War criminals are not welcome in Canada (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 by Central Executive Committee, Communist Party of Canada, Nov. 22, 2004 Joining with all those who stand for peace, global justice and Canadian sovereignty, the Communist Party urges massive protests during George W. Bush's state visit to Ottawa on Nov. 30-Dec. 1. The Republican victory in the U.S. election was a blow against the American people, and humanity as a whole. But the struggle to prevent new round of imperialist war continues. This is not a time to applaud the would‑be Emperor ‑ it is a moment to demand that Bush be indicted for war crimes, in particular the illegal invasion of Iraq, which has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths.      Bush and his cronies began plotting wars of aggression long before September 11, 2001, in order to cement U.S. domination of the entire globe. His Administration has repeatedly lied to the United Nations and the peoples of the world, while unleashing the so‑called "war on terror" against democratic rights and freedoms. They aim to expand their global military‑political offensive against the U.N. and international law, and against countries such as Iran, the DPRK (North Korea) and socialist Cuba. While beating the war drums against so‑called "rogue states", the Bush regime has moved to implement the dangerous "Star Wars" scheme and to destroy important arms control treaties. It gives full support to Israel, which ignores U.N. resolutions and international law to maintain its occupation of Palestinian territories.      But all is not lost. U.S. forces are tied down in the quagmires of Afghanistan and Iraq, and anti‑imperialist sentiment is gathering strength across the planet. In fact, the majority of the world views the United States itself as a "rogue state" ‑ the main threat to global peace and security. Not least, the Administration faces a mighty movement of labour and people's forces which came together during the U.S. election to mobilize against the extreme Right. These forces will build during Bush's second term, just as opposition to the Vietnam War grew even more powerful after the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.      The U.S. drive for domination includes increased pressures on Canada to "harmonize" economic, resource, immigration, customs, security foreign and defence policies. One Republican senator has just proposed legislation to keep the billions of dollars in trade tariffs imposed illegally on Canadian softwood lumber producers, and plans are underway to divert vast amounts of water from the Great Lakes to U.S. industries.      One key item on this agenda is Missile Defence, aka "Star Wars 2." Although a majority of Canadians oppose this project, the Martin government has already approved Pentagon access to radar sites on Canadian soil. Fortunately, the strength of public opinion can still force Parliament to reject Canadian participation. But the Canadian ruling class ‑ represented by both the Martin Liberals and the opposition Conservatives ‑ intends to deepen the assault on what remains of Canadian sovereignty. In the wake of the US election, the key issues facing our country include the struggles against Missile Defence, the FTAA trade deal, the drive by transnational capital to privatize healthcare, education and other social programs, and the sellout of our resource wealth.      This attack must be countered by demands for an independent Canadian foreign policy based on peace, disarmament and global justice, and for policies which put people before profits. The responsibility for leading this battle falls squarely on the shoulders of the labour movement, the anti‑war forces, the Aboriginal peoples, the movements of women, students, and seniors, environmental groups, and all other progressive and democratic forces.      Through unity and struggle we can win these battles. The next step in this resistance is mass defiance of the US Empire during Bush's visit, both in Ottawa and every other major city, followed by stepped‑up campaigns against Canadian participation in Missile Defence. On the weekend of March 19‑21, 2005, Canadians will join millions of demonstrators around the world on the second anniversary of the illegal US/UK occupation of Iraq. The Communist Party of Canada will do everything possible to help build this powerful mass movement for peace and global justice!   (Back) (Home) Solidarity in struggle (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.)    Greetings to B.C. Federation of Labour delegates, Labour Bureau, Communist Party of Canada‑BC IT HAS BECOME general practice for the B.C. Federation of Labour to describe its conventions using a slew of adjectives such as "historic", "inspiring", "great", "outstanding", and "landmark." Without waiting for the final gavel to come down, WE would suggest that none of the above descriptions will fit the upcoming convention, nor have they fit BC Fed conventions of the past for quite some time.      What could begin to happen is a redefinition of trade unionism as a bottom‑up process ‑ a trade unionism that stresses the class struggle nature of its existence, while giving due recognition to the legal capitalist property relations that encumber its activities.      Consider two recent major trade union responses to capitalist restrictions on workers withholding their labour. First, in Newfoundland, where the government workers' unions confronted back-to‑work legislation, threats of jail and fines, but nevertheless responded with "We're staying out until our demands are met!" And this they did for two long months, winning a major victory ‑ no fines ‑ no jail sentences.      Second, in BC, where after two years of the Campbell government assault ‑ tearing up of union agreements, massive slashing of jobs and huge wage cuts - the labour movement and the communities rallied up behind the savaged Hospital Employees' Union. As a response, the BC Federation and the NDP cut a deal, which hung the hospital workers and their supporters out to dry.      On the east coast, the workers were ready to fight, and their leaders were with them. On the west coast the workers were also ready to fight, and they were told to go back to work, and vote for the NDP next year. We see two kinds of unionism, and two kinds of leaders.      In Newfoundland, the union leaders didn't hide behind any political party. They demonstrated confidence in their membership and maintained an implicit grasp of the role of mass action and political struggle against the government and their employers.      In BC, the leaders of the trade union movement, and the NDP (who are often one and the same) revealed their fear of the workers in action, and showed their conceit that they alone understood the complex nature of labour relations. To them, struggle boils down to pitting their great wisdom against the bosses, the government, the courts, et al. The idea of the workers as a whole pitting their strength against a foe of such power is unthinkable to them.      Instead, they utter the refrain "just vote for the NDP come election time and everything will be solved." Well, it won't. Past experiences have proven this.      Of course it makes a difference whether the big business parties, or the NDP, or a coalition of progressive forces is elected. The main difference is in the distribution of social capital. But the NDP has shown time and again that they are neither equipped, nor prepared to face up to the owners of capital, the giant corporations who control the essential elements of our existence: who works where, at what wages, what hours, under what safety regulations, etc. These are matters for which workers organize unions to counterpose their power as producers of wealth against the expropriators of the wealth they produce.      To continue to allow the NDP to exert such a major influence over workers' organizations is unacceptable. It helps neither the unions, nor the NDP. Unions need to sever their contractual relations with the NDP and pursue a policy of independent labour political action. How much longer we continue to knock our heads together over the process of establishing such a labour and people's party will depend on the workers themselves, but it seems credible to suggest that events over the past few years, together with the accumulated experience of the working class and progressive movements in Canada, are etching out the solutions to this dilemma.      Maybe, just maybe, we should suggest that the headquarters of the Canadian Labour Congress be switched from Ottawa to say, Windsor, or Halifax. Perhaps this would help guard against such outrageous outbursts on NAFTA and free trade as uncorked by CLC President Ken Georgetti on Sept. 22.      