries,
including Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc. acquired in 1997. A
subsidiary called Rail Link Inc. provides industrial switching
and related customer logistics services in 11 U.S. states and
operates an additional 26 short line railroads serving 10 major
U.S. ports.
Freightliner in Britain was originally part of
state-owned
British Rail. Privatization in the 1990s transferred Freightliner
into private hands, eventually falling under the control of G&W
in 2015. Freightliner operates freight rail service throughout
Europe, West Asia, North Africa and Australia.
G&W is headquartered in Connecticut. Before its big
expansion
with the purchase of Freightliner in 2015, the company had a
gross income in 2014 of U.S.$1.639 billion and company profit of
U.S.$261.0 million.
The company annually receives state funds from
pay-the-rich
schemes from most of the jurisdictions where it operates, mainly
said to repair and replace fixed value in its railway lines.
These pay-the-rich schemes boost its annual company profits and
allow it to grow its empire through takeovers of other companies
and new operating contracts.
U.S. Warmongering in Asia
Anti-War Protests Greet
Trump in Korea
- Philip Fernandez -
Several days of militant protests against Trump's visit to Korea begin
November 4, 2017.
On November 7 and 8, U.S. President Donald Trump
visited
the Republic of Korea (ROK) for the third U.S.-ROK Summit as part
of an 11-day Asian tour which included visits to Japan, China,
Vietnam and the Philippines. Trump's visit to south Korea was
opposed by more than 200 organizations which demanded peace on
the Korean peninsula. On November 4, the groups held a "No Trump,
No War People's Rally" at the U.S. embassy in Seoul to launch
their protests. Despite their attempts, the Seoul police were
unable to prevent the protesters from getting to the U.S.
embassy. In their joint press conference the organizers pointed
out: "Who can possibly welcome a foreign leader who talks about
the possibility of a war on their land? We should take the path
of peace, not war. We cannot help but protect peace on our land
and our livelihood for ourselves." The demonstrators demanded
that the U.S. stop the aggressive military exercises that
threaten the Korean Peninsula, cease pressuring and imposing
sanctions against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK) and remove all terminal high altitude area defence (THAAD)
missile installations from Korean soil. They also demanded that
the U.S. stop forcing the ROK to purchase larger and larger
amounts of U.S. weapons.
Seoul, November 5, 2017
Many of the protests also called for the scrapping of
the
onerous U.S.-ROK Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) which has permitted
the domination of the south Korean economy by U.S. monopolies at
the expense of the livelihoods and economic future of the
people.
While the monopoly media in Canada and elsewhere
sensationalized Trump's provocative and irresponsible comments
against the DPRK during his visit, less mentioned was that
Trump's visit to south Korea was aimed primarily at strengthening
the aggressive U.S.-south Korea military alliance. To make that
point clear, U.S.-south Korea-Japan military drills involving
three aircraft carriers -- the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Theodore
Roosevelt
and the USS Nimitz --
were
timed to coincide with Trump's visit. These war exercises
continue with air and naval manoeuvres near the Northern Limit
Line, the U.S.-imposed maritime border on the West Sea dividing
north and south Korea.
It is important to note that throughout all these
aggressive
military acts and crimes against the peace on the part of the
U.S., the ROK and Japan, the DPRK has exercised restraint and
soberly called for the U.S. and its allies to end these
provocative acts while at the same time taking defensive measures
against possible attacks.
Activists force Trump's motorcade through Seoul to reroute, November 7,
2017.
One of the outcomes of the summit was that ROK
President Moon
committed to purchasing billions of dollars more of U.S. weapons
-- including F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, KF-16 fighters, Patriot
PAC-3 ballistic missile upgrades, Apache heavy attack
helicopters, Global Hawk high-altitude drones and Aegis combat
systems. Moon's pledge to buy more weapons goes beyond the
commitment already made under the previous Park Geun-hye
government to increase imports of U.S. weapons by $215 billion
between 2016 and 2020. President Moon has pledged to increase
south Korea's defence spending by seven per cent annually to 2022.
Next year alone the defence budget will be increased by almost
U.S.$40 billion.
 
Two members of south Korea's National Assembly refuse to applaud
Trump's warmongering speech, November 8, 2017, while a mass
demonstration takes place outside.
All this does not bode well for peace on the Korean
peninsula. The strengthening of the U.S.-south Korea military alliance
through increased war exercises aimed at regime change
in the DPRK, and increased purchases of U.S. weapons, the
strengthening of the U.S. military occupation of south Korea and
the continuing imposition of U.S. military command in the event
of war on the Korean peninsula, is a crime against the Korean
people and a violation of their right to live in peace.
 The U.S. imperialists have
been a curse on the Korean
people.
Since the unilateral and forced division of Korea by the U.S. in
1945, the Korean people have not had a moment's peace. It is
noteworthy that from the time of the division of Korea, the
Korean people in the north and south have worked tirelessly for
peace on the Korean Peninsula and the reunification of their
nation. The reception given Donald Trump on his recent Korean
visit shows the whole world that the Korean people, despite all
the obstacles put in their way since 1945, through the U.S.-instigated
Korean War to the present, have not for a moment given
up their just struggle for peace, reunification and
self-determination.
It is vital that the peace-loving Canadian people and
peoples
around the world do their duty and step up their actions against
the U.S. war drums being beaten once again on the Korean
Peninsula under the pretext that the DPRK is a threat to peace.
By taking a stand for peace on the Korean Peninsula, the Canadian
people will assist the Korean people in their just struggle to
oust the U.S. imperialists from their country and achieve the
peace and reunification they so ardently desire.
U.S. Troops Out of Korea!
U.S. -- Sign a Peace Treaty with the DPRK!
No
to THAAD Missiles in South Korea! Hands Off the DPRK!
 
Joint Statement of International
Associations of Lawyers
Seoul, November 7, 2017
On the occasion of the visit of U.S. president Trump to
Japan and South Korea, we demand an end to the U.S.-DPRK escalation
in military threats.
On September 19, 2017, in his first appearance before
the
United Nations, President Donald Trump threatened to totally
destroy North Korea [Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- TML Ed. Note] showing absolute
contempt and disregard for all the reasons
the peoples of the world united in 1945 to establish the United
Nations. In the preamble of the Charter, the peoples of the
United Nations state:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED
NATIONS DETERMINED
- to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
- to reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in
the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,
and
- to establish conditions under
which justice and respect for the obligations arising from
treaties and other sources of international law can be
maintained, and
- to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
- to practice tolerance and live together in
peace
with one another as good neighbours, and
- to unite our strength to maintain
international
peace and security, and
- to ensure,
by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods,
that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,
and
- to employ international
machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples.
