Telus workers call for arbitration (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By George Gidora, BC leader of the Communist Party of Canada The Telecommunication Workers Union (TWU) set up picket lines in BC and Alberta at 6 am local time, Thursday, July 21. This action comes in the fifth year of negotiations for a new collective agreement, and is in response to Telus's attempt to unilaterally impose a contract based solely on its own proposals.      TWU president Bruce Bell explained that the company has been attempting to coerce employees into accepting its deal. "In the run-up to the company's Friday (July 22) deadline, management has been threatening, browbeating and intimidating our members, trying to get them to come to work tomorrow under terms and conditions imposed by Telus. They have threatened to close the offices of members who do not come to work on Friday. They have offered to use security guards to help employees cross picket lines. There seems to be no limit to what Telus is willing do to undermine our union and its ability to represent our members."      "Telus complains that our contracting out language restricts their ability to compete," Bell stated. "But the company's share price was up 40 per cent last year and they were the global telecom leader in terms of revenue, earnings and cash‑flow growth rates. Maybe Telus's competitors would do better if their collective agreements contained similarly `restrictive' contracting out language," he commented sarcastically.      "This dispute isn't about our refusal to get rid of outdated contract language. It's about workers' right to job security and a decent standard of living versus Telus's unrestricted corporate greed. We've tried every imaginable way to work out some kind of accommodation with the company, but the people who are running their show want to break our union," Bell explained. "Telus's game plan is not working. I'm getting the word loud and clear from our members. They're demanding that we get it on."      As reported in People's Voice (May 16-31) Telus's first quarter earnings for 2005 have been reported as $242.2 million - up 139% since 2004 - along with a 10% rise in consolidated operating revenues reported at $2.0 billion in comparison to the same quarter in 2004. These figures tell the true story of Telus's duplicitous reasons for wanting to impose a collective agreement that would allow them to be "more competitive." They are out to destroy the union plain and simple.      The Communist Party is 100% behind the TWU and its members. They have been much more than patient and reasonable during this lengthy process and have exhibited much restraint. They have gone the extra step in doing everything within their power to avoid disrupting public communication services, which will be a huge inconvenience to working people and a potential disruption in business and commerce. The responsibility for this lies squarely with Telus and we need to be very clear on this.      Telus has a huge public responsibility as the only provider of telecommunications to millions of people and businesses in BC and Alberta. They have a responsibility to manage this service in the best interests of the public, secondary to the interests of their shareholders. Forcing employees into this position after five years of bargaining in bad faith puts the question on the table of whether or not we can trust any private for‑profit corporation to manage public services in the public interest.      The Communist Party has always held the position that telecommunications is a public utility and is vital to the functioning of our society and to the lives of working people, not only corporations and businesses. In this context telecommunication services should be managed and provided under the control of a government ministry as a public utility. If Telus is betraying this public interest as a caretaker of this public utility it should be nationalized without delay, its assets seized and steps immediately taken to get the workers back on the job with a fair and just collective agreement.      That is the position of the Communist Party. However, in the context of the neo‑liberal economic climate established over the last few years by the Campbell Liberal government, we know that this is not a real possibility, even though it would be the right thing to do. The BC government takes the exact opposite view, in favour of even more privatization of public utilities which will lead to similar disputes, pitting the rights of the population in general against the best interests of the private shareholders of corporations contracted to deliver public services. Anyone who is spending the summer camping in BC's many provincial campgrounds will attest to the disastrous effect this has had on the delivery of public services by private concerns.      The only way out of the current dispute and conforming to federal regulations governing telecommunications services is to call on the federal government to impose a binding arbitration process. The TWU has repeatedly requested this action and it has been ignored to date. Now is the time for action, now is the time for all of the labour movement to rally behind the TWU to fight the anti‑worker, anti‑people program of Telus and hopefully to gain recognition of our telecommunications industry as a necessary public utility and to have our governments deal with it in such a manner.      The Communist Party urges all workers to give their full support to the locked out TWU members and to put whatever pressure they can as citizens to end this dispute in a just and equitable manner. (Back) (Home) New developments at CLC need study (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By Sam Hammond At the CLC Convention in June, as reported previously, there were definitely some new developments that need deeper and continuing scrutiny. The challenge by Carol Wall to the presidency of Ken Georgetti, her very strong showing and Georgetti's churlish response, was an important and new event. Since hers was the largest vote ever captured by a challenger from an incumbent president, Georgetti's disapproval rating is probably the highest ever registered by a CLC president. There is a stirring of discontent in the ranks of labour, and not confined only to the rank and file, that showed in the 643 votes cast for Carol Wall.      Wall's campaign, and how it spun out at the convention prior to the voting, opens a window for us all, a view of tendencies within the labour movement we might not have observed otherwise.      Carol Wall, an established trade unionist, a past vice-president of the CLC (human rights VP) was not allowed to address the delegates. Indeed there was no provision for any candidate running for office to address the delegates. The incumbents were exposed continually on the front platform in several different functions. Rather a strange view of democracy eh?      But that is not the whole grim picture. Several of the larger unions, including Steel, CAW, UFCW, Teamsters and CEP, did not allow Carol Wall to address their caucuses. CEP, her own union, offered to allow her to speak as a CEP delegate at the caucus but not as a candidate. All of these unions supported the Georgetti slate of incumbent officers. There was no outcry of any elected officer over this and no demand by any elected officer for Carol Wall to be allowed to address the convention and present her program.      There is an old axiom that states the foreign policy of a country cannot be different from its domestic policy. In other words, difference in inner and external policy can only be transient and will eventually conform. This begs the question: if a labour organization falls into undemocratic practices relating to external phenomenon, what happens to its inner democracy? Is there a relationship?      It would be entirely wrong to characterize a union like CAW as totally undemocratic because it would not allow Carol Wall to speak at its caucus, likewise Steel and CEP. The refusal was undemocratic for sure, but phenomena develop by degrees. These are alarming tendencies that every leader and member should think about very carefully. If a labour organization allows itself to slip up on basic democracy the contradiction can only exist temporarily. Caucus support for candidates, or anything else for that matter, should be arrived at by caucus members after a fair hearing of all the facts, and not imposed by leadership. The CUPE caucus was a fine example of the flip side. All candidates were invited and all spoke. In this instance CUPE was far more democratic and its members better informed. Who is more democratic and who is less?      The struggle for democracy in life is very important because it is more embracing of the entire population than the class struggle. As a condition of the latter, the struggle for democracy wins allies to the working class and becomes an essential component in anti-corporate alliances, a requirement for unity between the working class and its allies. Amongst the working class, the labour movement has fought for and implemented democracy as part of its inner working, and has been the most important social strata to fight for democracy for the whole population. When labour has abandoned democracy within itself, it has been because of penetration and temporary recruitment to the interests of the capitalist class. The McCarthyite years, red baiting and witch hunts were examples of this.      The demonstration of anti‑democratic stick wielding seen at the CLC is a small but very pointed danger sign to trade unionists. If the officers of the CLC - Ken Georgetti, Hassan Yussuff, Barb Byers and Marie Clarke Walker - think that challenges and elections are an intrinsic and healthy part of democracy, then why do they not make sure the candidates and their challenges are part of the agenda of the convention? If they slipped up where were all the other labour leaders in this country who strut democracy? I suspect that there is a great fear of the under‑stirrings of discontent, and that the power wielding response of the larger unions to a challenge against their chosen candidate is not a sign of strength but a sign of weakness, a defensive entrenchment that is not healthy for labour.      