Ottawa does strange things to people. A combination of the pompous grandeur of Parliament Hill combined with the endless presence of corporate lobby hacks tends to flatten out the earth. Ken Georgetti, who fancies himself an expert compromiser, has probably compromised himself out of a job. This time, he has compromised the entire labour and people's movement, and stepped firmly into the area of class collaboration. Perhaps a change of environment for his successor might serve to avoid similar debacles.      In the end, however, there is absolutely no substitute for a firmly imbedded understanding of the primacy of class struggle trade unionism, and class struggle politics for those who aspire for the leadership of the labour movement.        With all of these things happening, combined with the denial of Canadians of a majority government, one gets the feeling that both capitalist parties, represented by the Liberals and Conservatives, and the labour parties, represented by the NDP, are in a state of degeneration.      Change is knocking on the door. Will this convention give some impetus to the process? That will depend more on the actions from the floor, than the head table. (Back) (Home) Stelco chess game drags on... (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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   IN HAMILTON, Canada's largest steelmaker, Stelco, is reporting record profits while unabashedly screwing its workers, creditors and shareholders. This is because Stelco is under bankruptcy protection, as reported here several times.      In November, the drama took another twist when General Motors announced it was withdrawing from 2005 purchasing because Stelco had not secured a guarantee from the Union that there would be no strikes to interrupt the supply. Also in the news was an offer for financial re‑structuring from Deutsche Bank, Stelco's major bond/debt holder that sets a minimum for all the other courtiers (Russian, Swiss, Dutch and American) to top.      This whole fiasco is as phony and transparent as a three dollar bill. The Canadian Courts allow a big capitalist enterprise, with a hundred times as many assets as debt, to screw the smaller capitalist suppliers, tamper with collective labour agreements, cheat its shareholders, and conspire with its major financial institution, Deutsche Bank, to set the pace for an offshore sale.      What seems like an obvious necessity - dealing with its workers and pensioners - doesn't even seem to be on the agenda, thus the withdrawal of General Motors with Daimler Chrysler and Ford waiting in the wings. So we just lost ten percent of our business, ho hum, what do our masters in Bonn say today?      The only credible part of this story are the Steelworkers, in three Locals, who have been stubborn and consistent in representing their members and the welfare of the Canadian public. If the Steelworkers can come out of this fight holding the line and protecting what they have established over several generations it will be a big accomplishment. If they are successful in gaining for their members and pensioners it will be a credible and historic victory.      To understand this it is necessary to look south of the border.  After re‑organizing, retooling and refinancing under bankruptcy protection, screwing workers and pensioners by the thousands, the present U.S. steel Industry stands firmly and solidly on the impoverishment and broken dreams of aged retired Steelworkers bereft of pensions and medical benefits.      These are the stakes that three Local Presidents are dealing with. So far they are playing the game solidly and with the kind of militancy that people in Hamilton expect of their trade union reps.      Unfortunately, the largest steelmaker in Canada will probably be under foreign ownership when the smoke clears. The Steelworkers want a say on the future sale, and that is the only representation the Canadian public will get, but it is a hard demand to win. We should all contact them and pay our respects. They deserve it.      The Kings of European and American Imperialism are eyeing each other over Canadian resources, the Castles are jockeying for position and the Rooks are slithering obliquely across the board. But the whole game is unpredictable because the Pawns won't move and refuse to be used any longer.      As always, good luck to the Steelworkers, keep fighting brothers and sisters! (Back) (Home) Stelco shafts workers and communists (The following editorial is from the December 1-31/2004 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 bosses at Canada's largest steelmaker are making no effort to protect their workforce and the wider community.    Stelco had asked the Steelworkers' Local 8782 to provide "assurances" so that it could retain its business with General Motors. The union says that the company agreed to a Nov. 21 meeting to finalize an understanding that would address concerns regarding proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the proposed deal with Deutsche Bank.      When Stelco failed to show up, the union provided the company and Deutsche Bank with written documents providing the requested assurances to GM and addressing the union's concerns. But by GM's deadline, Stelco had not responded to the union's document. As Steelworkers' National Director Ken Neumann said, "We throw Stelco a lifesaver and they throw it back." Local 8782 President Bill Ferguson pointed out that "Stelco is still unwilling to accept our role in this restructuring process. It makes you wonder whether they ever had any intention of resolving these issues."      As Karl Marx wrote in his classic Capital, "The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what the capitalist aims at." Clearly, the Stelco bosses have decided that there are better ways to reap quick profits than by making steel, even if that means destroying the futures of thousands of steelworkers, and crippling the economy of the Hamilton region. But the working class will not crawl away and surrender. Sooner or later, the struggle to limit the so-called "rights" of big capital will succeed, at first with reforms, and ultimately with a revolutionary new economic system based on social ownership of productive wealth by the class which creates all profit. (Back) (Home) United Aircraft strike commemoration a big success (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) PV Quebec Bureau   OVER 400 PEOPLE, mostly union activists, took part in a special Nov. 12 commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the historic United Aircraft strike in Montreal. The event honoured 34 workers who lost their jobs fighting to save their union, CAW Local 510. Held at the Medley de Montréal, the hugely successful commemoration was jointly organized by Local 510 and La Voix du Peuple, the French-language sister publication of People's Voice; the two organizations split the proceeds.      The CAW director from that time, Bob Dean, as well as Fernand Daoust, the QFL general secretary from the 1970s, were among the guest speakers who called the United Aircraft struggle the most important and significant strike ever waged in Quebec history.      Beginning early in 1974, the strike culminated dramatically during the night of May 12, 1975, when more than fifty strikers (along with some radio news reporters) occupied United Aircraft plant No. 2 in order to get rid of the scabs, while more than 2,000 construction workers took care of police and armed company security guards.       Thirty-four of the strikers who had managed to get into the plant were later encircled and badly beaten by special anti‑riot squad police called in by Quebec Justice minister Jerome Choquette. In less than two weeks, the QFL called the first 24 hour general strike in Quebec history. More than 100,000 workers walked off the job in response.      The major issue in the strike was the right to have a union, since the company had stated publicly that it would never negotiate with the union. Other issues involved wages and pensions.      As one of the workers put it, "that strike was like real war." The top United Aircraft manager at the time had previously been a high-ranking US military officer, while the No. 2 manager came from the CIA. United Aircraft (now called Pratt & Whitney) is a subsidiary of the US giant United Technology.      The strikers' victory, in August 1975, made it possible to gain two major additional breakthroughs: the inclusion of the Rand formula within the Quebec Labour Code (many years later than the rest of Canada) and the anti‑scab law.      