In furtherance of these
purposes "All Members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security, and justice, are not endangered." And "All Members
shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent
with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The only exception to the use of force is in
self-defense in
response to an armed attack from another country, and only until
the Security Council can act to restore international peace and
security.
With respect to Korea, the United States has never
complied
with the terms of the 1953 armistice. The Armistice called for
the parties to meet to conclude a formal peace treaty. This has
never happened.
The armistice called for the removal of foreign troops
from
the peninsula. The Chinese troops left in the 1950s. The United
States still has 28,500 troops in South Korea and South Korea has
built the world's largest U.S. military base on Jeju Island.
In fact, contrary to the initial promises that the base
would
not be used as a strategic outpost by the U.S. military, U.S. naval
vessels often enter ports at the Gangjeong Naval Base. The
armistice called for no new weapons being introduced into either
country.
The United States put nuclear weapons in South Korea
and
although they were later removed, the United States has been
selling billions of dollars of arms to South Korea each year. The
United States over opposition of peace and other progressive
activists in South Korea has promoted the installation of the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD system in South
Korea using as cover the current war of words.
There needs to be a permanent peace treaty on the
peninsula.
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers
(IADL),
the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the Japan Lawyers International
Solidarity Association (JALISA), the U.S. Military Issues Committee
of Lawyers for a Democratic Society (MINBYUN) and the
Confederation of Lawyers of Asia and the Pacific (COLAP), support
the development of a peace treaty between North and South Korea
as a main way to promote peace and stability in the region.
Furthermore, we demand of President Trump of the U.S.,
President
Moon Jae-in of South Korea, Prime Minister Abe of Japan, as
follows:
1. Stop acting recklessly with continuing threats of
war.
2. Do not use the military bases in South Korea and
Japan to
threaten North Korea to heighten the crisis on the Korean
peninsula.
3. President Moon Jae-in and Prime Minister Abe Shinzo
should
not allow the deployment of strategic assets such as U.S. nuclear
carriers, strategic bombers, and nuclear submarines, including
the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) deployment.
4. In addition, the U.S.-ROK joint military exercises
that
deploy a U.S. strategic weapon in accordance with a pre-emptive
nuclear strike threatening North Korea must be stopped
immediately.
5. Moon Jae-in should act as a mediator to promote
dialogue
and negotiations that will permanently end the military
confrontation between North Korea and the United States. In the
process, it will be necessary to revive the 7.4 South-North Joint
Statement, the 6.15 South-North Joint Statement, and the 10.4
South-North Declaration, and end the worn-out confrontation in
accordance with that spirit and achieve the improvement of
inter-Korean relations.
6. Abe Shinzo should give up the strategy to deter
North
Korea with the U.S. and be a fair mediator to promote dialogue with the
spirit of Article 9 in the Japanese peace constitution.
We call on the international community to raise its
voice
against these provocations and drills with mighty U.S. military
power generated by the U.S. military bases in Asia, the Pacific and
in the world.
Protest in Canada
Hope 21, an organization of patriotic overseas Koreans
that is part of the struggle for peace and justice on the Korean
Peninsula, on November 15 joined the weekly picket in Toronto
organized by the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and the
Korean Federation in Canada against U.S. war preparations on the Korean
Peninsula.
 The participation of Hope
21 with their signs
and
banner across from the U.S. Consulate drew the attention of many
passers by who stopped to sign the Peace Petition against War and
Aggression on the Korean Peninsula. Almost 60 signatures were
collected bringing the total number of signatures to over 1,000 in
three weeks of pickets and related actions in Toronto. Hope 21
activists pledged to take up this work as their own to contribute
to the success of the campaign.
In light of the ongoing military
exercises being
conducted
now in Korean waters by the U.S.-south Korea-Japan military
alliance that threatens the Korean Peninsula and the region, the
organizers of the pickets and the peace petition call on everyone
across Canada to organize similar pickets and collect signatures
for the Peace Petition. By everyone taking their stand for peace
on the Korean Peninsula and to stay the hand of the U.S.
imperialist warmongers and their allies in the Canadian
Parliament, Canadians can find a way for Canada to be a genuine
force for peace in the world and remove itself from its
entanglements in any and all U.S.-led aggressive military
alliances.
Copies of the Peace Petition Against War and
Aggression on
the Korean Peninsula can be found here.
End the U.S. Blockade of Cuba!
U.S. Announces New Restrictions
on Trade and Travel to Cuba
 The United States
government announced on November 8 new
restrictions on U.S. citizens wishing to do business with or
travel to Cuba, as part of implementing Donald Trump's June 16
"Presidential Memorandum of National Security on Strengthening
U.S. Policy towards Cuba," which reversed key aspects of the
process of rapprochement between the two countries. The U.S.
Departments of State, Commerce and the Treasury announced
"coordinated actions" that include blacklisting 180 state-owned
entities and restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens and
residents.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets
Control (OFAC), and the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Industry and Security, announced amendments to the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations and the Exports Administration Regulations.
These include changes to the list of sanctions originally
announced in June that came into force November 9, when they were
officially published in the Federal Register. Complementary
measures by the State Department also came into force November
9.
One example of the sanctions being put in place is that
"persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction will now be prohibited from
engaging in certain direct financial transactions with entities
and subentities" on the State Department's "List of Restricted
Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba (Cuba Restricted
List)." These include more than 100 hotels, marinas and retail
outlets linked to Cuba's Revolutionary Armed Forces and national
intelligence and security organizations, according to a press
release by the Treasury Department's Office of Public
Affairs.
Regarding travel, the press release notes that "all
people-to-people non-academic educational travel be conducted
under the auspices of an organization that is subject to U.S.
jurisdiction and that sponsors such exchanges to promote
people-to-people contact. [...] Individual people-to-people
nonacademic educational travel will no longer be authorized as
announced by the President."
TML Weekly condemns these actions against the
people of Cuba and their leadership and calls on people in Canada and
Quebec to step their actions in support of Cuba's right to independence
and sovereignty and to oppose any moves by the Trudeau government
to change Canada's longstanding stated policy of non-interference in
Cuba's internal affairs and opposition to the U.S. embargo.