Science fiction writers sometimes, for purposes of entertainment, dream up alternative or parallel universes where they can create interesting conditions for story telling unhampered by fact or reality.      In some ways I thought I was in one of these fictitious places at the CLC convention. Ken Georgetti's line (which I assume is the line of the larger unions), is that everything is generally all right and we have to only improve on a few rough edges. "All we have to do is keep winning," Georgetti's analysis, has been with me like a bad dream ever since.      In this other universe, the labour brass compare conditions of life looking inward, where gains are measured by an increase in the number of dues paying members since the last convention, whether finances are better or worse than before, and by how much influence do we have with bourgeois politicians. At the start of the convention the most prominent member grabbers and raiders in Canada insist on singing solidarity as a prelude to a one week truce before they get back to business.      There was of course a lot of reality in the convention, a lot of dedicated people worried like hell about their members and the rest of the working people. These are inhabitants of this real universe, where the free trade deal has impoverished thousands of Canadians, where the attack of neo‑liberal governments and their corporate bosses have badly bruised labour, where millions are perishing in poverty and war, where labour agreements are legislated out of existence with cavalier ease...      The list is long. It can be summed up in the gut wrenching worry of parents about the future of their children, the determined fightback of millions of dispossessed, the valour of HEU workers in the face of sellout, the determination of Ontario schoolteachers, the heroism of the Cuban people and their revolution, the hard fighting edge of Chavez and his people, the Hamilton Steelworkers, and on and on and on. People in small and large groups, labour unions, revolutionary parties, nations, families and individuals. The numbers and the forms are varied, but they are all in this real universe, a universe that must be wrested from the exploiters and returned to the people. Our people and our universe.      Labour must turn outward and embrace this struggle. There are under-stirrings and an instinctive intuitive sense in the working class that we in Canada are not yet winning, that the conflict is sharpening, that our organizations are not yet adequately organized for this fight.      This stirring has not yet found its organizational form and has not yet unified its masses of people. But things come in degrees and the beginnings are here. The left of the labour movement, social democrats, communists, whoever, must raise their sights and the sights of the whole labour movement to this challenge. Small things beget bigger things. Movements grow to embrace millions. The fight against the anaesthetic of illusion, where things are pedalled as "all right," is the fight for reality, for democracy, for equal unity in this struggle shoulder to shoulder with other strata of our population, between our nations.      An analysis of the CLC Convention must also look deeper into the presence of Bloc Québecois Gilles Duceppe, his introduction by Georgetti and the content of his message to the CLC. This requires another article. (Back) (Home) Union activist fights deportation to Colombia (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By Kimball Cariou SOLIDARITY IS GROWING to support a Toronto labour activist facing deportation. Amparo Torres is accused by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) of being a "secret member" of a "terrorist" group - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The guerrilla organization was placed on Ottawa's list of banned organizations in April 2003. The eclectic list includes groups ranging from al-Qaeda to well-established liberation movements which reject actions against civilians, such as FARC.      The story first appeared in the July 7 edition of the right-wing National Post, which accused FARC of "a brutal campaign of bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and hijackings in Colombia."      According to a CSIS document quoted by the Post, "The service has reasonable grounds to believe that the FARC is a terrorist entity, that Torres is a member of the FARC and that Torres has undertaken activities in support of the FARC." She is also accused of membership in the Colombian Communist Party and the Patriotic Union, a left political coalition which has suffered thousands of assassinations.      Torres has been a target of CSIS surveillance and interrogation since the spring of 1999, when she spoke at a conference of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. If an immigration judge upholds the government's case against her in a hearing scheduled for November, she will be deported to Colombia.      She has filed an affidavit in Federal Court, pointing to "numerous inaccuracies and omissions" in the CSIS report. She points out that CSIS wants her to become an informant, helping to locate her former common-law spouse, who became a FARC representative after Torres immigrated to Canada.      In her affidavit, Amparo Torres says that she worked for 23 years as a secretary at Social Sciences department of the Santiago de Cali University, and that she studied to become a labour lawyer. She was active in the trade union representing university workers, and eventually became a member of the Board of Directors of Colombia's national trade union organization, the CUT (Central Unitaria de Trabajadores).      In 1985, Torres was a founding member of the Patriotic Union Movement (Movimiento de la Union Patriotica), an umbrella organization for left political parties. The Patriotic Union, she notes, "advocated for democratic reforms and greater respect for human rights in Colombia." Torres was active in exposing abuses such as political assassinations carried out by police in the city of Cali.      During that time, the FARC was involved in peace negotiations with the government. The guerrillas agreed to end their military campaign and to join the peaceful political process as part of the Patriotic Union. Torres naturally came to know many FARC members who were involved in the Patriotic Union.      But by 1986, the Patriotic Union was hit by a wave of assassinations, forcing the FARC to quit the unproductive peace process. Despite ongoing government violence, the Patriotic Union has continued to be a peaceful political movement, uniting left parties.      Torres says that "Although we were not the FARC, and we were not a surrogate for the FARC, we would routinely be accused by the government of being equivalent to the FARC, or of truly being FARC members. This was common in Colombian politics, as right‑wing politicians could slur us with claims that support for us was tantamount to support for the FARC. These false accusations could lead to extreme violence, with members of our movement being tortured or killed."      She herself was abducted in October of 1991 along with four other Patriotic Union members, by men who claimed to be police officers. Torres was kept blindfolded, and was tortured for information about FARC members. After some five months, pressures from political parties and the CUT forced the release of the detainees.      Torres fled to Mexico along with her common-law spouse and their three children. There the United Nations High Commission for Refugees agreed that she was a political refugee whose life was in danger in Colombia. The government of Canada selected her to immigrate as a UNHCR-approved Convention Refugee. Her full story was told to the Canadian government, since this was the basis for her refugee claim. Torres was granted permanent resident status upon her arrival in December, 1996, along with her two younger children. Her spouse was also approved to come to Canada, but decided to remain in Mexico, along with their older son. In 1999, her former spouse decided to become the FARC's representative in Mexico, a position he held until the Mexican government closed the FARC office a few years ago under pressure from Washington.      Amparo Torres applied for Canadian citizenship in June, 2000. Two years ago, she married a Canadian, a retired University of Toronto professor. She has been doing volunteer work with trade unions to promote solidarity with the trade union movement in Colombia and the goal of a peaceful resolution to the civil war in that country.      Much of the affidavit concerns the continual harassment by CSIS against Amparo Torres and many of her friends and co-workers. It seems clear that CSIS has decided - with no evidence other than unfounded accusations by the Colombian government - that Torres is a "terrorist" rather than simply a supporter of the struggle for peace and democracy in Colombia. As a result, her application for Canadian citizenship has been delayed indefinitely, and now her life may well be in danger. (Back) (Home) Splits hamper COPE election preparations (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By Kimball Cariou WITH THE NEXT municipal election less than four months away, a united left-centre slate seems frustratingly elusive for civic activists in Vancouver. The executive of the Coalition of Progressive Electors is searching for ways to block the right-wing Non-Partisan Alliance from taking advantage of divisions within COPE, but by late July, there was little visible progress towards this aim.      Shortly after Mayor Larry Campbell announced in early July that he would not run for a second term, his main supporter, Councillor Jim Green, threw his hat into the ring. That move led to sharp divisions at a July 13 COPE membership meeting, which narrowly rejected a proposal to run a joint campaign with Green's "Vision Vancouver" formation.      Disputes arose within COPE's city council caucus soon after the labour-aligned party won a sweeping majority in November 2002. The differences often stemmed from decisions by Mayor Larry Campbell and three other COPE councillors which diverged from longstanding COPE policy. One such issue involved the Campbell group's support for the provincial government plan to build a costly rapid transit line from the airport to downtown Vancouver, at the expense of badly-needed buses for the Greater Vancouver region and another unpopular fare increase. Another major battle saw the Mayor and his supporters back the expansion of slot machines in the city, again in violation of COPE policy.      