The Nov. 12 commemoration began on a rather difficult note, when a major power shortage in downtown Montreal left the hall in a complete blackout‑out for more than 15 minutes. An electric generator was used to provide minimal lighting and a mobile sound system, but the first keynote address by La Voix editor Andre Parizeau had to be done without any sound system. Pointing out similarities between the 1970s and today, Parizeau got the first of many standing ovations during the evening.      Other guest speakers who paid tribute to the famous strike were current QFL President Henri Masse, Luc Desnoyers (the current CAW Director), Jean‑Marie Gonthier (the secretary‑treasurer of Local 510 in the 1970s), and Manon Perron, secretary-treasurer of the CNTU Montreal Labour Council.      The most emotional moment came when 18 out of the "34" came up for a special tribute, along with several union leaders and well-known Quebec singer Raymond Lévesque, who wrote two popular songs at the time of the strike, "Les militants" ("The militants") and "Quand les hommes vivront d'amour" ("When mankind will live in peace"). Today Raymond Lévesque is deaf and cannot sing anymore, but his daugther, Marie‑Marine Lévesque, also came on stage and sang the two songs. Meanwhile pictures of the strike were displayed on two huge screens, on each side of the platform.      Speaking on behalf of the "34", Jean‑Marie Gonthier from Local 510 especially pointed to the contributions and sacrifices of the strikers' wives during the struggle.      Fernand Daoust emphasized that the whole QFL must be deeply grateful to these 34 men, because the federation would never have built itself into today's position without their sacrifices. None of the 34 were ever allowed to go back and work for United Aircraft. That was actually a non-negotiable issue on the part of the company when it finally settled with the union.      In a clear reference to the feasibility of moving onto a similar path today, Daoust noted that it took less than two weeks for the QFL to launch a province-wide 24 hour general strike. On that same issue, QFL President Henri Masse clearly stated that the QFL would not let the 8,000-strong CUPE Local 301 go down. Local 301, which represents Montreal civic workers, is currently under heavy attack, and parallels may be drawn between events 30 years ago and the situation facing Local 301 today.      Earlier, Bob Dean had stressed that if labour throughout the world could reproduce for 24 hours the kind of solidarity seen during the United Aircraft strike, it would have tremendous impacts everywhere. The U.S.-based United Auto Workers' leadership of that time actually cut off strike benefits to the workers, but Local 510 continued to receive millions of dollars from unions and from rank and file members across North America, including from within the UAW.      Well known left-oriented university teacher, Leo‑Paul Lauzon, made a special presentation about the political and economic situation in Quebec and around the world. He spoke against the pro-corporate agenda of local politicians, gave his support to the international campaign for abolition of the death penalty, and made a special plea in support of Cuba's fight to safeguard its Revolution. Wearing a "Cuban 5" t‑shirt, Lauzon introduced the Montreal Cuban consul, as well as Georgina Chavaux, a Central Committee member of the Communist Party of Cuba, in charge of that party's international relations for North America.      The evening began with a minute of silence to salute the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. A number of well-known Quebec artists performed, including Yves Lambert and blues singer Karen Young.      Trade unionists travelled as far as from Quebec City for the event. Walls inside the hall were decorated with CAW flags and a big La Voix du Peuple banner. As well as the CAW, many unions had reserved tables, including CUPE, UFCW, CUPW, CNTU, and the QFL's Montreal Labour Council. (Back) (Home) Mobilize to reject space warfare (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 Darrell Rankin, Chair, CPC Peace and Disarmament Commission   IN VARIOUS WAYS, most Canadians realize that with George W. Bush in the White House, it is even more important for Canada to exercise an independent policy of peace and disarmament. Despite efforts by the Martin Liberal government to assure people to the contrary, they realize that Missile Defence is a dangerous strategy by U.S. imperialism for world domination relying on weapons in space.      Unity and immediate action of people's movements are the only way to block Martin from signing on to this scheme. The danger should invoke opposition by the entire labour and people's movements in Canada, representing Aboriginal peoples, Quebec people's movements, youth and students, women and others.      The Canadian Labour Congress and Quebec labour centrals must work in common cause, and raise the alarm in the global people's movements about the danger posed by U.S. Missile Defence. That would be a genuine peoples' foreign policy, as opposed to the appeasement to U.S. imperialism sought by Paul Martin's cabinet ministers.      Defence Minister Bill Graham could not be more wrong to argue that Canada - itself an imperialist country ‑ will pay a heavy economic and political price if it does not support Missile Defence. After what Graham said, it would be hard to believe that the United States government is a genuine friend and ally of Canada. Would it not be better for Canada to reject U.S. aggressions and military preparations, and promote a return to arms control and disarmament treaties?      Other ministers say that joining Missile Defence will give Canada a "seat at the table" and influence the U.S. military. But if we take Paul Martin at his word that Canada will not spend money on Missile Defence, this is a worthless calculation. What really matters is that Canadian people want nothing to do with U.S. Missile Defence, or any government in Ottawa that supports it.      A decision in favour of Missile Defence would deal a heavy blow to the view that Paul Martin has a "progressive" government platform, one he advanced to defeat the far‑right Conservative Party earlier this year. Already his promised public review of foreign policy is being ignored.      People should have a greater say in Canada's foreign policy, and they should not have to listen quietly as Prime Minister Paul Martin makes one important decision after another all on his own. And in fact workers and people's movements in Canada are joining the global opposition to U.S. imperialism and its war drive.      Mass mobilizations in 2003 forced Ottawa to adopt an official policy not to participate in an illegal and imperialist U.S.‑led war on Iraq. Canadians continued their resistance in 2004 with the election of a Liberal government that appeared to promise more of the same, and at the same time dealing a heavy blow to the pro-imperialist Conservative Party (which lost 850,000 votes compared to the combined PC/Reform Party vote in 2000).      What takes place outside Parliament now on the issue of Missile Defence will crucially affect how Parliament will decide the issue. The mobilizations against war and weapons in space are demonstrating that Ottawa can ignore public opinion only at its expense, and that it is time to build support for a genuine policy of peace and disarmament for Canada. (Back) (Home) NFU warns against corporate takeover of seed system (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) PV Vancouver Bureau THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION warns that proposed changes to the Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) Act are part of a larger seed system overhaul that will heap restrictions and costs onto farmers.      On Nov. 8, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) proposed PBR Act changes to bestow new "rights" on transnational seed companies. At the same time, new PBR legislation might give farmers a limited, short‑term "privilege" to save and re‑use their own seed.      "Talk of Monsanto's `rights' and farmers' `privilege' is offensive and it turns reality on its head," said NFU Vice-President Terry Boehm at a Nov. 17 news conference in Saskatoon. "The protection from competition we grant to these corporate non-persons is a privilege, granted so that we, as citizens, may realize certain outcomes for the public good. The monopoly protection in our PBR and patent acts is not a corporate right. And saving and re‑using seed is not a farmer privilege."      The CFIA's proposals would increase seed companies' royalty collection period, most likely to 25 years, from the current 18 years. This would dramatically increase farmers' seed costs.      The proposals would create a "cascade right," giving seed companies the right over harvested material. Essentially, rights-holders could demand payment when a crop was sold, allowing seed companies to implement a system where farmers are forced to pay royalties every year on their own farm‑saved seed.      