New U.S. Measures Against Cuba Are a Setback
 Josefina Vidal Ferreiro,
General Director of the United States Division of Cuba's Foreign
Ministry pointed out on November 8 that the new U.S. restrictions
constitute a serious setback to bilateral relations. These measures
reinforce the blockade and blatantly aim to subvert the Cuban
Revolution. She also pointed out the arbitrariness of the list of
targeted entities: "It even includes soft-drink brands (like Tropicola
and Cachito) and rums, as well as photography services like
PhotoService."
Vidal pointed out that the measures will also affect
U.S.
businesses, who will lose out to their competitors on attractive
opportunities in Cuba.
However, she noted that the new regulations on business
and travel exclude businesses and agreements established before the
measures came into effect. Therefore, various links between the two
countries implemented just before Barack Obama left office remain in
place, such as the authorization of direct commercial flights between
the two countries and visits by cruise lines to Cuba, as well as
memorandums of understanding in the fields of telecommunications and
hotel management signed with U.S. companies.
"[The latest restrictions are] related to a small group
of
businesses," stated Vidal, who noted that further progress was,
and is, limited by the continued application of the blockade.
New Restrictions Opposed from Within U.S.
The new U.S. measures were widely rejected by broad
sectors
of U.S. society, including many who oppose impediments to U.S.
companies doing business with Cuba.
The United States National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC)
described the new restrictions as counterproductive. NFTC Vice
President Jake Colvin said that restricting U.S. companies from
participating in the Mariel Special Development Zone prevents
those in the U.S. from engaging in activities "that could
potentially benefit Cuban workers and the Cuban people."
James Williams, president of the Engage Cuba coalition,
which
is working to end the blockade, noted, "Anyone with knowledge of
how the Cuban economy works knows that these additional
regulations on U.S. companies will simply make it harder to do
business in Cuba." He added that "these new restrictions on U.S.
businesses could hinder that progress which could cost the U.S.
economy billions and affect thousands of jobs."
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein tweeted, "Isolating
the
Cuban people didn't serve our interests before, and it certainly
won't do so now." Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy highlighted the
hypocrisy of the Trump administration, noting that Cuba does not
represent a threat to the United States. He described the new
restrictions as "onerous and petty," adding "These new
regulations will hurt fledgling entrepreneurs and the rest of the
Cuban people by discouraging Americans from traveling there."
Republican Congressman Mark Sanford (South Carolina)
tweeted,
"The ban on travel to Cuba, which was enacted at the height of
the Cold War and Communist threat, is both outdated and an unjust
limitation on American freedom."
The New York Times quoted Obama-era White House
advisor Daniel P. Erikson as saying "the rules would
probably confuse American visitors, who will have trouble
figuring out which transactions are banned." Ben Rhodes, another
Obama advisor and one of the main architects of his Cuba policy,
stated: "Trump won't restrict what kind of assault weapons
Americans can buy but he will tell you what kind of soda you can
buy in Cuba."
United Nations Issues Another Massive and Resounding
Rejection of U.S. Economic
Blockade of Cuba
- Isaac Saney, Co-Chair and
National-Spokesperson,
Canadian Network on Cuba -
For the 26th consecutive year, the world on November 1
massively and resoundingly repudiated the U.S. economic war
against the people of Cuba. By a vote of 191 to 2, the member
countries of the United Nations overwhelmingly condemned the U.S.
economic blockade of that heroic island nation by voting in
favour of the resolution, "Necessity of Ending the Economic,
Commercial and Financial Embargo imposed by the United States of
America against Cuba." Only two voted against the resolution: the
United States and Israel.
Since 1992, the international community has rejected
the
ongoing economic aggression of the United States against Cuba in
these annual affirmations of the inalienable and inviolable right
of all peoples to self-determination and independence.
The rejection of Washington's diktat, once again
graphically
underscores the isolation of the empire in world public opinion.
The UN vote not only demonstrates the unflinching opposition of
the world to the criminal U.S. policy, but also the depth of
global support and respect for Cuba.
 Washington's decision to
vote against the resolution,
as
opposed to abstaining as it did in 2016, signals the refusal
of the Trump regime to accept the failure of U.S. imperialism to
impose its will on Cuba.
The struggle continues to finally bring an end to the
U.S.
economic war against Cuba, which is a flagrant violation of
international law, constituting the principal obstacle to the
island's social and economic development.
In this struggle, the nations and the peoples of the
world,
representing the immense majority of humanity, have declared in
one voice that they stand with Cuba.
U.S. Blockade Is the Main Obstacle to
Scientific
Development
in Cuba
- Yenia Silvia Correa -
The United States economic, financial, and commercial
blockade of Cuba has caused around U.S.$1.5 million in losses to
the country's higher education sector in the last year alone.
This figure includes increased costs associated with
sourcing
supplies from distant markets, problems with bank transfers, lost
revenue, and obstacles to accessing globally renowned
publications.
One of the most significant consequences of the policy
is the
technological blockade, which forces Cuba to purchase
technologies and equipment from distant markets such as China,
resulting in significantly higher shipping costs.
Meanwhile, the blockade also prevents Cuban researchers
from
accessing over 200 websites, and makes it difficult for
international experts and professionals to travel to the island,
given the extraterritorial nature of the policy, which also
limits Cuba from exporting its services and obtaining vital
sources of revenue.
In regards to its impact on higher education, the
blockade
encourages Cuban professionals to emigrate, thus depriving the
country of some of its top professionals and years of investment
dedicated to training them.
In addition to the aforementioned damages, production
and
services are also affected by blockade regulations which restrict
the island's access to certain supplies and materials essential
to the development of teaching staff.
Regarding the impact of the United States' criminal
policy
against Cuba, María Victoria Villavicencio, director of
International Relations at the Ministry of Higher Education
stated, "Today, many of the problems caused by the blockade
affect a significant number of opportunities for our development
and progress."
Just One Click Away
In the case of the University of Computer Sciences, the
blockade is just one click away. Thus far this year, the
institution has identified 209 websites which are readily
accessible worldwide, but blocked from the University's IP
address -- a significant increase from the 116 registered last
year.
The institution has also been unable to access
professional
certifications needed to prepare and develop software.
Havana's Agrarian University meanwhile, has also
suffered the
impact of the United States' genocidal policy. For example, every
article in its agriculture and livestock magazine must have a
digital identifier, however the blockade prevents Cuba from
accessing such services.
Likewise the policy has a significant impact on the
work of
staff and scientific research at the University, above all those
linked to agriculture and livestock degrees. The institution
is currently unable to acquire equipment for its laboratories, or
farming supplies and materials from U.S. firms, making the cost
of obtaining such products very expensive.