Less publicised was the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the Mayor and the eight COPE councillors voted as a team, and that a wide range of progressive policies were being implemented. Unfortunately, it gradually became clear that the COPE caucus was deeply fractured, much to the disappointment of the organization's 2000-plus members.      The split became an open secret last December, when the Mayor's group formed the "Friends of Larry Campbell" with the obvious aim of contesting the November 2005 election. No members of that group were elected to the COPE executive in April, and attempts soon began to reach some form of cooperation between the two sides.      The results of those negotiations were brought to the July 13 membership meeting. Key points of a tentative agreement included: support for Jim Green's mayoralty campaign; five candidates to be nominated by COPE, and five by the Vision group, with COPE having a veto over one of those latter five; the understanding that both sides have responsibility for the large debt still remaining from COPE's 2002 campaign (the first time that the group aligned with the Mayor had made such a commitment); a joint campaign team, policy statement, and financial structure; and uncontested COPE nominations for School Board and Park Board.      The agreement had the backing of about two-thirds of the COPE executive and most of its School Board and Park Board caucuses. At the July 13 meeting, a wide range of prominent union spokespersons made it clear that significant financial support from the labour movement depended on reaching such a unity deal.      And yet the agreement was rejected by a vote of 123-96, largely due to impassioned opposition from three COPE councillors (Tim Louis, Fred Bass and Anne Roberts) who have frequently clashed with Campbell and Green. During the lengthy debate at the meeting, many COPE members who voted "no" said the deal could be made more acceptable, with some minor adjustments, and a motion to send it back for further negotiations was adopted.      The lack of progress since then indicates that COPE executive members who argued that the agreement was likely the best that could be achieved may have been correct. Vision has announced it will field five council candidates as Green's running mates, in effect taking away COPE's influence over one crucial nomination. The current impasse also allows Vision to proceed with fundraising on its own, leaving it increasingly likely that COPE will be saddled with the entire debt. In essence, the terms of any possible cooperation have become less favourable for COPE since July 13.      These developments have raised hopes within the NPA that its chances for a comeback on November 19 may be better than it could have imagined three years ago. COPE's nomination meeting is set for September 25; unless an agreement is reached soon with Vision Vancouver, COPE council candidates may find themselves facing a revived right-wing party, a viciously antagonistic media, serious vote-splitting on the ballot, declining support from organized labour, and virtually no funds to mount a campaign. That combination of factors would likely spell defeat for most COPE candidates, leaving much of their drive to reform Vancouver uncompleted or open to challenge by the next city council. Whether this scenario unfolds depends largely on negotiations over the next few weeks. (Back) (Home) "Two-Tier Health" spreading fast (The following editorial is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) People's Voice Editorial, August 1-31, 2005 The cancer of "two-tier" health care continues to spread. News reports in July revealed that a private Calgary clinic was performing hip replacements and charging taxpayers the full cost of the surgery earlier this year. After three months of this illegal practice (which the clinic justified by claiming that its procedure was "experimental"!), Alberta Health warned the clinic that it was not authorized to bill patients for the procedure. Wealthy patients have been able to purchase such orthopedic surgeries for some time in Montreal, but this was the first time the procedure had been on sale (apparently for over $20,000) in Alberta.      Privatizers claim that private clinics "free up" space in the public system, creating a "win-win" situation for all patients. In reality, since the total numbers of medical specialists and other staff have not changed, putting health care up for sale simply allows upper-income earners to jump the queue, which then becomes even longer for most other patients. In Alberta, the waiting time for hip replacements is already over one year.      Governments must be compelled to adopt a comprehensive set of policies to save Medicare and improve the health and living conditions of working people. These include: strengthen and enforce the Canada Health Act and laws that prohibit a private parallel system; switch from the current "fee-for-service" to a system of salaries for doctors; immediate steps to reduce surgery waiting times, such as faster credentials recognition for foreign‑trained doctors and other health professionals; end P3s and all other forms of privatization and contracting‑out in the health care system. Time is short! We urge all readers to help mobilize public opinion on this crucial issue! (Back) (Home) Canadians sink deeper into Afghan quagmire (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By Karin Larsen CANADIAN TROOPS currently in Kabul will be moved southward to Kandahar this summer, according to NATO and US military, which share custody of occupied Afghanistan.      While Canadians successfully avoided sending our troops into Iraq and prevented our government from signing onto the "Star Wars" missile defense project, Prime Minister Martin is using 1,250 Canadian troops to mollify the Bush administration following these perceived snubs.      Since 2001 there have been seven reported deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, four of which were caused by US "friendly fire" while they worked in the relatively secure Kabul. The Canadians will replace US troops which are being pulled out Kandahar, a region David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies calls Afghanistan's "Wild West."      The US withdrawal is part of a NATO-supported plan to redirect US troops into Iraq. The NATO-affiliated countries, including Canada, have agreed to divide Afghanistan into 19 provinces, each be to assigned a Provincial Restructuring Team. Presently NATO has taken on five of the 19, though this is scheduled to increase as Canada, Lithuania and Spain take on more responsibility for the long term occupation of Afghanistan.      All 1,250 Canadian soldiers will continue to be under US military command as part of their pacification campaign, "Operation Enduring Freedom." Of those, 1,000 are expected to be sent into direct battle, militarily suppressing resisters to the US-led occupying force. This reality may not be reflected in Canadian corporate media, however, as the federal government moves to put a distinctly Canadian and markedly friendly spin on what the military terms "the anti‑insurgent struggle."      Pollsters consistently report that Canadians want their military to be involved in furthering peace, order and good government. While it is not peacekeepers that are in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Bill Graham hopes that military involvement in the provincial reconstruction teams will "demonstrate Canada's emphasis on bringing stability and humanitarian relief to fragile states."      The Liberals, reliant on NDP and Bloc Quebecois support to stay in power, are hoping that NATO's multilateral approach, with a focus less on pure combat and more on national restructuring, will garner popular support due to its familiar appearance to Canadian voters.      International aid agencies, to which many Canadians donated following the Boxing Day Tsunami, have been working in Afghanistan for many years predating the "War on Terrorism." Because these NGOs will attempt to work with any government from a principled humanitarian position, many aid workers viewed the occupation of Afghanistan as a fait accompli. Despite this traditional operating standpoint, growing numbers of aid organizations have been openly critical of the military tactic to tie aid to what US State Secretary Condoleeza Rice calls the fight to "win the hearts and minds" of the Afghan people.      Some 34 different aid organizations wrote a joint open letter denouncing the provincial reconstruction teams' efforts to operate as middlemen between needy Afghans and aid workers. One component of the restructuring teams' work is to encourage Afghans to offer information or collaboration in exchange for necessities of life. Canadian Foreign Affairs reported last year that soldiers are known to disguise themselves as NGO aid workers where true aid workers refuse to cooperate.      Médecins sans Frontieres was forced to withdraw its aid supply following five killings of their workers in a single month. The deaths were linked by the group to the actions of the US-led military. MSF operational director Kenny Gluck has commented that "attempts to use humanitarian aid to win people ... jeopardizes the aid to people in need and endangers the lives of humanitarian aid workers".      CARE Canada, which remains active in Afghanistan, has also been critical of the NATO/US tactic of using aid, aid workers or the guise of aid workers for military means. John Watson, CARE Canada president, has openly questioned how the actions of Canadian troops in Kandahar will resonate back home: "My question is: Can Canadian forces keep their well‑deserved reputation for being more in touch with the locals and less bellicose [war‑like]? I wish them luck."      If the past actions of the Liberal Party displayed at the Gomery inquiry are any indication, it is not luck on which the Canadian government will depend, but public relations and mass ideological manipulation. With peace activists capitalizing on the leaked Downing Street Memos, which demonstrate the sham war and occupation of Iraq, continued Canadian support for the occupation of Afghanistan might now be in question.      (With files from: www.thestar.com and www.globeandmail.com.) (Back) (Home) Communist Party urges peaceful solutions to terror (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Statement of the Central Executive Committee CPC, July 19, 2005 The Communist Party of Canada condemns the recent terrorist bombings in London, which killed over 50 people and seriously injured hundreds of others. We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in this tragedy, and to the heroic working people of London.      Our Party condemns all attacks carried out against civilians for political purposes, both in the form of war and terror conducted by imperialist states, and terrorist actions by extremist groups. Over the past four years, well over 100,000 civilians have been killed by the imperialist occupiers of Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. and British missiles and bombs have rained death upon homes and marketplaces, wedding celebrations, and those travelling from one location to another, not unlike the victims of the London bombings. Reports continue to emerge regarding criminal actions by the occupation forces, such as the recent death of 13 Iraqis who had been rounded up by British troops and held in trucks during 45 degree heat. Such killings have been virtually ignored by the corporate media, in shameful contrast to the enormous coverage given to the events in London.      The London bombings served to undermine the struggle for peace and liberation, by creating fear and disorientation, and by providing imperialism with a powerful new pretext to intensify repression and aggression. The bombings also helped imperialism to elevate the so‑called "war on terror" to the top of the global agenda, at the expense of crucial issues such as poverty in Africa, climate change, environmental degradation, and efforts to end the occupation of Iraq. It is no coincidence that the media is now full of new justifications for torture, national security certificates, and a wide range of other attacks on democratic rights and freedoms.      Fortunately, millions of British and European working people have refused to be pushed into giving stronger support for imperialist war and occupation. There is growing recognition that the "war on terrorism" divides peoples and nations, and makes the world less secure. We reject all efforts to use this tragedy to whip up racist hatred against the Arab and Muslim communities, to discard the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and to trample upon hard‑won democratic rights.      Peace cannot be achieved by destroying civil liberties at home and launching criminal wars of aggression abroad. Building a world free from terror and violence must begin with the withdrawal of the U.S., Britain and their allies from Iraq. The rising death toll in Iraq proves that the peace movement is absolutely correct to call for the immediate restoration of the independence and sovereignty of the Iraqi people. We also demand full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian and Arab territories, and the withdrawal of all occupation forces, including Canadian troops, from Afghanistan and Haiti.      By opposing all forms of international treaties and cooperation, in favour of self‑serving unilateralism, the Bush administration is increasing global tensions and dangers. We call instead for a new set of international relations, based on the principles of peace and disarmament, economic and social equality, and full respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of all nations and peoples. We urge an end to militarism, and a focus on political solutions to local and regional conflicts.      This is not a time for supporters of peace, justice and democracy to sit back and ride out the storm. The Communist Party of Canada urges full support for all efforts take the message of peace into the streets! (Back) (Home) Hiroshima Day - Abolish Nuclear Weapons! (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Statement of the Central Committee, Communist Party of Canada ACROSS CANADA AND around the world, peace groups will be marking the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima City, Japan on August 6, 2005. The commemoration of this horrific crime against humanity will be an important part of the struggle to abolish nuclear weapons, by means of a comprehensive disarmament treaty.      U.S. imperialism demonstrated its utterly barbaric and racist nature by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima City in 1945. The attack was unnecessary from a military standpoint, as Japan had indicated it was prepared to surrender.      Rather than demonstrate the use of atomic weapons on a relatively unpopulated part of Japan and motivated by chauvinist views laced with anti‑Japanese racism, U.S. imperialism used the weapon on a large city instantly killing more than 80,000 people, a number that increased to 200,000 people by 1950 due to the lingering effects of radiation.      Many Japanese financial and military leaders escaped punishment for their serious war crimes, but the people of Hiroshima were also victims of a war crime. The historical record shows that U.S. imperialism used the atom bomb to gain global domination by terrorizing people with the threat of nuclear weapons and to reduce the influence of the USSR in the post‑World War Two period.      Imperialist countries are developing ever deadlier uses for nuclear weapons, these weapons are part of the "first use" doctrine of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the U.S. is pressing to put them in space to dominate the earth. The main imperialist countries - the United States, Britain and France ‑ consider such weapons an important part of their military potential.      U.S. intransigence led to the failure of the Non‑Proliferation Treaty talks in May of this year, raising the spectre of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. Mass actions by the world's peoples will be needed to force imperialism to relinquish nuclear weapons. Until then, the threat of an accidental nuclear war will be ever‑present.      The Communist Party of Canada urges its members to participate in the anniversary commemorations on Hiroshima Day in their local communities, and to urge local and provincial government leaders to send messages in support of arms control and disarmament talks leading to the abolition of nuclear weapons to Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Mayor of Hiroshima City on August 6, 2005. (Back) (Home) Cuba vs. hurricanes: a model for other countries (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) By Susan Hurlich, Havana  Just before Hurricane Dennis hit Cuba, journalist Susan Hurlich sent out a message about the situation in Havana. Here is part of her report, which gives insights into the Cuban response to natural disasters.      When I woke up this morning (Friday, July 8), the skies over Havana were more sunny than cloudy. I had a meeting at the International Press Centre, and walked there and back. Things appeared normal, people going about their daily business, but the lines at the food stores are much longer than usual and people are quickly buying up fruits and vegetables at the open markets and stocking up on bread from the peso bakeries. All schools were suspended this morning as are all domestic flights, and banks closed at noon. TV and radio have been giving continuous updates on the whereabouts of Dennis and what we should expect.      Now, about 2 in the afternoon ‑ the sky is overcast, it's getting darker quickly, winds are a bit stronger and it's raining off and on. When the rain stops, the sun tries to come out but the clouding is more insistent. I just spent 30 minutes banging shut ‑ with hammer and wooden wedge ‑ one of my windows that has become so inundated with rain water during the past month, that it simply didn't want to shut.      The most recent report is that Dennis is still hugging the coast only 15 km from the bay of Cienfuegos. Rains are of a hurricane force in a swath that goes almost 90 km in all directions from the eye, sustained winds have are 215 kph (over 250 kph is a category 5 hurricane) and gusts are often higher...      Last night, the Mesa Redonda (Round Table discussion) on TV was dedicated to Hurricane Dennis. Among the participants were Fidel and Dr. Jose Rubiera, head of the Forecast Centre and the National Meteorology Institute, both indefatigable and highly communicative. When it comes to hurricanes, these Round Tables are like a university education. We always come away learning something new.      For instance, Dr. Rubiera explained that it's a very rare occurrence for Cuba to be hit by a hurricane in the month of July. During the last 205 years, it's only happened three times. It's also a rare event to have such a strong hurricane during July. Since 1901, there have been only six category 3 hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basic area. Dennis is additionally "special" because it first became a tropical storm on July 5, the earliest date in recorded history for such a phenomenon to occur in this region.      So why is this happening? Well, we all know the answer ‑ you can't sow havoc in the world's environment without eventually getting the harvest of change. In the past ten years, there have been some notable changes in hurricane patterns in this area. Global warming including of the oceans is one of the contributing factors that has favoured the formation of strong hurricanes "out of season".      The clouds, though, do have silver linings. Dennis is bringing lots of much‑welcome rain. At the end of May, the country's 235 dams that cover domestic water needs were only registering at 27% of their capacity. The rains of the past six weeks have brought that up a bit, to about 35%, but the country is still suffering the worst recorded drought in 103 years. Two days ago, I spoke with friends in the semi‑desert southern coastal strip of Guantanamo Province, an area which normally receives between 400-600 mm of rain a year and which last year received only 164 mm. They said the countryside was beautiful ‑ covered with all shades of green and even some flowers. So if Dennis leaves behind fuller dams, it's a blessing. No question. As many Cubans say, houses can be rebuilt, but once the soil is dried and cracking, it can't support life.      