The "cascade right" creates a reverse onus on farmers.  Currently, seed companies and other rights‑holders need to catch a farmer in the act of selling a protected variety in order for the rights‑holder to obtain compensation. Under the CFIA's proposal, if a rights‑holder established that its variety was growing in a field, it would be up to the farmer to prove that he or she legitimately obtained the seeds and paid royalties (or grew the crop as a subsequent generation from royalty paid seeds).      While current PBR legislation restricts the "sale" of protected varieties, the CFIA's proposals would also prohibit the cleaning and "stocking" of protected varieties. "Stocking" means seed saving.      These are the legislative changes that seed companies need to move to a system where farmers are prevented from saving and reusing seed, and are forced to pay royalties every year on farm-saved seed.      The CFIA and the seed industry claim that farmers' rights to save seed will be protected by granting farmers a exemption or "privilege" to save and reuse seeds on their own farm. But with each passing year, patents, contracts, and new versions of PBR increasingly restrict farmers' rights to their own seeds. Given this clear trend, any temporary farmer "privilege" would be eroded.      "Farmers who have watched as patents, contracting, and Plant Breeders' Rights laws have increasingly restricted our rights will know that any farmer `privilege' is only a temporary concession."said Boehm. "Farmers need to draw a line in the sand and say a resounding `no' to any further restrictions on our traditional practices of seed usage."      Farmers and others have less than 60 days to comment on the proposed changes, which are posted on the internet: www.inspection.gc.ca. (Back) (Home) Condolences on the death of Yasser Arafat (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 Communist Party of Canada expresses its deep sorrow on the death of Yasir Arafat, who for forty years symbolized and led the Palestinian people's struggle for national liberation, justice and statehood. Arafat dedicated his life to the cause of his people's freedom and to the end of the cruel and illegal occupation of Palestinian lands seized in 1948 and 1967.      Arafat never wavered in his search for a just solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. He rejected terrorism as a path to national liberation. As the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the President of the Palestinian Authority, he officially recognized Israel's right to exist within secure borders.      His support for the right to resist the Israeli occupation and his refusal to give up East Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return earned him the hatred of the Israeli government and its main ally, U.S. imperialism.      As U.S. imperialism moves to control and plunder the entire Middle East region and increases its support for the Israeli government, the Communist Party of Canada pledges to expand its efforts to build solidarity with the Palestinian people.      The Communist Party condemns the Government of Canada's imperialist policies that support the occupation, such as the export of pre‑fabricated housing for illegal settlements and neutrality towards the illegal wall built by Israel in occupied territories.      We join with all peace‑supporting forces, including within Israel itself, who support a two‑state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and implementing relevant United Nations resolutions.      We offer our deepest condolences to the family and comrades of President Yasir Arafat and express full support for the liberation of the Palestinian people. (Back) (Home) "Men along the shore!" (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 Rod Doran, retired Longshoreman “Men along the shore!” That was the call from sailing ships in North American ports. When the ships' crews, who normally loaded and unloaded the cargo, needed additional hands, they called for men along the shore. As the vessels changed from sail to steam, the crews could no longer handle the increase in cargo A steady supply of labour was needed on the docks. Men along the shore became known as “longshoremen,” no longer the occasional drifters looking for work. Long shoring became a livelihood for the men along the shore. Workers would gather at the docks, and the bosses would send their agents to pick the ones needed for that day. It was extremely hard work. Those who had difficulty keeping up to the gruelling pace were fired and told not to come back. Others who complained or would not pay the “kick back” to the foremen would not be picked. Like other unorganized and viciously exploited workers, they were compelled by necessity to band together for their own protection. The struggle for union recognition was a long and bloody one. Company “unions” with sweetheart agreements on wages and conditions were prevalent for many years. Led by ex-seaman Harry Bridges, the longshore workers in San Francisco rebelled against the company unions and cruel exploitation. In 1934 the workers fought against strikebreakers. They were clubbed and attacked by armed police. Four longshoremen lost their lives in the vicious struggle for union recognition. The population of San Francisco came out in support of the longshoremen after the workers were killed. The port was shut down and nothing moved across the docks. The main demand of the strike committee was achieved: recognition of the Union and the dispatch of workers through the union Hiring Hall. This put an end to the company “shape up” that selected workers. It was through this bloody struggle that the International Longshoremen and Warehouseman's Union was able to organize the major ports on the west coast of the U.S. And Canada. It became an example of a rank and file, democratic, militant union that fought to improve wages and working conditions for its members. The longshoremen in British Columbia suffered a bitter defeat in 1935. After a lockout, the importation of scabs, and attacks by mounted police on union picket lines, the strike was eventually broken. When the ILWU eventually came in to organize in B.C., it immediately established the Union Hiring Hall to replace the company selective system. A casual worker's first day on the waterfront will receive the same rate of pay as a union member with twenty years seniority. Union membership is determined the availability of work and the need to bring home a living wage. Workers, union and casual, are dispatched through a rotation system that equalizes the work opportunity. Those who stick around and are prepared to go to work will eventually work their way up through the casual boards and into Union Membership. It was a tough grind, but it did produce a core of skilled workers and some excellent union leaders here and in the United States. As the needs of the waterfront changed, the union was able to supply skilled men and women for the industry. Now a sinister trend of governments injecting themselves into the affairs of unions has reached an alarming level of involvement, over and above the powers that they already wield under the various Labour Codes. The Federal government has now injected itself into the registration of casuals on the waterfront, creating a bureaucratic nightmare that has severely disrupted normal process of building and replenishing the workforce. If that were the only intervention, the union would eventually sort it our. Under the West Coasts Ports Continuation Act, the Federal Government has ordered waterfront workers back to work when they exercised their right to withdraw their labour in conformity with Federal Labour Code. They have imposed collective agreements by compulsory arbitration on our membership. Harsh penalties against the union officers and its members would be imposed for refusal to obey. In the early '60s, the ILWU Canadian Area Officers and the President of each local were jailed for refusing to carry out a court injunction and a court order. Recent actions of the B.C. Legislature and the B.C. Courts include attacks on the Ferry workers and imposition of a contract wit6h wage rollbacks on the overworked, underpaid health workers. These are not isolated events. It is part of a national and international attack on working people The governments are only the agents and instrument of these attacks. It is the huge multi-billion dollar transnational corporations that are orchestrating this sinister campaign. A continuation of this trend, unopposed, could bring about the fascist Corporate State envisaged by Mussolini, or the “Big Brother” scenario from Orwell's novel, 1984. Alarm bells should be sounding throughout the labor movement over the importation of the U.S. Patriot Act