Impact on Revenue
One of the ways the National Center for Agricultural
and
Livestock Health acquires financing, to continue its work on
scientific development, is through exports.
Since 2015 the institution has faced serious problems
transferring funds from Nicaragua after technology exchanges with
establishments in that country, with losses currently estimated
at U.S.$50,000.
What is more, this also deprives the institution of the
vital
resources it needs to continue carrying out its main line of
work, which includes the identification, control, and prevention
of exotic diseases that affect animals, as well as undertaking
initiatives linked to the development of the country's
economy.
Recently the blockade has made it extremely difficult
for
Cuban scientists to participate in international congresses,
which constitute an opportunity for the country to present its
results in the field of Agriculture and Livestock Sciences, and
exchange with international experts.
The University of Havana
The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest higher
education
institution, meanwhile, also faces financial damages and
obstacles to accessing technologies and other vital resources, as
a result of the U.S. blockade.
For example, the criminal policy prevents the
institution's
Chemistry, Physics, and Biology faculties and research centers
not only from obtaining equipment but also basic supplies.
Meanwhile, restrictions regarding financial
transactions and
money transfers also make organizing visits and exchanges between
professionals difficult.
Furthermore, the United States' new Cuba policy
announced by
President Donald Trump could significantly reduce academic
exchanges and visits by students, professors, and researchers
from the U.S.
Despite such difficulties, the Cuban government has
maintained its commitment to continually raise the quality of
higher education, and support university students and
professors, [as it has] ever since the triumph of the Revolution.
According to María Victoria Villavicencio, "The
only reason
that the damages are not more severe today, is because we have an
important number of incredibly creative, dedicated, and highly
professional professors and researchers, with a strong commitment
to our institutions and country, who create ways to mitigate the
effects of the blockade."
Actions in Canada in Support of
Cuba's Resolution at UN
Several actions were held in Canada by Cuba friendship
and solidarity organizations, to express the support of people in
Canada and Quebec for the UN vote on Cuba's resolution against the U.S.
blockade. These actions affirmed Cuba's right to be, free from outside
interference, especially the U.S. hostile policy that includes the
blockade and many extraterritorial laws that affect many countries from
having normal trade relations with Cuba. A global Twitter campaign also
took place.
Montreal
Ottawa
Toronto
Vancouver
 
Event with renowned Cuban singer-songwriter Gerardo Alfonso.
"We Will Persevere, with the Consensus of Our People
and
Especially the Patriotic Commitment of the Youngest Cubans"
- Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno
Rodríguez
Parrilla -
Full text of speech
by Foreign Minister Bruno
Rodríguez
Parrilla, on the "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial
and financial blockade imposed by the United States against
Cuba," at United Nations headquarters, New York, November 1,
2017.
***
Mr. President;
Your Excellencies permanent representatives;
Distinguished delegates;
U.S. citizens and Cubans resident in the United States
who
are present in this hall:
I would like to express to the people and government of
the
United States; Mayor Bill De Blasio; Governor Andrew Cuomo; and
other authorities in New York; as well as its citizens and
especially families of the victims, our most heartfelt
condolences, in the name of the Cuban people and government, for
the terrorist attack which occurred yesterday afternoon.
I also express our sincere condolences to the peoples
and
government of Argentina and Belgium.
Mr. President:
I express the most energetic condemnation of the
disrespectful, offensive, and interventionist statements made by
the United States Ambassador to the United Nations against Cuba
and against the Cuban government, a few minutes ago.
I recall that the United States, where flagrant
violations of
human rights are committed, of deep concern to the international
community, does not have the slightest moral authority to
criticize Cuba, a small, solidary country, with an extensive,
recognized international record; an honorable, hard-working, and
friendly people.
She spoke in the name of the head of an empire that is
responsible for most of the wars in progress on the planet today,
and which murders innocent people, and is the decisive factor in
instability worldwide and the very serious threats to peace and
international security, trampling international law and the
United Nations Charter, which she has just cynically evoked.
It has not been 55 years, Madam Ambassador, you erred
in your
first sentence; it has been 26 of these sessions, and more than
half a century since the events being discussed today
originated.
She lies, uses the same style that predominates in U.S.
politics today. This all began before the Cuban nation even
existed. When the Cuban people, for the first time rose up in
arms in 1868, the appetite for annexation and domination, of what
was and is today U.S. imperialism, had already been
unleashed.
In 1898, using a pretext -- as is characteristic of the
modern
history of the United States -- the explosion of the ship, the Maine, in a Cuban
port, they entered as allies of Cuban
independence forces and then occupied the country as invaders,
and imposed the Platt Amendment,
cutting
short
the
independence
and
sovereignty
of
Cuba.
They
conducted
three
military
occupations,
imposed
60
years
of
total
domination
that
ended
January
1,
1959,
with
the entry of the Rebel Army into Havana and
the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, that continues to this day,
carrying on the same struggles that have inspired our people for
over 100 years. (Applause)
She lies, she used a phrase, attributing a statement on
the
so-called October or Missile Crisis to a supposedly Cuban source.
I invite her to state the source, to state its author, to present
evidence. It sounds like one of the tweets proliferating in this
country, in these times of hate, division, and dirty politics. (Applause)
When the Cuban Revolution triumphed, the United States
set
regime change as its objective. The policy announced by President
Trump on June 16 is not new; it is the same policy, it is an old
policy anchored in the past.
She mentioned the illustrious U.S. Ambassador Adlai
Stevenson. She forgot to say that he was the person who, deceived
by his own government, had the unfortunate duty during a session
of the Security Council, to show photos of supposed Cuban
aircraft, actually of U.S. origin, bearing the emblem of the
Cuban Air Force, that on April 15 bombed the city of Havana,
caused numerous casualties, and was the prelude to the attack,
the invasion, at Playa Girón or the Bay of Pigs.
These bombings and the involuntary lie of Ambassador
Stevenson, who had been deceived by his government, occurred even
before the declaration of the socialist character of the Cuban
Revolution. These bombings took place prior to the declaration of
the socialist character of our Revolution [April 16, 1961].
She has spoken of the October Crisis.
She has spoken of the days of President Kennedy's
assassination, and the declassification of documents. They have
really been hidden from the U.S. people too long. Declassify them
all.
