A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY AGAINST BIG BUSINESS PARTIES (The following article is from the July 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.) Election analysis by the Central Executive Committee CPC, June 29, 2004 THE RESULTS of the June 28 federal election reflect a volatile political situation in Canada. The Conservatives were defeated, and the Liberals barely managed to hold onto power, reduced to a minority government, dependent on the support of other parties for survival.      From the outset, it was clear that the election struggle had assumed a defensive character, where the primary question was one of blunting the drive to the right by preventing a Tory victory, preventing either of the Big Business parties a working majority, and expanding the size and influence of other more democratic and progressive parties in Parliament. In this context, the outcome was a significant victory for the working class and the left and progressive forces in the country.      The two parties of big business were hammered by voters, falling from 80% of the total popular vote in 2000 to 68% in 2004. The Conservatives lost over one million votes from the Alliance-Tory totals four years ago, and the Liberals dropped 300,000, mostly in Quebec. On the other hand, the parties seen by voters as defenders of progressive positions made gains; the NDP gained about one million votes, the Bloc Quebecois about 300,000, and the Greens almost half a million.      The first result is that the Martin Liberals were denied a fourth consecutive term as a majority government. Despite Martin's hypocritical posturing as a "progressive" during the campaign, he has led a concerted drive - first as finance minister, and later as an open leadership rival to Jean Chrétien - to shift Liberal policy in a more right, neoliberal direction.      Second, the even more right-wing Conservative Party has been kept from power.      Third, the minority government situation in which the Liberals will have to make certain concessions to opposition parties may open up prospects for the extra-parliamentary forces to exert greater pressure. This could blunt the pro-corporate agenda of the Liberals, and even win certain reforms around issues such as proportional representation, or blocking Canadian participation in Missile Defence and the FTAA. On the other hand, the Liberals may well seek support from the Conservatives on important economic issues where the parties have similar policies.      The Liberal Party suffered the greatest losses at the polls, losing 37 seats and witnessing the defeat of seven cabinet members. Nevertheless, they managed to hold onto a plurality in Parliament with 135 seats.      The Liberals suffered a particularly stinging rebuke in Quebec where voters were angry with the imposition of the Clarity Act and the Sponsorship program, both of which were designed to undermine and ultimately deny Quebec's right to national self-determination. The Liberal Party managed to hold onto only 21 of the 37 seats it held on dissolution, with the remaining 54 seats going to the pro-sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois. BQ leader Gilles Duceppe advanced a social reformist platform during the campaign, playing down its sovereigntist agenda, even when Bernard Landry, the leader of the parent Parti Quebecois suggested that a large BQ vote would pave the way to another Quebec referendum on independence in 2009.      But it was the "new" Conservatives under Stephen Harper who suffered the biggest rebuke from the electorate. Although the merged Conservatives managed to increase their seat totals to 99 - thanks in large part to gains in Ontario - their popular vote actually decreased to 29.6% compared to the combined 37.7% achieved by the Alliance and PCs in the 2000 election.      This is a reflection of the fact that despite the efforts of the Harper Conservatives to soft-pedal and in some cases completely obscure their reactionary, right-wing program, many voters saw through this deception and acted to prevent the Conservatives from achieving control of Parliament. In several provinces - Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and B.C. - the Tories actually lost seats to the Liberals and NDP.      The  results were a humiliating setback for the Alliance-Conservatives, who had hoped to take advantage of popular frustration and anger with the ruling Liberals to slip into power "through the back door." Such an outcome would have opened up an extremely dangerous situation, allowing the Tories to impose their full political agenda, including the destruction of the public healthcare system, the gutting and privatization of the public sector, the systematic attack on democratic and minority rights, and the acceleration of "deep integration" with the U.S. empire, including support for the Bush doctrine of imperialist aggression and war.      The fact that a Tory victory was prevented on June 28 is therefore an important achievement. However, the Conservatives control a large bloc of seats, and it will be necessary for the progressive and democratic forces - inside and outside of Parliament - to counter their reactionary influence on policy and government action.      The results for the New Democratic Party marked an advance, although not nearly as much as its optimistic forecasts. The New Democrats under their new leader Jack Layton mounted an ambitious campaign focussed on pro-environment, anti-war positions, and pledges to defend healthcare, education and the public sector, and bring about electoral reform, including the introduction of some kind of proportional representation.      