into our Canadian Ports. The need to fight terrorism is the excuse. If anyone swallows that line, I would like to show them my real estate listing for the Lions Gate Bridge. President Bush revealed the real target when he ordered the west coast longshoremen back to work in 2002, referring to them as economic terrorists. The Federal government, complying with US demands, has established the Marine Transportation and Security Act. Under this Act a program called Marine Facilities Restricted Area Access Clearance Program is being launched. Phase One of the program is to be implemented in the Ports of Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax. Who knows what will be contained in Phase Two? Workers not approved and given clearance under this plan will be cut from those areas where the bulk of the work is performed. According to Transport Canada, clearance would consist of checking Canadian Police Information Record, fingerprint-based criminal record, Credit Bureau check, CSIS, Canadian Security Assessment, and the criminal database of the RCMP. The Local 500 ILWU Bulletin states that they are also looking for skin complexion, where you were born, any vacation outside North America, school records, parents and in-laws, but not restricted to the above mentioned items. Necessary security could easily be maintained by re-establishing the Vancouver Port Police replaced by Pinkertons some years ago. An example of this attack by the large shipping and container cartels is contained in the current issue of the union's international publication, The Dispatcher. It reports on the situation in Rotterdam, the largest container port in the world. When it was shut down by dock workers, the Dutch government announced its intention to not abide by the International Labour Organization's Convention 137, which established basic protection for dock workers. The Rotterdam dockers compelled their government to abandon its plan, and forced the government to enact those provisions into law. We are indebted to the Rotterdam dockers. Had the Dutch government succeeded, other major nations would have soon followed their example. ILWU Canadian Area is contesting this security program for the docks. When it comes to CSIS, we will find that their activities cannot be contested in our courts. What is happening on the docks has implications for all labour and democratic institutions. The workers in our ports must be supported in their resistance to this insidious scheme. Again workers are faced with the prospect of their hard won gains being torn from them by big business-controlled parliaments and legislatures. But I know from my experience on the waterfront, that workers will find ways to resist this Patriot Act Plan if the legal challenge fails. The age old task of combining the economic with political struggle is still before us. Working people and their allies have still not found a way to break the control that big business corporations exercise over our political institutions. No doubt much of the debate at the B.C. Federation of Labour will address this question. Eventually a way will be found, for the same reason that “men along the shore” found a way to break the company “shape up.” They were compelled to do it. All success to your deliberations at the Fed Convention. (Back) (Home) No time for politeness (The following editorial is from the December 1-31/2004 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 the days leading up to George W. Bush's state visit to Ottawa, the corporate media and all-wise talking heads on our BV screens seemed utterly fixated on one single question: how would members of Parliament “behave” when the President gave his order? Their pleading calls for “politeness” ring hollow indeed, given that millions of Canadians agree with world public opinion that the United States is the most dangerous rogue state on the planet. This is no time to be polite. When the most heavily-armed superpower in global history is busy launching wars of aggression, bombing civilians, jailing and torturing “suspects” on the flimsiest of pretexts, preparing to put deadly weapons in space, and ripping up international treaties, it's a time for mass anger, in the streets and on the floor of the House of Commons. When the head of the ultra-right White House clique comes to town, it's time to say, loud and clear, “No way! Stop the attacks on working people! Defend democratic freedoms! Hands off women's reproductive rights! Fight back against racism and homophobia!” Perhaps most important, when our cowardly politicians crowd around to shake Bush's hand and lick his boots, it's time for us to reject Canadian participation in so-called “Missile Defence,” and to demand an independent foreign policy of peace and disarmament. Any MP who puts a higher value on conformity and good manners than on defending the future of our country and our world does not deserve re-election. (Back) (Home) Put the Communist Party on your holiday gift list! (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) A donation to the Communist Party is the best gift you can give for Peace this holiday season. As the US pounds Fallujah, the Communist Party is campaigning across Canada to stop Star Wars, to stop the US war in Iraq, and to win an independent Canadian foreign policy of peace and disarmament. You can help spread this message far and wide with a tax creditable donation, that will generate a tax rebate of 75% on the first $400 donated, a further 50% on the next $350, and another 33.3% on the next $550 donated. In other words: * Your donation of $400 will cost you just $100, because Revenue Canada will grant you a political tax credit of $300 when you file your taxes next spring. * Your donation of $750 will cost you $275, with a political tax credit of $475. * Your donation of $1000 will cost $441.65, with a political tax credit of $558.35. Your donation can help extend the Communist Party's struggles for peace, jobs, democracy and sovereignty long after you've been reimbursed by Revenue Canada. Tax credits ensure that your donation will stretch to three times its face value! Help us reach young workers and students, women and trade unionists, new Canadians and Aboriginal peoples, with the message of Peace and Disarmament! Another world is possible – and necessary! Any donation you can make, from $50 (costing you just $12.50) to $5,000 (costing you $3,108), will strengthen the Communist Party's current campaigns, and our goal of Peace, Progress and Socialism. Thank you for your generous and vital support! (For more information, call the Communist Party's central office at 416-469-2446) (Back) (Home) Cuba and the US dollar (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 Mike Lebowitz The measures announced on Oct. 26 by the Cuban government in relation to the use and circulation of the USD are the latest in a series attempting to deal with the serious problems the Cuban economy faces. Previous measures related to the USD include the removal of US coins from currency two years ago, the removal of the USD last year for inter-firm transactions and restriction of these to the convertible Cuban peso, and the temporary closure in May of stores and the raising of prices in USD by 10-30% for consumer items. The latest decision removes the USD for use now in consumer purchases from businesses beginning Nov. 8, and mandates that subsequent conversion from the USD (but no other currencies) into the convertible peso will carry a 10% tax (thus effectively lowering the value in Cuba of the USD relative to other hard currencies). This tax reflects the risk to Cuba of USD conversion in international transactions. The basic economic factors underlying these measures include the increased cost of importing oil (which presumably is significantly higher than projected in the Cuban national budget), the decline in the USD relative to the Euro and other hard currencies, the continuing problems in production and export prices for sugar and the significant damage done to the Cuban economy as the result of hurricanes. These specifically-economic factors create a major problem in terms of the Cuban ability to import necessities. The immediate and most serious problem, however, is the effect of the Bush government's measures to destroy the Cuban economy. No actions undertaken by the Cuban government can be understood outside the context of the efforts of the US government to end the Cuban Revolution. While the attempt to do away with this “affront” to the US hegemony in the hemisphere has been a continuing policy, no US government has pursued this goal in as unrelenting a manner (regardless of the effects upon ordinary Cubans) and has declared publicly its intention to succeed as has the Bush government. Last April the US government announced restrictions