But if she wants to talk about these issues, I suggest
she
read the book Trained to Kill: The
Inside Story of CIA Plots against
Castro, Kennedy, and Che, by CIA agent [Antonio] Veciana, in
which he
recounts his meeting with CIA agent David Phillips and with Lee
Harvey Oswald, in Dallas, during the third week of September,
1963.
It has been a history of lies and aggression: Operation
Northwoods, Operation Mongoose. Information was just declassified
showing that at that time the United States had prepared 261,000
soldiers, ready for a direct invasion of Cuba. Functioning in
Florida was the CIA's largest base in history, until that time,
with more than 700 agents, until the creation of the even bigger
CIA base in Saigon.
She uses a style reminiscent of the trial of Alice in
Wonderland: sentence first, trial later.
I speak for my people, and I also speak for those who
cannot
call President Trump or the U.S. Ambassador by their name, but
feel and think like me.
At least she has recognized the total isolation of the
United
States in this hall and in the world. You are alone on the issue
of the blockade of Cuba! (Applause)
She
ignores
the
power
of
the
truth,
underestimates
the
strength
of
an
idea
at
the
bottom
of
a
cave, which is more powerful than an army, as José Martí
said,
who wrote, carrying it on his chest, in an unfinished letter with
the following phrase: "Every day I am in danger of giving my life
for my country, for my duty... to prevent in time, with the
independence of Cuba, that the United States extends itself into
the Antilles and falls, with this added strength, upon the lands
of our America."
Ambassador, everything began much more than 26 years
ago,
much more than 55 years ago. Along with the military aggression,
the fabrication of pretexts, plans for a direct invasion,
measures taken to strangle our economy, state terrorism,
destabilization, and subversion, they proposed -- and I quote the
infamous letter by Undersecretary of State Lester Mallory, signed
April 6, 1960 -- promoting "... disenchantment and disaffection based
on
economic dissatisfaction and hardship... all possible means should
be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba
... denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real
wages..."
The blockade of Cuba was created "to bring about
hunger,
desperation and overthrow of government."
Nonetheless, when President Raúl Castro Ruz and
President
Barack Obama made those surprising, hopeful announcements,
December 17, 2014, President Obama described the blockade as
failed and obsolete, ineffective in achieving its objectives,
causing harm to the Cuban people and the isolation of the U.S.
government. Later he described it as useless in advancing U.S.
interests, failed, senseless, not viable, and a burden for
citizens.
But the blockade was never recognized as a flagrant,
massive,
and systematic violation of the human rights of Cubans, which the
United States Ambassador cynically omitted a few hours ago, nor
was it recognized as inconsistent with international law or as an
act of genocide, as defined by the Geneva Convention, nor was its
goal of subjugating our people renounced.
Nonetheless, the President of the United States at that
time
repeatedly stated his intention to use his executive powers, and
work with Congress, to lift the blockade.
A concrete reflection of this intention was the U.S
abstention, in 2016, during the vote on this resolution, which
the United States Ambassador has just mocked.
During this period, substantive progress was made in
terms of
diplomatic relations, dialogue, and cooperation in areas of
mutual interest and benefit; but during these last two years, the
blockade was maintained, in all fundamental aspects, although
some executive decisions were made to modify its implementation
in a very limited fashion, but moving in a positive direction.
The way in which the use of travel licenses was expanded was
significant, given the legislative prohibition on travel to Cuba,
that constitutes a violation of the rights and civil liberties of
U.S. citizens, which she also failed to mention. Tangible results
were also achieved in bilateral cooperation, to our mutual
benefit, in such important arenas as confronting terrorism, drug
trafficking, and digital crime.
Mr. President:
This past June16, President Donald Trump proclaimed the
blockade the fundamental axis of his anti-Cuban policy, and
announced a series of measures meant to reinforce it.
In an antiquated, hostile anti-Cuban speech,
reminiscent of
the Cold War, and before an auditorium composed, among others, of
rancid Batista henchmen, annexationists, and terrorists, the U.S.
government returned to worn-out allegations of supposed human
rights violations in Cuba to justify the tightening of the
blockade. From this podium, heard this morning was his echo, his
echo chamber.
President Trump does not have the slightest moral
authority
to question Cuba.
He leads a government of millionaires who intend to
implement
brutal measures against the poor and low income families of this
country, minorities and immigrants. He follows a program which
encourages hate and division, and promotes a dangerous idea of
exceptionalism and supremacy disguised as patriotism, and which
will lead to more violence. He ignores the will of voters: two-thirds
of U.S. citizens and Cuban residents in the United States,
as well, support an end to the blockade.
Current U.S. policies harm citizens; corruption reigns
in
politics which have been hijacked by so-called special interests,
that is, by the interests and the money of corporations: no
support for education, health, or social security; restrictions
on union organizing; and terrible gender-based
discrimination.
Deserving of condemnation are the use of torture;
police
murders of African-Americans; civilian deaths caused by its
troops; the indiscriminate, racially motivated death penalty; the
murders, repression, and police surveillance of immigrants; the
separation of families; the detention and deportation of minors;
and the brutal measures threatening the children of undocumented
immigrants who grew up and were educated in the United
States.
This is the government that lost the popular vote.
The United States Ambassador has expressed her dream. I
prefer to repeat that of Martin Luther King, when he said, "I
have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out
the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal." Let freedom ring. (Applause)
She has come to tell us that she recognizes that the
future
of the island rests in the hands of the Cuban people. She is
telling an absolute lie. It was never this way, throughout
history. It has been a history of domination and hegemony over
Cuba.
The announced policy proposes turning back relations to
a
past of confrontation, to satisfy the spurious interests of
extremist circles within the U.S. right and a frustrated, aging,
minority of Cuban origin in Florida. The Presidential Memorandum
establishing the policy toward Cuba includes, among other
measures, new prohibitions on economic, commercial, and financial
relations between U.S. companies and Cuban enterprises.
It additionally restricts the freedom to travel of U.S.
citizens with the elimination of individual trips under the
so-called category of "people-to-people" exchanges, and increased
surveillance for the rest of visitors from that country.
In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has reiterated
on
four separate occasions (including before this Assembly this
past September) that his government will not lift the blockade
on Cuba unless it makes changes to its internal order.
Today I reiterate that Cuba will never accept
preconditions
or impositions and we remind the President and his Ambassador
that this approach, applied by a dozen of his predecessors, has
never and will never work. It will be just one more example of a
policy anchored in the past.
More recently, under the pretext of the health
conditions of
some diplomats in Havana, without the slightest evidence of their
cause and origin -- because they lie when they speak of attacks or
incidents -- or the results of ongoing investigations, the
government of the United States adopted new measures of a
political nature against Cuba, which intensify the blockade and
affect bilateral relations in their entirety.