The NDP platform constituted a small shift to the left compared to previous electoral platforms in 1997 and 2000, and attracted increased support and involvement from the labour and democratic movements. The NDP benefitted from presenting their policies as a dynamic alternative to the big business parties. However, their proposals fell far short of a militant, class-based program for political change which the circumstances require to meet the offensive of finance capital in Canada and imperialism on a global scale.      It is clear that the last-minute decision of many workers and progressive-minded people to act strategically by voting for the Liberals in a bid to block the election of Stephen Harper's Tories also limited the chances of the NDP to make further gains. In the end, the NDP's popular vote rebounded to 15.2% from its dismal 8.5% showing in 2000, but the caucus will only grow by six seats to a total of 19 in the new House.      The Greens also scored some significant advances, building their popular vote to over 4%, but failing to elect anyone to Parliament. The Green Party received a sizable chunk of the "protest vote" of those wishing to express displeasure with the big business parties. The Greens however have shifted their policies sharply to the right, offering tax incentives to "environmentally-friendly" corporations and proposing to cut corporate and income taxes, replacing revenue shortfalls with a highly regressive consumption tax (such as the GST) that would fall most heavily on working people. Tellingly, the largest environmental groups did not endorse the Greens in this election.      The Communist vote was modest in the 35 ridings its candidates contested. This resulted from a combination of factors such as the continuing effect of the undemocratic first-past-the-post system, the corporate media blackout, and lingering anti-communist biases among sections of the people. Mostly, however, a compelling sense of urgency led many left and socialist-minded people to vote strategically to block the Tories and deny the Liberals a functioning majority.      That said, the Communist campaign had an important positive impact, gaining a higher public profile for our Party. The campaign was able to reach out to broader circles of working people, especially progressive labour and youth activists. The party's website received over 3,500,000 hits during the campaign, reflecting growing interest in the policies and perspective of our Party, and new members and supporters were won across the country.      The election results set the stage for a new period of ferocious struggle over such issues as Canada's position on missile defense, the battle over privatization, the FTAA trade pact and moves for further economic, cultural, political, and diplomatic "harmonization: with the U.S., and the direction of foreign and defense policies, to name but a few. While debates around these vital issues will sharpen on Parliament Hill, the decisive field of battle will shift to the streets and workplaces of Canada, to the extra-parliamentary arena of struggle. More than ever, unity of the labour, progressive and popular forces will be the key to blunting the continuing offensive of Big Business and its parties, and shifting momentum in a new direction. (Back) (Home) "HANDOVER DAY" REVEALS FAILURE OF U.S. POLICY (The following article is from the July 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 the Central Executive Committee, Communist Party of Canada, June 29, 2004 THE "HANDOVER OF POWER" which took place in Iraq on June 28, far from being a day to celebrate any success for peace and democracy, marks the failure of US/UK imperialist policy in the region. Fourteen months after President Bush declared "victory", the US and its allies continue to sustain heavy casualties, and thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by the occupation forces. The limited rebuilding of some elements of Iraq's economic and social infrastructure does not undo the terrible damage done by two wars and the intervening years of a crippling embargo. Even top members of the US ruling circles admit that the claims of weapons of mass destruction and of the "links" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were public relations lies. In short, the war and occupation have been a complete disaster, leaving the world a more dangerous place than ever. Continuing this policy will not solve the crisis.      Like many other anti-war forces around the world, the Communist Party of Canada believes that UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which seeks to justify the US war and the occupation of Iraq, has extremely disturbing consequences for the situation in the Middle East and around the world. Once again, the Security Council has been manipulated by the Bush administration, since this "solution" contradicts the UN Charter and legitimizes the illegal war of aggression against Iraq.      Dashing the earlier hopes of many in Iraq that the so-called "transfer of power" would return sovereignty to their country, it is clear that this is at best an illusion. The so-called "interim government" forged by the occupation forces is led by a US puppet, well-known as a CIA collaborator. Opinion surveys show that this government has virtually no credibility among the Iraqi people, even among those who initially adopted a "wait and see" attitude towards the US-led occupation.      Already, this new "Interim Government" has launched a massive security crackdown, bordering on martial law, in order to root out various "terrorist" and other resistance forces opposing the US-led occupation. This shows that the brutality of the occupation will continue under the auspices of the new Iraqi "masters."      