on visits by Cuban-Americans to their families in Cuba and restrictions on remittances to family members sent from the US. Both threatened significant reductions in the flow of USD to Cuba (and to Cuban family members), and these measures were the context for the Cuban response in May which increased the prices of imports. While these U.S. Restrictions have been well-publicized (and are the source of discontent among some Cuban-Americans), they are part of a larger package which includes the fine of $100 million by the U.S. Federal Reserve in May of the largest bank in Switzerland (USB) for transferring US dollar notes to Cuba, establishment of a task force to restrict the flow of foreign currencies to Cuba and the crackdown (including the freezing of its US assets) on SERCUBA, a company that has facilitated the electronic transfer of funds by US residents to Cubans. The purpose of the Bush government in all this is clear: “We are financially isolating SERCUBA to make it more difficult for the Cuban regime to obtain the hard currency it uses to prop up its government,” explained Juan Carlos Zarate, a US Treasury Department official on Oct. 25. Cuba's new response is dramatic: it will have far-reaching effects on daily life, and the decision to pursue it now reveals how seriously the Cuban government views the situation. Removing the USD from use in consumer transactions with enterprises is consistent with the pattern of its previous measures – the need to economise on the USD and to channel the USD money supply exclusively to use in international transactions. It is very rational in this respect to substitute the convertible peso (which has already been serving as a substitute in internal transactions alongside the USD) but which has no value externally. Most likely, the USD will continue to circulate within the domestic economy among individuals but the 10% tax on conversions to the convertible peso after Nov. 8 (and the possibility that this tax could be increased later) should lead to a significant displacement of the USD from domestic circulation and its replacement by the convertible peso. Thus, the concentration of US dollars where they are most important to the Cuban economy will be the result of this response. What will be the effect upon Cubans? At this point we can only attempt to make some reasonable inferences. So long as issue of the convertible peso reflects foreign exchange supplies, insofar as the convertible peso is required for all purchases from Cuban state enterprises the convertible peso should substitute increasingly for the dollar in transactions and as a store of value. Although the dollar is not banned, and is likely to remain to some extent in circulation in personal transactions and in illegal exchanges (e.g., involving stolen supplies), to the extent that confidence in the convertible peso grows, a stable relationship in terms of its use should emerge. (The effective tax on the USD would encourage this.) Thus, all other things equal, the measure should be successful in establishing a new balance over time. However, the immediate effect may be uncertainty and confusion, which will be limited to the extent that the government is successful in assuring the Cuban people that the convertible peso will function as a secure store of value. For most Cubans, demonstration that they can convert the national peso to the convertible peso as in the past (and at comparable rates) at the exchanges outside the agricultural markets will provide important assurance over time. For those fortunate enough to receive regular remittances from relatives abroad, it is likely that the combination of the US restrictions and the new Cuban government measures to restrict and tax the USD (and the encouragement that remittances be sent in other than USD) ultimately will lead to a significant shift to remittances in other hard currencies (e.g. Canadian dollars) which will increase the difficulty of US government monitoring. Those most negatively affected will be people with large stocks of USD that they are hesitant to declare for fear that they will call attention to illegal activities. Where they are unprepared to bring their supplies of USD to the banks for conversion and unable to quickly launder those supplies, they will suffer a 10% loss in USD wealth on Nov. 8. In this respect, the opportunity that the new measures provide for monitoring illegal activity (both in terns of second economy commodity chains which involve stolen state property and also foreign government interference) is obvious. The transition to a new stable situation may not come easily, and there are many opportunities for disruption and uncertainty – both internal and external – because of the particular impact of the new measures. For this reason, it is worth stressing the matter of timing. The acceleration of measures by the Bush government against Cuba reflected, in part, its attempt to win the electoral votes of Florida. The timing of the counter-measures by Cuba may similarly reflect its way of communicating the destructive effects of the Bush policies to all US citizens (but especially Cuban-Americans). Finally, although the new Cuban monetary measures may solve the immediate economic crisis that Cuba faces, so long as US policy continues as it is, these new measures in themselves do little to solve the serious economic problems noted above. Further, every Cuban knows that the re-election of Bush will encourage a further acceleration of the attack on the Cuban Revolution. (Now based in Caracas, the author is Professor Emeritus of the Economics Department at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC.) (Back) (Home) The crimes of Fallujah (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Justice Jackson wrote: “No political or economic situation can justify” the crime of aggression. He also said: “If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United Sates does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” Between 10,000 and 15,000 U.S. Troops with warplanes and artillery have invaded Fallujah. To “soften up” the rebels, American forces dropped five 500-pound bombs on “insurgent targets.” The Americans destroyed the Nazzal Emergency hospital in the center of town. They stormed and occupied the Fallujah General Hospital, handcuffing doctors and patients, in violation of the Geneva Convention... A reporter working for the London Times reported that on his first night in Fallujah, the U.S. Air Force attacked in waves from just after midnight to just after 7 am. “I began to count out loud,” he wrote, “as the bombs tumbled to the ground with increasingly monotonous regularity. There were 38 in the first half-hour alone.” The perimeter of the town is “already largely in ruins. The crumbling remains of houses and shell-pocked walls reminded me of my home town Beirut in the 1980s at the height of Lebanon's civil war...” (Excerpts from a commentary by Marjorie Cohn, executive vice president of the U.S. National Lawyers Guild, who said that the assault on Fallujah is the latest instance of illegal American aggression in Iraq, undertaken with disregard for international treaties and the principles of international law.) (Back) (Home) Lawyers outline Bush war crimes (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) This letter was sent to Prime Minister Paul Martin by Michael Mandel and Gail Davidson on behalf of Lawyers Against the War, a Canada-based committee of jurists and others with members in thirteen countries: Dear Prime Minister Martin: It was with absolute dismay that we learned of the planned visit of President Bush to Canada on Nov. 30, 2004. Surely you are aware of the many grave crimes against humanity and war crimes for which President Bush stands properly accused by the world starting with the Nuremberg Tribunal's “supreme international crime” of waging an aggressive war against Iraq in defiance of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and including systematic and massive violations of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As recently as Nov. 16, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and former war crimes prosecutor Louise Arbour called for an investigation into crimes against the Geneva Conventions in the assault by US forces on the densely populated city of Fallujah. The terrible toll in life and limb of these crimes was documented in a study carried out by the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore and published in the Oct. 29, 2004 issue of the British Medical Journal The Lancet, which conservatively estimated that the war had taken 100,000 Iraqi lives, mostly women and children. This was well within the range predicted before the war, for example by a British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War