Among them, it suspended the issue of visas for Cuban
travelers and emigrants at its consulate in Havana, which
undermines the right of citizens to travel freely and visit that
country for short periods, as more than 163,000 Cubans have done
this year, and seriously hinders the family reunification of
others, under the bilateral agreement to grant no less than
20,000 immigrant visas per year. The requirement of an in-person
interview with Cuban travelers in U.S. consulates in third
countries, and with emigrants in the U.S. consular section in
Bogotá, will greatly increase the cost of the procedure and make
them unfeasible for a large number of them. Where are their
rights in the United States' discourse?
There is no way to justify harming people and families
to try
to achieve political objectives against the constitutional order
in Cuba.
The U.S. government, with the political purpose of
limiting
travel and damaging international tourism to Cuba, also issued an
unfounded and utterly dishonest warning to U.S. citizens to avoid
visiting our country.
Through the unjustified expulsion of personnel at our
Consulate General in Washington, the only one in the United
States, the capacity to provide services to U.S. travelers and
especially to Cuban residents here, who have the absolute right
to visit and interact normally with their nation, has been
severely limited.
Equally, the U.S. arbitrarily and groundlessly reduced
the
personnel of our Embassy, which has caused, among other
consequences, the dismantling of its Economic-Commercial Office,
with the malicious political aim of eliminating dialogue with the
U.S. business sector, genuinely interested in exploring existing
business opportunities, even within the restrictive framework of
blockade regulations.
Nor is it surprising, considering what the Ambassador
has
said here, or her leaders previously, that the President of the
United States ignores the unanimous international support for the
progress that he is now reversing, or the similar demand for an
immediate, total, and unconditional end to the blockade.
Mr. President:
As President Raúl Castro Ruz expressed, on July
14, "We
reaffirm that any attempt to destroy the Revolution, whether
through coercion and pressure, or the use of more subtle methods,
will fail... Cuba is willing to continue discussing pending
bilateral issues with the United States, on the basis of equality
and respect for the sovereignty and independence of our country,
and to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in issues of
common interest with the U.S. government.
"Cuba and the United States can cooperate and coexist,
respecting our differences and promoting everything that benefits
both countries and peoples, but it should not be expected that,
in order to do so, Cuba will make concessions essential to its
sovereignty and independence... nor will it negotiate its principles
or accept conditions of any kind, just as we have never done
throughout the history of the Revolution." (Applause)
Mr. President:
Cuba presents today, for the 26th consecutive time
before the
United Nations General Assembly, the draft resolution (entitled)
"Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial
blockade imposed by the United States of America against
Cuba."
In the current situation, this text acquires special
relevance in the face of the setback that the actions of the new
government of the United States against Cuba signal.
The blockade constitutes the greatest obstacle to the
country's economic and social development and the implementation
of the National Plan, in line with the United Nations 2030
Agenda. It is the main obstacle to the development of economic,
commercial. and financial relations between Cuba and the United
States and the rest of the world.
According to calculations rigorously conducted by Cuban
institutions, the blockade caused, in the year from April 2016 to
April 2017, losses to the Cuban economy on the order of $4.305
billion.
This figure is about double what would be needed as
annual
direct foreign investment for the Cuban economy to advance
substantially toward development.
The accumulated damages reached the enormous figure of
$822.280 billion, calculated considering the devaluation
of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis
the price of gold. At current
prices, this is the equivalent of $130.178 billion.
Dozens of banks in third countries have been affected
in the
last period by the extreme and tenacious persecution of Cuban
financial transactions.
The blockade is contrary to International Law and its
aggressively extraterritorial application damages the sovereignty
of all states. It also harms economic and business interests in
all latitudes.
Mr. President:
The Ambassador of the United States failed to mention
that
the blockade is a flagrant, massive, and systematic violation of
the human rights of Cubans, and constitutes an act of genocide
under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. It is also an obstacle to the international
cooperation that Cuba provides in humanitarian areas to 81
countries of the South.
The human damages caused by the application of this
policy
are incalculable. There is not a Cuban family or social service
in Cuba that does not suffer the deprivations and consequences of
the blockade. Cuban émigrés also suffer discrimination
and
prejudices.
Over the last year, the Cuban importer and exporter of
medical products, Medicuba S.A., made requests to purchase supplies
from
18
U.S. companies that refused or never responded.
Others, such as the U.S. corporation Promega,
recognized for
the production of diagnostic kits to determine viral load in
patients with HIV-AIDS, hepatitis C, or kidney diseases, refused
in June 2017 to sell its products to Medicuba S.A., alleging that
the Treasury Department maintains commercial sanctions that
prohibit the sale of its products to the island.
On that same date, and with the same argument, the
refusal to
supply to Cuba was received from the company New England Biolabs
Inc., which markets a wide range of enzymes, such as Proteinase
K, which is a reagent that permits the diagnosis of viral diseases
such as dengue, zika, and chikungunya, as well as other enzymes
with multiple uses for the diagnosis of congenital malformations
of fetuses, and to determine compatibility between organ donors
and patients who are to undergo kidney, bone marrow, or liver
transplants, among others.
Using the same argument, this company refused to
provide
supplies of a totally humanitarian nature to Cuba.
In April 2017, the German supplier Eckert & Ziegler
Radiopharma Gmbh, refused to supply to the same Cuban medical
enterprise the Ge-68/Ga-68 Generator, or its components, which is
a device used to diagnose prostate cancer. According to the
company, it was not possible to directly supply the product to
Cuba, or through a third country, because the blockade prevented
it from doing so.
The cardiology service of the Hermanos Ameijeiras
Clinical
and Surgical Hospital urgently requires a circulatory assist
device to treat cardiogenic shock, for interventional cardiology
and electrophysiology, allowing for the recovery of patients
suffering from heart failure and prolonging their lives. The U.S.
company Abiomed, global leader in this market,
supplies the Impella system, ideal for treating these conditions.
In September 2016 and February 2017, Medicuba S.A. contacted the
company in order to study the possibility of incorporating the
product into the Cuban health system, which to date has refused
to respond.
Mr. President:
We are deeply grateful to all the governments and
peoples,
parliaments, political forces and social movements, civil society
representatives, and international and regional organizations that
have contributed with their voice and their vote, year after
year, to support the justice and urgency of the abolition of the
blockade.