To date, some 200,000 people ‑ mainly from lowlying coastal areas in danger of inundations ‑ have been evacuated to some 800 shelters, many of which are located in schools, and their TVs, mattresses, fridges, fans and other precious household goods have been stored in secure locations. Thousands of students have been sent home from semi‑residential schools, livestock have been moved from low‑lying areas to safer areas, harvests have been speeded up of crops like sweet potatoes and bananas ‑ which are quickly being distributed to the population.      As we've seen so often in Cuba, evacuation is one of the principle means of protecting people when a hurricane strikes. As usual, there's lots of solidarity between people shown at this time, and many evacuees are taken in by their friends or neighbours. In Havana, people have been evacuated from low‑lying areas near the Malecon, where flooding is anticipated.      At the moment, things are quiet. The wind has stilled a bit and, though cloudy, the light is quite bright. I still need to bring my potted plants in from the veranda and prepare the cat box for my two cats. They're outdoor animals who love to sleep on the veranda, but when there's a hurricane, they demand to be inside. I've already filled up my 60‑litre barrel with clean water for drinking over the next several days. Some of my neighbours are doing the same: stocking up on a few days of food that doesn't need cooking, in case the gas is shut off (always happens when a hurricane is upon us, as a fire prevention), cleaning out the drains on their roofs, making sure there's nothing that can be blown in high winds and turned into a dangerous projectile.      So, things are normal. They really are. In a country that has such an efficient and comprehensive Civil Defense plan, where people think and act collectively, and even more so during times of potential crisis, and where there is such an informed population that knows what to do ‑ yes, things are normal. There's anxiousness but no panic. It's a model from which many other countries could learn. (Back) (Home) Save Colombian trade unionists   (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Colombia's labour federation, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT) has issued an appeal to international public opinion regarding threats by paramilitaries against the trade union movement in the department of Santander. The threats come from the right-wing AUC's Bolivar Central Block (BCB), which recently entered the process of demobilisation and peace negotiations with the government of Alvaro Uribe Velez. Violating their ceasefire pledge, the paramilitaries have launched an operation named "Companies Without Unions," as part of a wider plan by the government and national and transnational companies to destroy trade unionism in Colombia. The following threatening document was received on July 13, 2005: Death Certificate - Companies free from trade unionists and guerrillas in Colombia. The Bolivar Central Block [of the AUC] have commissioned squadron named Companies Without Unions to clear all trade unions and the servile worms of the FARC guerrilla from the city of Bucaramanga. First warning:  All those involved in any trade union/guerrilla activity must immediately leave the department of Santander. Second warning: If this first warning is not heeded, then we will iompose a death sentence on Carolina Rubio, Gabriel Gonzalez, Cesar Plaza, Adela Pena, Martha Diaz, William Rivero, Jaimes Reyes, David Florez, Rodrigo Cordoba, Oswaldo Bonilla, Alfonso Leon, Jorge Cadena, and Wilson Ferrer. Those named are leaders of the CUT and local trade unions, popular movements, and a political prisoners committee. The CUT has asked the international community to demand that the Colombian government protect the lives of trade unionists, dismantle paramilitary structures, (and) to punish those responsible for crimes committed by such groups. Messages can be sent to President Alvaro Uribe Velez, email: auribe@presidencia.gov.co, or by logging into http://www.presidencia.gov.co, and clicking on ESCRIBALE AL PRESIDENTE at the bottom of the page. (Back) (Home) Canadian immigration policy affects Colombian refugees (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)   By James J. Brittain, University of New Brunswick On 3 April 2003, promptly following the Canadian government's official renunciation of involvement with the US war against Iraq, the Chrétien administration surprisingly altered a well-entrenched piece of national policy toward the country of Colombia. Disturbingly, the policy presented by the Canadian government did not agree with James LeMoyne (Acting Special Advisor on Colombia) and the United Nations, nor with the Organization of American  States (OAS), academics and experts on the civil war within Colombia, or numerous non-governmental organizations. Strangely, the Liberal government - with strong support from the Canadian right - agreed with the US political perspective toward the FARC-EP; a peasant-incepted revolutionary social movement seeking peace with social justice for Colombia. The newly formed position taken by the Canadian government was that the FARC-EP was not a legitimate movement struggling for an end to the Colombian civil war through peace negotiations, a position that Canada had agreed with and defended for many years. On 3 April, Canada formally announced that the FARC-EP was a terrorist entity and placed it on the government's list of foreign terrorist organizations alongside such groups as Al-Qaeda. Under the guidance of then-Solicitor General Wayne Easter, the FARC-EP was labelled as an entity involved in "terrorist activity". The implications of this were, and continue to be, immense. Persons now involved in the peace process, academics, journalists, NGOs, human rights advocates, students studying the organization, and the sociopolitical environment of the war-torn country, are being harassed, intimidated, and threatened by the Canadian government, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All this has taken place after repeated pleas by Canadian political parties, civil society organizations, citizens, scholars, and concerned groups who are asking the government to review this labelling of the FARC-EP. At the time of the announcement several political parties openly denounced the position of the government and asked for proof or evidence of the FARC-EP's "terrorist activities." Minutes after Easter's statement to members of Parliament, parties began questioning the motives and reasoning for such an abrupt change in Canada's position toward Colombia. Robert Lanctot, a member of the BQ, (stated) that there was one substantial "problem" in labelling the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization. The predicament was that Mr. Easter and the government acted "without reasons or explanations," and failed to provide "any proof ... as to why the guerrillas were labelled a terrorist group," and "why they are on the list." He pointed (out) the ironic positioning of the government toward the insurgency movement in the fact that "in 2002, Parliament debated a motion demanding and forcing the Colombian government to negotiate with this guerrilla movement." In closing, Mr. Lanctot asserted to Parliament that "to add such a group to the terrorist list endangers the lives" of numerous Colombians. The implication for Canadians is that after 3 April 2003, those involved in any way with the movement, be they academics, human rights workers, unionists, or others, could be deemed to be violating the Criminal Code of Canada under Bill C-36 (Anti-Terrorism Act). Being found guilty of such allegations can result in the assets of the individual(s) being frozen (section 83.08) or being "liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years" (section 83.02). This has quashed any opportunity for the Canadian state to support the peace process or for Canadian citizens to increase their understanding of the Colombian conflict. Ending the injustices and bloodshed committed by the Colombian government forces and the state-supported paramilitaries can only take place through conflict resolution and peace negotiations between the government and the FARC-EP in a safe demilitarized zone. It is in this reality that Canada must review the labelling of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Stated over a century ago, "The unification and fraternization of nations is a phrase used today by all parties, particularly the bourgeois free-trade men ... It is the fraternization of the oppressors against the oppressed, the exploiters against the exploited." Is this what Canada is becoming, an oppressive exploiting nation which seeks to only maintain the fiscal and political interests of a select few? Has the Canadian government come to a point when it supports the rule of power over the rule of law and social justice? Has Canada arrived at a place where it denies material evidence and scholarly research in order to promote unsubstantiated rhetoric due to its relations with an imperialist power? To respond to these questions Canadians must demand an independent examination and contextual analysis of the FARC-EP followed by an official statement of the reasons as to why the FARC-EP have been labelled a terrorist organization. This will then allow all informed Canadians to determine whether their government has acted in the interests of its constituents and toward international peace or whether it has bowed to the politico-economic power of its closest neighbour to the south. (This article first appeared as part of a longer publication by the Saskatchewan Institute of public Policy, University of Regina.) (Back) (Home) Canada out of Afghanistan (The following editorial is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Apparently having learned nothing from history ( or even from the daily news reports) the federal Liberals have caved in to U.S. pressure, bolstering the contingent of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham says that Canada is beginning to play a "new" role in global military affairs. But this role is simply a larger presence in the imperialist "War on Terror," providing some spot relief to badly overstretched U.S. occupation forces. Sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan will allow the Pentagon to deploy more units in Iraq, where the situation continues to spiral out of control. Until now Canada's forces in Afghanistan have been based near Kabul in the north of the country. According to David Rudd, of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, deploying to a base near Kandahar, in Kunar province, greatly increases the potential for casualties. In a foretaste of what's ahead, a U.S. helicopter carrying Navy SEAL reinforcements was downed in Afghanistan at the end of June, killing all 17 on board. The soldiers, RCMP officers and Foreign Affairs officials now being sent will inevitably face similar casualties in this ill-conceived operation. Just as worrisome, Afghan civilians will be killed by the Canadian troops sent to "protect" the country, with unforeseeable consequences in Canada itself. As the article on page 6 of this issue points out, the expanded Canadian military presence also increases the level of danger for NGOs working in Afghanistan. This operation has nothing to do with making the world safer or "spreading democracy." The federal government should be told bluntly to get our forces out of Afghanistan immediately, so that the Afghan people can regain their sovereignty and begin to rebuild their country. (Back) (Home)   Cuban Five designated political prisoners by UN Working Group   (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) The five Cuban counter-terrorism agents arrested in 1998 by the US and jailed for long sentences after an unfair trial in Miami, have now been officially designated "political prisoners" by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Their detention has been termed arbitrary and in contravention of the UN Convention on Civil and Political rights. We reprint here the official resolution adopted by the Working Group on (Arbitrary) Detentions of the UN Human Rights Commission regarding the case of the Cuban Five. Readers are urged to help make this resolution widely-known as part of the international campaign to free the Five, especially since this is the first time that a special mechanism of the UN has issued an opinion on the case: Communication: addressed to the Government of the United States of America on 8 April 2004 Concerning: Mr. Antonio Guerrero Rodriguez, Mr. Fernando Gonzalez Llort, Mr. Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo, Mr. Ramon Labanino Salazar and Mr. René Gonzalez Sehwerert From the information received, the Working Group observes the following: (a) Following their arrest, and notwithstanding the fact that the detainees had been informed of their right to remain silent and had their defense provided by the Government, they were kept in solitary confinement for 17 months, during which communication with their attorneys, and access to evidence and thus, possibilities to an adequate defense were weakened, (b) As the case was classified as one of national security, access by the detainees to the documents that contained evidence was impaired. The Government has not contested the fact that defense lawyers had very limited access to evidence because of this classification, negatively affecting their ability to present counter evidence. This particular application of the legal provisions of the CIPA, as made in this case and as the information available to the Working Group reveals, has also undermined the equal balance between the prosecution and the defense, (c) The jury for the trial was selected following an examination process in which the defense attorneys had the opportunity and availed themselves of the procedural tools to reject potential jurors, and ensured that no Cuban-Americans served on the jury. Nevertheless, the Government has not denied that even so, the climate of bias and prejudice against the accused in Miami persisted and helped to present the accused as guilty from the beginning. It was not contested by the Government that one year later it admitted that Miami was an unsuitable place for a trial where it proved almost impossible to select an impartial jury in a case linked with Cuba. The Working Group notes that it arises from the facts and circumstances in which the trial took place and from the nature of the charges and the harsh sentences given to the accused, that the trial did not take placer in the climate of objectivity and impartiality which is required in order to conclude on the observance of the standards of a fair trial, as defined in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of America is a party. This imbalance, taking into account the severe sentences received by the persons under consideration in this case, is incompatible with the standards contained in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights that guarantee that each person accused of a crime has the right to exercise, in full equality, all the adequate facilities to prepare his defense. The Working Group concludes that the three elements that were enunciated above, combined together, are of such gravity that they confer the deprivation of liberty of these five persons an arbitrary character. In light of the preceding, the Working Group issues the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Messrs. Antonio Guerrero Rodriguez, Mr. Fernando Gonzalez Llort, Mr. Gerardo Hernandez Nordelo, Mr. Ramon Labanino Salazar and Mr. René Gonzalez Sehweret is arbitrary, being in contravention of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and corresponds to category III of the applicable categories examined in the cases before the Working Group. Having issued this opinion, the Working Group requests the Government to adopt the necessary steps to remedy the situation, in conformity with the principles stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (Adopted on 27 May 2005) (Back) (Home) Construction death reveals lax Alberta laws   (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) The death of a 14-year-old boy at a Wetaskiwin construction site has once again put the spotlight on Alberta's generally lax health and safety standards and slave-like minimum wage laws. Eric Dyment was crushed to death July 16 by a machine while working for a contractor at the privately-operated Reynolds Museum in Wetaskiwin. He was pronounced dead on arrival at hospital. Officials say the boy was underage and working in an area he should not have been. An investigation is underway. The incident brought back memories of a death three years ago at a construction site in Edmonton, where the 14-year-old nephew of a builder plunged five stories to his death. A contractor was subsequently fined $138,000. The maximum penalty for an employer found negligent after the death of an employee in Alberta is $500,000 and/or six months in prison. Alberta's Conservative government is one of the most friendly in Canada to business and also one of the most hostile to unions. The province recently relaxed its child labour laws to allow 12-to-14-year-olds to work in the hospitality industry without obtaining provincial permits. Alberta is Canada's wealthiest province - the only province free from debt of any kind, thanks to decades of oil and gas revenues. Yet, paradoxically, Alberta has Canada's lowest minimum wage - a paltry $5.90 an hour. (From the NUPGE website, http://www.nupge.ca.) (Back) (Home) BGEU condemns "anti-terror" laws   (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) The following resolution on solidarity with Colombia was adopted by the 46th Convention of the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU), which met June 24-26 in Vancouver: WHEREAS the Colombian government has intensified its repressive campaign against social and labour movement leaders; and WHEREAS the US "war against terrorism" has been used by the government of Columbia to enact "anti-terrorist laws", which are being used to repress the legitimate dissent of the social and labour movements in Colombia; and WHEREAS the government of Canada has legitimized this repression by adding the names of Colombian organizations to an official list of supposed "terrorist" organizations; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the BCGEU through NUPGE and the CLC urge the Canadian Government to stop using "terrorist lists" to arbitrarily designate organizations as "terrorists", and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BCGEU through NUPGE and the CLC urge the Canadian government to denounce the military intervention of United States through plan Colombia as a plan of war against Colombians, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BCGEU through NUPGE and the CLC urge the Canadian government to request the Colombian government to allow an exchange of political prisoners as a humanitarian gesture between the Colombian government and the insurgency, and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to NUPGE and the CLC. (Back) (Home) The Bush family's Nazi links (letter to editor) (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) I would like to bring to PV readers' attention an excellent series of articles and reports published in the August 2004 (#54) issue of the newsletter/magazine Press for Conversion, published by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT). This special issue, entitled "All in the Family - the Apple Does Not Fall Far from the Bush", exposes how the Bush family built a fortune investing in Hitler's rise to power in Germany during the 1930s, profited from the slave labour at Auschwitz, laundered Nazi loot after the war, and then covered their dirty financial tracks. These ill begotten funds later helped put the two Georges into the White House. President George W. Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labour - in fact President Bush himself is an heir to those profits, which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former President George H. Bush. The mainstream, corporate-controlled media has systematically repressed the startling facts surrounding this case, but they need to become more widely known and publicized. Among other things, the Bush family heirs must be compelled to make multi-million dollar payments to the Holocaust Reparation Fund for surviving slaves and other victims of Nazi crimes against humanity. Today, President Bush is murdering innocent civilians in Iraq, and financing and encouraging the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian and other Arab lands, while turning a blind eye to its bloody atrocities, its not-so-secret nuclear weapons program, etc. The issue of Press for Conversion can be ordered by writing to COAT at 541 McLeod St., Ottawa, Ont. K1R 5R2, by email at overcoat@rogers.com, or by visiting their website - http://coat.ncf.ca/. Jim Buller, Toronto, ON (Back) (Home) Haitian workers win jobs back (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.)   In June 2004, over 350 workers employed to assemble Levi jeans were dismissed from the Grupo M factory in Haiti's CODEVI free trade zone (FTZ) because of their union activities. An international solidarity campaign helped achieve an agreement between the union, Socowa, and the CODEVI management in February 2005, but citing a shortage of jobs the management failed to reinstate those 154 workers who still wanted to return to work. However, in late March, the Levi Strauss company increased its orders by 25% and, in April, Wrangler, the daughter company of giant US-based textile company, VF Corporation, submitted new orders. By June, Batay Ouvriyer, which works to support the Socowa union, reported that a second factory had opened to deal with the increase in orders, and over 100 workers had been re-instated. A further 17 sacked workers will imminently be reinstated, leaving just 31 checkers and assistants for who there are still no openings. (From Haiti Briefing, newsletter of the Haiti Support Group) (Back) (Home) Fundora urges support for World Peace Forum in 2006 (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Looking forward to the World Peace Forum next June in Vancouver, three leading members of the Cuban Movement for Peace (MOVPAZ) toured Canada recently. MOVPAZ President Orlando Fundora was accompanied by MOVPAZ leaders Manuel Yepe and Maria Elena Cabezas at well-attended meetings in Toronto, Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon, Victoria, and Vancouver. Orlando Fundora, who is also President of the World Peace Council, spoke at Vancouver's annual Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association Garden Party and at a July 26 forum co-sponsored by the Unitarian Church of Vancouver, StopWar.ca, and the CCFA. He was interviewed by People's Voice in Vancouver. "Wherever we go we have met with support and friendship for our cause," said Fundora, noting the wide range of groups and individuals which have met with his delegation. Fundora spoke about the work of the World Peace Council, which like many other progressive movements had been negatively affected by the disappearance of the Soviet Union. WPC Congresses have been held in 1994, 1998, and 2002, after which Fundora became the new president. over the last two years, he noted, the WPC has won new affiliates in Europe, and a number of longstanding member groups from Latin America have enlarged and reorganized their activities. On a global scale, he said, the peace movement continues to become more intensive, and he believes the anti-war forces have the strength to help force a pullout of US and British occupation forces from Iraq. But the most critical role, he said, will be played by the US people themselves: "Since the current US leadership has no respect for world public opinion, only when internal pressures are powerful enough will this aggressive policy be stopped." Fundora called for maximum unity of all the peace forces, and expressed confidence that there will be a very broad and diverse attendance at the World Peace Forum in Vancouver. (Back) (Home) Canada requested "Missile Defense" role in NORAD (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) Last winter, the federal Liberal government was forced to abstain from direct official participation in the U.S. "missile defence" system (Star Wars 2). The decision reflected the refusal by the majority of Canadians to take part in U.S. military adventurism. The Canadian Peace Alliance and other anti-war groups had worked hard to mobilize public opinion for this outcome. However, the full story has yet to hit the mass media. An important contribution to the record of this episode was published recently by Richard Saunders, Editor of Press for Conversion! and coordinator of the Ottawa-based Coalition to Oppose the Arms Race. Saunders revealed that Canada does indeed have a role in the Pentagon's war plans, despite Paul Martin's official position. We reprint here part of this article, which can be found on the web (including footnotes for key references) at http://coat.ncf.ca. On August 5, 2004, the Canadian government initiated a change to the NORAD agreement in order to add a crucial "missile defense" task to the Canada-US military alliance. The U.S. promptly agreed to Canada's kind offer to share in the important "aerospace warning' function that is required for the tracking and targetting functions of America's "missile defense" weapons systems. The process by which Canada attained its new "missile defense" job within NORAD, was facilitated by an exchange of bureaucratic letters between Canada's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Kergin, and the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Kergin's letter reminded Powell of a previous round of official notes, dated January 15, 2004, between Canadian Defence Minister, David Pratt, and U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Pratt's letter to Rumsfeld presented the Canadian government's frank proposal on how it could get more deeply ensconced in "missile defense" work by creating an "over-all framework for co-operation." Here is part of Pratt's up-front letter to Powell: "A key focus of our co-operation in missile defence should be through NORAD.... NORAD's long-standing global threat warning and attack assessment role can make an important contribution to the execution of the missile defence mission. We believe that our two nations should move on an expedited basis to amend the NORAD agreement to take into account NORAD's contribution to the missile defence mission. "It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current U.S. missile defence program and expanding and enhancing information exchange. We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the U.S. missile defence program. Such an MOU could also help pave the way for increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence that we should seek to foster between our countries..." It is important to highlight the Canadian government's position that NORAD should be "a key focus of Canada's "co-operation in missile defence." In particular, Canada wanted NORAD's  "long-standing global threat warning and attack assessment role" to be used in "the execution of the missile defence mission." This, it turns out, is exactly what Canada's government achieved seven months later, in August 2004, upon successfully amending the NORAD treaty. Pratt's letter also reveals that Canadian government yearnings for increased "missile defense" responsibilities were not limited to a military-to-military role within NORAD. Although this alliance of the two countries' institutions of war is a logical structure within which this important Canada-U.S. partnership is growing, Pratt also said that Canada wanted "the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the U.S. missile defence program." He then mentioned Canada's desire for "increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence." This sense that Canada's intent was to enlarge upon already-existing avenues of bilateral cooperation on "missile defense," besides those conducted by their militaries, is also conveyed when Pratt says that Canada wanted to "continue to explore appropriate technical, political and financial arrangement" to assist the highly-contentious U.S.-led weapons development program. In his very brief, officious reply, Rumsfeld said: "I agree that we should seek to expand our cooperation in the area of missile defense." Rumsfeld's letter was deliberately worded to denote the obvious reality, also conveyed in Pratt's letter, that the two countries were already cooperating on "missile defense." Some seven months after the Pratt-Rumsfeld exchange, a considerable amount of heated public debate on "missile defense" had passed under the bridge in Canada. Despite strong, widespread public opposition to "missile defense," Canada's Ambassador Kergin requested in writing that the U.S. agree to the addition of "missile defense" warning functions to NORAD. This letter was, however, much cagier about the extent to which Canada and the U.S. were already partnered on "missile defense." Kergin phraseology tried to maintain the Liberal government's carefully-honed, public deceit that the process being initiated would merely mark the beginning of Canadian membership in the notorious U.S. weapons program. Kergin even tried his hand at rewriting history by pretending to quote from Pratt's letter to Rumsfeld in January. Kergin said: "I also make reference to the exchange of letters between...Pratt and...Rumsfeld on January 15, 2004, in which they stated that... our two Governments should explore extending our partnership to include cooperation in missile defence." In fact, as seen in quotations above, the January 15 letters clearly spoke of "increased... co-operation on missile defence" (Pratt) and "expand our cooperation in the area of missile defense" (Powell). Kergin then said, in typically-obscurantist bureaucratese, that: "our two governments agree that NORAD's aerospace warning mission for North America also shall include aerospace warning, as defined in NORAD's Terms of Reference, in support of the designated commands responsible for missile defence of North America." This legalistic statement, when translated into plain English, expresses Canada's agreement to partake in "missile defense" by expanding NORAD's crucial "aerospace warning" function. Then, in the very next sentence, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. writes