who, in November 2002, assessed the probable death toll at a minimum of 48,000 deaths, mostly civilians, and predicted that post-war conditions would cost an additional 200,000 lives. The President's responsibility for these offenses derives not only from his “command responsibility” as Commander in chief of US forces, for crimes that he knew were being committed, or ignored through willful blindness, but did nothing to prevent; it also comes from his direct involvement in the formulation of policy. This includes his personal involvement not only in the devising and waging of an aggressive, illegal war, but also the unlawful refusal to grant prisoner of war status to prisoners of war, contrary to specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions, an act repudiated in the US Courts. It also includes the approval of techniques of interrogation by his direct subordinate, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, that legally and morally constitute torture and that led directly to the disgraceful violence against Iraqi prisoners, for example at the prison at Abu Ghraib. As you know, not only are these acts criminal under international law, but many of them are also criminal under Canadian law, under laws enacted in pursuance of our international obligations, most importantly the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, put in place just four years ago under a Liberal government. They also violate the provisions on torture in the Canadian Criminal Code. By these laws, Canadians and non-Canadians alike are liable to prosecution in Canada, no matter where in the world they have committed their crimes. Furthermore, as the Attorney General can advise, the fact that these crimes have been committed by Mr. Bush while President of the United States is absolutely irrelevant to his personal liability to prosecution in Canada, according to principles established at Nuremberg and universally recognized since then, including by the British House of Lords in the Pinochet case in 1999. And if President Bush were to visit Canada after leaving office, we would be seeking the Attorney General's permission under section 9 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and section 7 of the Criminal Code to commence proceedings against him. However, as you also know, should President Bush come to Canada now, while still President, he would be clothed with both diplomatic and head of state immunity from our laws and we would be powerless to bring him to justice. Your invitation in these circumstances, therefore, shows contempt for both Canadian and international law and is a grievous insult to the literally hundreds of thousands of victims of President Bush's international crimes. It is also our belief that the invitation endangers Canadians' security at home and abroad, because it is a departure from our steadfast refusal to this point to participate in this criminal war of the Bush administration. In fact, it is our belief that this invitation can only act as an encouragement to President Bush in his continuing criminal activity, providing him with an important platform in this, his first post re-election foreign visit, to defend illegal US actions in Iraq and to improve his international standing despite them, all this against the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Indeed, we feel bound to point out that your invitation to President Bush may thus constitute an abetting of the crimes he and his administration and military continue to commit. As such you and your colleagues could be personally liable to prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act by virtue of section 21 of the Canadian Criminal Code, for crimes so serious that they are punishable in Canada by up to life imprisonment. Abetting a crime, as the Attorney General will advise, is regarded as equally criminal to actually committing it and is complete when one intentionally, knowingly, or with willful blindness encourages the commission of a crime by another. Nor would President Bush's immunity be capable of shielding you and your colleagues from prosecution, because, as the Attorney General will advise, the immunity applies only to foreign officials visiting Canada and not to members of the Canadian government itself. Nor does the inability to prosecute a criminal affect the criminal liability of an abettor. It is for all these reasons we urgently request a meeting with you, the Foreign Minister, the Attorney General or your representatives in Ottawa, so that we might have the opportunity to elaborate on these matters and to persuade you to declare President Bush persona non grata in Canada, or at least to rescind this invitation, and thus to avoid implicating yourselves and Canada in the most serious of international crimes. (Back) (Home) Majority of Canadians oppose US Missile Defence (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) According to a new survey on one of the most critical issues facing Parliament, a majority of Canadians (52%) oppose involvement in the United States' proposed missile defence system, while 46% are in favour. On a related question, 55% say that participating in the system is not an important international objective for Canada, while 43% agree that it is important. These findings are from the 2004 edition of Portraits of Canada, an annual tracking poll conducted by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada (CRIC). Two provinces stand out in terms of strong feelings for or against. In Quebec, 65% oppose involvement in “missile defence”, while 32% support it. In Newfoundland and Labrador, 66% support it, while 33% are opposed. Reflecting the impact of three years of media fear-mongering since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, 62% of respondents agreed that a common border security policy is a good idea to increase the security of both countries, up from 59% in 2003. Another 36% say this is a bad idea because Canada will have to give the United States some say in our border security policy. Other findings of the survey are somewhat contradictory. For example, 72% of respondents (but only 53% in Quebec) said Canada's involvement with the United States in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) should be an important international objective. On the other hand, the number of those who would like closer ties with the U.S. Has dropped from 44% last year to 34% in 2004, while the number who seek more distant ties has risen from 15% in 2003 to 24% this year. The full poll, including graphics, methodology and additional breakdowns, is available on the CRIC website, http://www.cric.ca. (Back) (Home) Women's issues on Seafarers' agenda (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) An International Transport Federation (ITF) meeting next year will offer women seafarers the opportunity to discuss a range of labour issues;. Due to take place on April 10 in Brazil, the women seafarers' meeting will look at a range of issues including organising women seafarers in the cruise ship sector, gender perspectives in occupational health and safety programmes, family friendly policies as well as a new European code on harassment and bullying. “The meeting will give women seafarers the chance to network and exchange views and experiences. We hope that delegates will also make suggestions about how to improve the women's network for women at sea and the trade union organisation of women,” said Sarah Finke of the ITF Women's Department. For details, contact Sarah Finke at finke_sarah@inf.org.uk. (Back) (Home) Police slaughter Filipino strikers (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) Fourteen people, including two children, were killed on Nov. 16 when police and military dispersed striking workers at the Central Azucarera de Tarlac sugar mill in the Philippines. The children, aged 2 and 5, suffocated when tear gas used by the police and military drifted to their quarters. Two other bodies were found in nearby sugarcane fields a day after the clash. Charges of assault, illegal assembly, inciting to sedition and malicious mischief were being readied against more than 100 strikers, according to media reports. Hundreds of police and soldiers, backed by an armored personnel carrier and several fire trucks, stormed the barricades of the strikers at the main gate of the plantation at 3:20 pm on Nov. 16. The APC was used to ram the gate from inside the sugar mill. Police and military took control of the main gate after initially using teargas and water cannons, then fired live rounds on the strikers. Flor Collantes, secretary general of the militant group Bayan Muna in Tarlac, said soldiers were “zoning" Barangay Motrico, dragging men out of their homes and lining them for arrest. He said elementary school teachers were