We also extend our gratitude to the vast majority of
the
American people for their support of this commendable goal.
It offends humanity's conscience that the Ambassador of
the
United States has referred to the Bolivarian government of
Venezuela in an unacceptable and interventionist way. She offends
the heroic Venezuelan people, their civic-military union, and the
Bolivarian Chavista government, led by President Nicolás Maduro
Moros.
The government of the United States lies when it
declares
Venezuela a threat to its national security, which has,
curiously, the largest certified hydrocarbon reserves on the
planet.
As the Liberator Simón Bolívar wrote,
"...the United States
appear destined by Providence to plague America with misery in
the name of liberty." I respond to the Ambassador with Bolívar's
words.
We are in the midst of a clean, constitutional
electoral
process in Cuba, where seats are not bought, nor do special
interests prevail, where there are no deceptive campaigns where
money rules; elections in which the will of voters is not
manipulated; elections in which division and hatred are not
incited.
Mr. President:
We especially commend all those who have expressed
concern
and their rejection of the coercive measures announced by the
current U.S. government.
The Cuban people will never give up building a
sovereign,
independent, socialist, democratic, prosperous and sustainable
nation. (Applause)
We will persevere, with the consensus of our people and
especially the patriotic commitment of the youngest Cubans, in
the anti-imperialist struggle and in defense of our independence,
for which tens of thousands of Cubans have already fallen and we
have run the greatest risks, as we demonstrated in Playa Girón
and in the face of all threats.
We will maintain eternal loyalty to the legacy of
José Martí
and Fidel Castro Ruz. (Applause)
Mr. President:
Distinguished permanent representatives;
Esteemed
delegates:
Our people are following this debate with hope. On
their
behalf, I request that you vote in favor of draft resolution
A/72/L.30, "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and
financial blockade imposed by the United States of America
against Cuba."
Many thanks. (Prolonged
applause)
Exclamations of:
"Viva Cuba!" "Cuba sí, bloqueo
no!"
Hands Off Venezuela!
Oppose Trudeau Government's
Continued Interference in
Venezuela!
No to U.S.-Led Attempts at Regime Change!
In defiance of the people of Canada and Canada's duty
to
uphold the rule of international law and the principle of
sovereignty of all nations, the Liberal government of Justin
Trudeau and its Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland continue their
nefarious service to U.S. imperialism and its attempts at regime
change in Venezuela.
 On November 3, the Liberal
government wielded its new law,
the Justice for Victims of Corrupt
Foreign Officials Act (Sergei
Magnitsky Law)[1], as a weapon
against 19 individuals in Venezuela
it claims are "responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations
of internationally recognized human rights or acts of significant
corruption." The sanctions "place an asset freeze in Canada on
all listed people, and render listed persons as inadmissible to
Canada under the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act." These
sanctions follow an earlier round issued by the Trudeau
government on September 22 against 40 individuals for allegedly
engaging in "activities that directly or indirectly undermine the
security, stability or integrity of democratic institutions of
Venezuela."[2]
The first round of sanctions, imposed before the
government
had the Magnitsky Law in its "toolbox," found Canada resorting to
a sinister manoeuvre with the United States for the purpose of
satisfying requirements under existing Canadian sanctions
legislation at the time, the Special
Economic Measures Act
(SEMA). Before the Magnitsky Law
expanded its reach, SEMA allowed
for only two scenarios in which Canada could apply sanctions
unilaterally against another country. One was where "a grave
breach of international peace and security" had occurred and had
or was likely to "result in a serious international crisis." The
other was if an international organization or association of
which Canada is a member called on its members to take economic
measures against a foreign state.
After failing to get the Organization of American
States or
the United Nations Security Council to provide a mandate for
international intervention against Venezuela despite their best
efforts, on September 5 the U.S. and Canada cooked up an "
international association" between the two of them that
immediately called on its "members" to "take economic measures
against Venezuela and persons responsible for the current
situation in Venezuela." This connivance behind closed doors can
only be seen as Canada being given and accepting its marching orders as
the U.S.
already had sanctions in place against Venezuela.
The Trudeau government, following the U.S. lead, is
doubling
down on the Nazi technique of the "big lie"-- the ceaseless
repetition of falsehoods and slanders about Venezuela until
people's thinking is overwhelmed and the lies are accepted as
truth. It must not pass!
This is similar to how the U.S. orchestrated the 2003
invasion of Iraq when it tried but failed to get a mandate from
the UN Security Council and shows the most nefarious role the
Trudeau government is playing on behalf of the U.S. The
self-declared "Lima Group" of 11 Latin American countries plus
Canada came up with a declaration on August 8 calling for
measures to be taken against Venezuela and now Canada is doing so
in concert with the U.S. as if based on some legitimate mandate
when this is anything but the case.
This latest attack on Venezuela's sovereignty also
constitutes a violation of Canada's sovereignty and the need for
an independent foreign policy. It is an affront to the dignity
and independent thinking of working people in Canada who, as a
starting point reject any Canadian subservience to U.S.
imperialism. Furthermore, for the Trudeau government to
pontificate to other countries while it equivocates on the most
elementary of human rights issues in Canada and the situation
facing workers, retirees, women, youth and Indigenous peoples
becomes more dire, is utmost Liberal hypocrisy.
Strengthening of police powers to permit Canadian and
U.S.
spy and police agencies to investigate suspected financial,
economic and political links between Canadians and their
organizations and those it has targeted for sanctions has as its
aim to strengthen the instruments of suppression of Canadians and
to expand the arbitrary powers of political police to suppress
the right to conscience. That Freeland never ceases to claim it
is all to defend democracy reveals how in contempt of any notion
of democracy she and those she speaks for are.
That Canada imposed a second round of sanctions against
Venezuela right after the successful holding of regional
elections in which the majority of voters expressed their support
for the direction Venezuela is taking under President Nicolás
Maduro, electing candidates of the United Socialist Party of
Venezuela (PSUV) as governors in 18 of the country's 23 states is
telling. It shows that the Canadian government is not backing
down on its determination to contribute to U.S. imperialism's
desire for regime change in Venezuela no matter what.
It is likely not coincidental that Canada is engaging
in all
this nefarious activity with the U.S. while NAFTA is being
renegotiated. The NAFTA renegotiations involve getting Canada to
give up even more of its sovereignty and putting itself at the
disposal of the U.S. in different ways to be used as a weapon
against other countries and peoples.