an extremely abstruse line: "This decision is independent of any discussion on possible cooperation on missile defence." What? How are we to interpret such a barefaced, self-contradiction as this? Here we have a formal letter specifically designed to modify a major bilateral military treaty by adding "missile defense" functions to their joint efforts. And yet, although the entire purpose of Kergin's letter is therefore clearly intended to state Canada's commitment to participate in "missile defense," it simultaneously makes a totally incongruous assertion. At first glance, this sentence seems to be a caveat to convey the following meaning: "This does not mean that Canada has yet decided to cooperate with the U.S. on missile defense." Kergin's equivocal line was probably crafted for the sole purpose of confusing and deceiving Canadian opponents of the "missile defense" weapons program. It certainly helped. During the seven months since Pratt had crafted his relatively-forthright letter to Rumsfeld back in the early days of Martin's rule, the political climate had clearly changed. By the time Kergin was finalising the Canadian government's commitment to "missile defense' through NORAD, the Liberals had clearly decided that they should work harder to conceal the extent of their commitment to America's divisive "missile defense" program. However, if one reads Kergin's enigmatic line very carefully, using the corporate mindset of a government lawyer, it can be seen to be equivocal. It can easily carry another sense altogether. The addition of a few words makes its more-implausible meaning clear: "This decision is independent of any discussion on other possible areas of cooperation on missile defence. By this, Kergin was likely referring to the "increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence that we should seek," referred to in Pratt's earlier letter. However, regardless of Kergin's apparent attempt at obfuscation, at least Colin Powell knew exactly what the Liberal government was after. Powell responded immediately and affirmatively to Canada's offer to extend the NORAD agreement to include the crucial "aerospace warning" aspect of "missile defense." Powell replied by saying "the United States of America concurs with the provisions set out in your Note." By doing so, Kergin's amendment was incorporated into the NORAD treaty and "missile defense" responsibilities were immediately added to Canada's workload at NORAD. Back in 1999, the Ottawa Citizen's "defence reporter," David Pugliese wrote: "The Canadian military wants to take part in a controversial U.S. plan to build a North American ballistic missile defence shield by contributing more than $600 million in space hardware [through the Joint Space Project]. Canadian Forces officials have been pushing for a role in the American national missile defence system since 1997, according to Access to Information documents obtained by the Citizen. Under the Canadian military plan its participation in the system would be deemed an 'asymmetrical' role, where Canada would not directly fund the American missile defence shield but provide a variety of space and ground equipment for surveillance and other jobs to support the North American Aerospace Defence Command." So, as it turned out, Canadian "missile defense" enthusiasts at DND eventually got almost everything they wanted. But, more importantly, their U.S. counterparts got what they wanted from Canada too. As noted by Dr. John Clearwater, a Canadian military historian and expert on Canada-U.S. relations with regards to nuclear weapons: "The clear and simple fact is that Paul Martin and the Liberals have already given the United States exactly what it sought to begin with - full co-operation by NORAD in missile-defence work.... NORAD was already... an integral part of the missile-defence structure. Since Canada already provides manpower for NORAD early-warning and battle-command posts at our expense, and as these are free gifts to operate the missile-defence program, there is no reason to think that Canada is getting a free ride. In fact, Washington gets the extra staffing without paying the bill." When President George W. Bush visited Canada in December 2004, he used three public fora to urge Canada to join America's expansive, weapons development program. This had the effect of driving home the illusion that Canada was not already on board. It also gave Martin the welcome opportunity to please voters by pretending to stand up to Bush. This is an age-old game. The American administration knows all-too-well that their allies sometimes have to feign opposition to U.S. policies in order to gain or retain domestic political support. Such oppositional play-acting does not, therefore, undermine U.S. goals. On the contrary, because duplicitous trickery of this variety can strengthen the domestic standing of one's closest friends, such fakery is tolerated and even encouraged. McKenna's bombshell: Canada already said "Yes" As Regehr has noted, because Canada had "already made the decision to cooperate with the U.S. on BMD" it was not clear what Bush was really asking for. Or, as Michael O'Hanlon, an analyst with America's conservative Brookings Institute expressed it, in early February 2005, it is "hard to see what more Bush wants." A few weeks later, on February 22, this recognition that Canada had already said "yes" was expressed once again, this time by Frank McKenna, Canada's newly appointed ambassador to the U.S., "We're part of it now," he said during a Parliamentary committee meeting on foreign affairs, "and the question is, what more do we need?" McKenna also commented that he could not fathom why, during Bush's recent visit to Canada, the president had repeatedly asked Martin to sign on to the "missile defense" program. When grilled by reporters on whether Canada really was already taking part in "missile defense," McKenna's near-sacrilegious statements seemed to astound the fourth estate. Journalists were flabbergasted. For years they had dutifully parroted the standard, government line that Canada was not sharing the "missile defense" burden. Now, they badgered McKenna to explain what he could possibly mean. McKenna tried to enlighten them by pointing to NORAD: "There's no doubt, in looking back, that the NORAD amendment [of August 5, 2004] has given, has created, part - in fact a great deal - of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry." This latest NORAD amendment, he said: "allows our American partners in security in North America to obtain the threat assessments and the information they need to make decisions to deploy missiles or other forms of defence." McKenna was also quoted as saying: "I believe that we've given in large measure what the Americans want, which is the ability to use NORAD and their intercept information in order to be able to target weaponry." With regards to Bush demanding that Canada "sign on" to "missile defense,' McKenna asked reporters: "What does 'sign on' mean?... You couldn't put it more bluntly than that." By focusing entirely on Canada's connection to "missile defense" through its NORAD obligations, McKenna's admissions actually served to cover up the many other ways in which Canada performs as a major, team player on "missile defense." However, McKenna was at least admitting one significant Canadian contribution to the project, and that is one more contribution than was generally being acknowledged by the media. In the context of almost complete and total denial that Canada was engaged in any way whatsoever, McKenna's innocent comments were like a profound admission of guilt, and they caused a media frenzy... In response to the media swirl around McKenna's frank observations, the public, which is generally unsympathetic to Canadian involvement in multi-billion-dollar U.S. wars and weapons schemes, was truly shocked. After being bombarded with such a constant barrage of misstatements, disinformation and lies emanating from government officials intent on covering up Canada's hypocritical support for "missile defense" weapons programs, McKenna's admission seemed astounding... In reality, the change to the NORAD-treaty had not been much of a secret at all, although the media had been hoodwinked by Kergin's misleading caveat and therefore played down Canada's new "missile defense" duties. Nevertheless, Canada's NORAD-connection to "missile defense" was far enough out in the open that the McKenna story should not have caused the eruption of such a firestorm. Canada was, and clearly still is, in denial about its role in "missile defense." (Back) (Home) 20. What's Left (The following article is from the August 1-31/2005 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, Canada, V5L 3J1.) VANCOUVER, BC Adala Picnic!  Meet Adala members and fellow Canadian-Arabs while enjoying the sun, fine foods, games and music, 2 pm to sunset, Sunday, July 31, Jericho pond (4th Ave. between Wallace and Discovery). 110th Birthday Party - for PV builder Peter Marcus (turning 60) and Margaret Sutherland (50), 3-9 pm, Monday, August 1, Trout Lake Park picnic area. Under the Volcano - 13th annual festival of arts and activism, 12 noon, Sunday, Aug. 7, Cates Park, North Vancouver. Visit the People's Voice display! Nuclear Weapons and War -  7:30 pm, Thursday, Aug. 11, Vancouver Public Library, forum with UBC Professor Michael Wallace on "Failure of the anti-nuclear weapons negotiations and the dangers of war," and Mordecai Briemberg on "Depleted Uranium: what it is and where it's used". Organized by StopWar.ca, 604-298-9638. TORONTO, ON Traditional Taste of the Danforth  - August 5-6-7, including food at the GCDO Hall, 290 Danforth Ave. Rally against occupation of Palestine  - every Friday, 5-6 pm, picket at the Israeli Consulate at Avenue Road/Bloor West. Organized by Jewish Women Against the Occupation and Coalition for Just Peace in Palestine. ST.  CATHARINES, ON  Celebration of Don Quinn's life - PV readers are invited to celebrate the life of brother Don Quinn, who passed away recently, 2 pm, August 10, CAW Local 199 Hall, 124 Bunting Road. MONTREAL,QC Vigil against occupation of Palestine - every Friday, noon to 1 pm, at Israeli Consulate, corner of Peel and Rene Levesque. For info: Palestinians and Jews United, 961-3928. (Back) (Home)

sitemap