sending their pupils home because of the continued military operations in the village. About nine more victims suffering from bullet wounds were sent to hospitals in Tarlac City. Leaders of the strike said that 200 protesters were hurt. The protesters belonging to the United Luisita Workers' Union and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union vowed to parade the bodies of the 14 fatalities as a reminder of the police carnage. Ricardo Ramos, Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union president, said the workers regrouped to reclaim their picket lines. “We are not lifting the picket in spite of the casualties we suffered,” said Ramos. The violence at the plantation owned by the family of former President Corazon Aquino was a reminder of deep social inequality in the country. A small number of families still control huge tracts of land despite reforms to extend ownership to tenant farmers. (Back) (Home) Iraq unions condemn Fallujah bombing (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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.) A Nov. 17 statement from the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) says the organization “wishes to make our position on the current bloody chaos in parts of Iraq absolutely clear. Firstly, the IFTY opposes the use of military force against civilian areas, such as the city of Fallujah. “The IFTU believes that a far greater effort needs to be made to negotiate as far as possible, a peaceful ending to the lawlessness, violence and imposition of illegitimate and extreme fundamentalist and totalitarian rule by armed groups in a few Iraqi cities. “We ask the international labour movement to join us in committing ourselves to a just and peaceful future for an Iraq, free from the occupation and from terrorism. We opposed the war, the invasion and the occupation of our country because we knew the deadly consequences which would follow. Those who suffer are, as always, the unarmed civilian population. “Iraq once had the strongest labour movement in the Middle East and some one million people joined the May Day march in Baghdad in 1959. All that may seem far off now as our country is torn apart by the extreme use of military force by the occupying forces, the fanatics, fundamentalists and terrorists. But the IFTU must remain steadfast in its course and to continue to build the forces of civil society, to support democracy, progress and a peaceful future for the Iraqi people.” (Back) (Home) 22 reasons to declare the US a "rogue state" (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement – the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord. The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that “the protocol is dead,” at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence. UN Agreement to curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million), and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.) International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In December 2001 the US Senate added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's “overwhelming military advantage.” He stated that the US would “eventually” comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared “dead” by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US “Echelon” program). Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens. February 2001, refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa. 12. July 2001, International Plan for Cleaner Energy; among G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), the US was the only one to oppose it. October 2004, the UN General Assembly passed its 13th consecutive annual resolution against the US illegal embargo against Cuba, by a vote of 179 to 4 (the US, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands in opposition). Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for “unlawful use of force” in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no). In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the “big four” wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with “curtailment of press freedom,” despite a 148-1 vote in favour of NWICO in the UN. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe. The US has signed but not ratified the l989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several “reservations” to the effect that the US Constitution and the “advice and consent” of the Senate are required to judge whether any “acts in the course of armed conflict” constitute genocide. Foreign aid: The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79%). The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26%) (Back) (Home) Racist welfare laws in Australia (The following article is from the December 1-31/2004 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 Australian government's changes to welfare payments and services to Aboriginal people and communities will amount to “a form of collective punishment imposed on a national minority based on race, and a violation of local and international law,” warns The Guardian, weekly newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia. Parenting, unemployment and other benefits will be made conditional on behaviour requirements which will be enforced via a “smart card” or the withholding of payments or services. This approach “stinks of apartheid” said Aboriginal leader Mick Dodson. “It is racist to expect these rules to apply to Aboriginal people when they do not apply to everybody.” The proposed changes in effect blame Indigenous Australians for their own poverty and social problems, particularly in remote communities. If their behaviour does not comply with the demands of the authorities, they, their families and in some instances whole communities are to be punished. Punishment will be either financial, creating more hardship, or may be in the form of non-provision of services or other assistance. For example, Indigenous parents could lose parenting payments if their children fail to attend school, do not shower daily or have regular health checks. Maintenance work on public housing might only be carried out if the children of families who live there attend school Welfare benefits would be paid through “smart cards”, which store information on spending and could even set electronic limits on what is purchased. There are also proposals that non-monetary payments be given to communities. For example, improved school attendance might result in the provision of a DVD player or the running of movie nights for children who attend school. “Many Indigenous Australians do not have access to jobs, clean water and adequate housing and so their health is poor,” said Australian Council for Social Service President Andrew McCullum. “Withdrawing income support to some parents as a 'stick' to influence behaviour will only mean that extended families have to spread their resources further. This is likely to lead to even worse living standards for Indigenous people.” Communities would be expected to sign”shared responsibility agreements” (SRAs) which will also include work requirements for adults. Examples cited include collecting rubbish from each house twice a week and managing the local rubbish tip. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, said, “I would be deeply concerned if conditions were introduced which place restrictions on access to services for one sector of the Australian community defined by their race. It would be unacceptable for Indigenous peoples to be denied basic citizenship services that all other Australians take for granted.” The Guardian warns that “the concept of 'self-reliance' is based on the false idea that poverty is voluntary, that people are to blame for their poverty, and that the only way to make them self reliant is to take away their welfare. Poverty is not caused by welfare. It is a product of a system that is by its nature exclusive and discriminatory, that is in crisis, that has no solutions for ending unemployment, homelessness, or racism.” The National Indigenous Times published leaked documents on this story, but the issue did not become mainstream news until Nov. 10, when the Australian Financial Review published policy information on plans for Indigenous welfare. The next day the Australian Federal Police raided the offices of the National Indigenous Times with a warrant to seize documents which were embarrassing to the government. But the newspaper had more secret documents it was preparing to publish, said the editor. The new policy adds to the Howard Government's long list of attacks on Indigenous Australians, which includes the destruction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), the gutting of native title and the rejection of the existence of the Stolen Generations. (Back) (Home)