TML Weekly
calls on everyone to step up opposition to
Canada's interference in Venezuela, ensure that disinformation
about Venezuela and the Bolivarian nation-building project cannot
take hold in Canada, and organize for an anti-war government that
upholds international law and the sovereignty of all
countries.
Oppose Canadian Sanctions Against
Venezuela!
Hands Off
Venezuela!
Uphold the Sovereignty of Peoples and All
Countries!
Note
1. "House of Commons
Adopts U.S. Sanctions Legislation," TML
Weekly, October 14, 2017
2. See "Oppose
Canadian
Sanctions
Against
Venezuela!" by Communist
Party
of
Canada
(Marxist-Leninist), TML
Weekly, October 21, 2017.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Strongly Rejects
Decision of
Canadian Government
- Venezuelan People's Power
Ministry for
Foreign Relations -
1. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela strongly
rejects
the decision made by the Government of Canada that intends to
impose unilateral coercive measures against high-ranking
officials of the Venezuelan State, including the Constitutional
President of our country, Nicolás Maduro Moros, in open
violation
of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, the
international law and the rules which ought to govern the
friendly and cooperative relations between the States.
2. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounces
before the
international community such hostile and unfriendly measures of
the Canadian regime against our country, which, besides, lessen
the principle of due process and the right to defence. They are
punitive actions by a regime that is absolutely and shamefully
subordinated to the interests of the U.S. empire, which are aimed
at ousting the constitutional government of Venezuela.
3. The purpose of this aggression is to undermine peace
and
social stability in Venezuela as it attempts to sink the country
back once again into a spiral of chaos, which has been overcome
and that can only bring about pain and suffering to the
Venezuelan people. With its actions, the Canadian regime -- one
of the conspirers of the self-proclaimed Lima Group --
continues to support the violence unleashed by extremist groups
that are protected and defended by such regimes, even in
international fora.
4. In reaffirming its independence and sovereignty, the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounces the fake progressive
discourse of the Canadian regime and urges it, in turn, to stop
its interventionist, unfriendly and hostile behaviour and to
fully respect the rules of international law. We reiterate that
the People and the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela shall not yield to threats, blackmail, sanctions or
aggressions if what is at stake is the defence of our sovereignty
and independence.
Toronto Meeting on "Resolving the
Venezuelan Crisis"
Denounced
Global Affairs Canada, with the Munk School of
Global Affairs and the Canadian Council for the Americas, held a
meeting October 26 at the University of Toronto to discuss how to
intervene in Venezuela's internal affairs. Billed as a panel discussion
on "Resolving the Venezuelan Crisis," the public event at the Isabel
Bader Theatre followed a meeting of the foreign ministers of the
so-called Lima Group in Toronto. The Lima Group, formed in August at a
meeting in Peru is comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and
Peru. It backs "opposition" forces in Venezuela that are hell-bent on
regime change and is involved in creating public opinion for
international intervention for this purpose. It is noteworthy that the
U.S. is not part of the group, and that Canada is leading the charge in
its place.
The keynote speech at the forum was given by Canada's
Foreign
Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has been front and centre
in promoting the so-called opposition forces in Venezuela which
have engaged in terrorist activities against the Maduro
government and openly call for U.S. intervention to topple the
constitutionally and legally elected Venezuelan government. Other
guest speakers included Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada and a member of a fraudulent Panel
of "Independent International Experts" on Venezuela created by
Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro
for the purpose of trying to associate the Bolivarian government
with supposed "crimes against humanity" based on the testimonials of
its sworn enemies. Cotler is anything but independent when it
comes to the situation in Venezuela. He serves as an advisor to and
advocate for opposition elements he calls "political prisoners"
despite their having been convicted of criminal acts carried out as
part of attempts to overthrow the Maduro government by force, including
through the incitement to violence that resulted in the deaths of
dozens of Venezuelans. Also given a platform to spout her anti-Maduro
vitriol was the former Attorney General of Venezuela Luisa Ortega who
fled the country after being fired by the National Constituent Assembly
and is wanted for corruption and treasonous activity.
 
A militant protest outside the meeting raised the
slogans:
"Hands Off Venezuela," "U.S.-Canada Out of Venezuela," "Dismantle
the Lima Group! It is Illegal" amongst others. A group of
protesters also disrupted the proceedings to demand that Canada
and the other Lima Group countries uphold international law and
stay out of the internal affairs of the Venezuelan people.
In Ottawa that same day, activists with the Hugo Chavez
People's Defense Front -- Ottawa held a picket in front of
Parliament to denounce the presence of the Lima Group in Canada
and inform the public of Canada's unacceptable interference in
Venezuelan affairs.
Prime Minister Trudeau, Let the Venezuelan
People Live in
Peace
- Hugo Chavez Foundation -
As concerned Canadians, we call on the Trudeau
Government
to stop interfering in Venezuela's sovereign affairs. Chrystia
Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated, "Canada
has taken a leadership role in addressing the crisis in
Venezuela," and announced that Canada will host the third
ministerial meeting of the so-called "Lima Group," in Toronto, on
October 26, 2017. History has taught us that such actions are a
pretext for foreign military intervention, regime change and
looting of natural resources.
 On October 15, Venezuelans
went to the polls for the second
vote this year, this time to elect Regional Governors. The
outcome, recognized by observers and the majority of the
opposition leaders, was a resounding victory for the governing
United Socialist Party of Venezuela in 18 of 23 states.
Earlier this year, 8 million Venezuelans voted for a
constituent assembly to rewrite the country's constitution. This
unique mechanism enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of that
nation may be difficult to understand for a country that does not
have a constitution and does not afford its population a direct
role in remaking its laws. For Venezuelans, it is a right they
approved almost 20 years ago.
These events happened on the heels of violent,
opposition-led
protests that claimed the lives of over 100 Venezuelans --
including assassinations of police and social leaders -- and
injured hundreds more.
Despite these events, Canada has issued dozens of
statements
against the Venezuelan government and in support of the country's
opposition leaders. Now, Canada has issued a visa to the former
Attorney General of Venezuela, Luisa Ortega, who is currently
wanted in Venezuela to face charges related to corruption and
extortion.
We call on our Government to respect Venezuela's
sovereignty
and not follow [U.S. President] Trump's interventionist agenda.
Canada should devote its energy to strengthening the social
fabric against racism and all forms of oppression, as well as to
fostering respectful relations with other nations in these
delicate and hostile times.
Mr. Trudeau, Canada has many issues yet to be resolved.
Many
people in this country don't want to be involved nor be
accomplices of interference against another country and
people.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