Resolution 1546 leaves the key levers of political and military power, including control over the police and military, in the hands of the occupation forces, even though the US was compelled to negotiate some compromises which do not endanger its dominant position. The UN's credibility is further weakened by this process, since its special envoy to Iraq and its General Secretary, Kofi Annan, took part as mere observers. This brazen strategy by the US and its allies reinforces the need for global action to enforce respect for the UN Charter and to democratize the United Nations.      Coming at a time when US imperialism was increasingly isolated due to the growing resistance of the Iraqi people and the revelations of criminal practices in Abu Ghraib and other prisons, Resolution 1546 gives the occupation forces a chance to continue their plans for imperialist domination of Iraq, the Middle East and the world.      The Communist Party of Canada renews its call for the United States, Britain and their allies to completely withdraw from Iraq, and to pay compensation for the destruction caused by their invasion. The people of Iraq must determine their own future, with the assistance of such international bodies as they find suitable, rejecting both occupation and dictatorship, to achieve a truly sovereign, independent and democratic Iraq.      We call for continuation of the anti-war struggle, and the immediate return of the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan. Canada's military involvement in occupied Afghanistan is unjustified in its own right, and helps free the US to maintain larger numbers of troops in Iraq.      We also warn against the ongoing militarist projects of the US, where political leadership is controlled by ultra-right hawks committed to the so-called "Project for a New American Century." The elements of this strategy include the Missile Defence plans which aim to give the Pentagon complete military domination of space, stronger control of NATO, plans to "reshape" the political map of the Middle East, the creation of intervention forces for use in Africa and other regions, and new threats against Cuba, Venezuela, and the liberation forces in Colombia. Driving this imperialist strategy is the goal of intensifying neo-liberal policies, which mean super-profits for the transnational corporations and deeper poverty for billions of people.      The June 28 federal election has resulted in a Parliament where the two largest parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, are both committed to expanded cooperation with the US war machine. It will be up to the peace movement and other progressive forces to use this situation to mobilize mass pressures against such a course. The huge anti-war actions early in 2003 forced the Chretien Liberals to avoid direct participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq. That decision won overwhelming support among the Canadian people, whose peace sentiment remains a powerful factor facing any new government. The Communist Party remains committed to helping to build the broadest possible anti-war movement, in order to put maximum pressure on the new Parliament for an independent Canadian foreign policy based on peace and disarmament, not integration into US imperialism. (Back) (Home) DISTORTED RESULTS IN PARLIAMENT (The following editorial is from the July 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.) AS FAIR VOTE CANADA pointed out in a June 29 news release, "Canadian voters spoke but, once again, the voting system garbled the message."      The results would have been quite different if some type of proportional representation was in effect. For example, if seats directly reflected votes received, the Liberals would have taken about 113 seats, not 135, the NDP would have won 48 seats, not 19, and the Greens would have about 12 seats instead of zero.      Putting it another way, the Bloc Quebecois gained one seat for every 31,000 votes, compared to one per 37,000 for the Liberals, one per 40,000 for the Conservatives, and one per 111,000 for the NDP. The Greens won over 500,000 votes but no seats, while the Liberals received less than 500,000 votes in Atlantic Canada, where they won 22 seats.      Such distortions have fuelled widespread cynicism about electoral politics. Certainly this situation has a very negative impact on the Communist Party, whose policies are highly popular among many voters who know that their ballots are virtually meaningless under the first-past-the-post system.      We urge Canadians to press NDP leader Jack Layton to carry through on his party's pledge to make action on proportional representation a key demand for support to the Liberal minority government. We also call on the new Parliament to remove one of the grossest inequities in the new electoral financing system - the $1.75/vote given to each party which received 2% or more on June 28th. There is no supportable reason for Canadian taxpayers to shell out millions of dollars to wealthy political parties, while small parties get not one nickel. Fairness requires equal treatment for all! (Back) (Home) CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY URGED TO RECOMMEND P.R. (The following article is from the July 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 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform appointed by the British Columbia government held hearings across the province this spring, receiving hundreds of submissions. The initial statement from the 161-member body indicated that it leans towards some form of proportional representation, and the public largely supported such a change. The Assembly will make its recommendations in late October, with any proposals for electoral change subject to a referendum in May 2005. We reprint here parts of a submission by David Lethbridge, a college professor from Salmon Arm, and a member of the BC Committee of the Communist Party of Canada.)      ... I am here before you on behalf of the Communist Party of Canada, BC Committee, to argue in favour of a mixed-member proportional representation system of government.      Our Party has for many years favoured proportional representation since such a system both strengthens and broadens democracy. Nor are we alone in that view.      It is common knowledge, and hardly needs repeating, that a "first-past-the-post" electoral system, such as we currently have in British Columbia, seriously distorts voter preferences. Logically it is possible, under such a system, for Party A to receive 51% of the votes in every riding, while Party B receives 49% of the votes. Despite the fact that the electorate was almost evenly divided between the two parties, the resultant legislature would be composed entirely of members of Party A. Such a system is inherently undemocratic since it necessarily ignores the political tendency of large numbers of its citizens.      Proportional representation, on the other hand, politically values each and every vote. In a mixed-member proportional representation system with, say, 50 electoral ridings, there would be 100 members of the legislature. Fifty would be elected from the ridings in the present first-past-the post method, while the remaining 50 would be elected at large on the basis of a proportional representation of the totality of votes cast within the province. This would give any party with at least 2% of the popular vote at least one member in the legislature.      Under a mixed-member system, voters would not feel as if they were "wasting" their electoral power when they voted for smaller parties since an accumulation of only 2% of votes from individuals across the province, sharing the same party tendency, would lead to their voice being heard in the legislature. Since each vote would tend to count toward some degree of political representation, fewer voters would feel politically disenfranchised, and voter turnout would therefore likely also increase.      No one, however, should be under any illusion that proportional representation, or any similar reform, will in any way deter or restrict the rule of capital. The democratic opening that proportionality represents can only be considered modest at best. Even so, better a modest opening to democracy than no opening at all. But the major and most important issue that remains is the sham of democracy itself under capitalism. The ritual of elections, under the rule of capital, strips power from the people more than it enhances it. The question of true importance here becomes, then: what is democracy? Clearly, democracy can neither be reformed nor improved until it is understood.      The British imperial system was declaring itself democratic when no one but white male landowners could vote; then it declared itself democratic when all white men could vote; then, later still, it declared itself democratic when all men and women - as long as they were white - could vote. So when precisely did the system become democratic? Well, whenever it said it did! It has always been the prerogative of the ruling class to claim, whenever it likes, that it is democratic. After all, who is there to deny them this privilege? It makes no difference whether there is systematic exclusion of aboriginals, or of those who own no property, or of women, or of the working class, or of any other category. Capitalism declares itself democratic on any basis that it prefers, as long as the wealthy exploiting class retains the reins of real power.      Consider the contemporary situation in BC. Certain fast-food chains went to the Liberal Party prior to the election and said, in effect: "Look here. We want to increase our profits. Certainly these profits are already immense, but we want to increase these profits even further by stealing two dollars an hour from our younger workers. So how about it?" And, of course, no sooner is the election concluded than the government obliges and introduces the $6 an hour training wage, under which happy youngsters are trained to say, "Yes, Sir!" and "No, Sir!" and "Thank you, Sir, and would you like those profits super-sized?"      Now such laws, and such corporate pressure, have nothing at all to do with democracy and everything to do with the rule of capital. So let's do away with illusion. As long as capital rules there can be no democracy. There can be elections - as many as you like - but there can not be democracy.      Democracy is not elections. Democracy is the day-to-day practice of working people, both employed and unemployed - who constitute the overwhelming majority of the people - in fighting to increase both their rights and their power. Ultimately, democracy is the exercise of state power by the working class itself - not through the intermediary of largely bourgeois representatives of entirely bourgeois parties.      According to Jack Blaney, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly: "This [the Assembly] really is power to the people." Well, no it's not. The power of the people resides in the governance of the state, or it does not exist. To quote Lenin, "every cook must govern the state." And I repeat: when the cook governs the state, not elects someone to govern it for her! We shall not have democracy until the working class itself is in power; that is to say, when the vast majority of the people hold state power, not when a tiny elite of wealthy big business and corporate entities hold power, as is the case at present.      Finally, if we want to come even a few steps closer to democracy, what is required of the Citizens' Assembly is that they recommend the following four principles: 1. Institute proportional Representation, mixed-member system. 2. Scrap the permanent voters list and return to a new enumeration of voters for each election. Permanent voters lists tend to favour upper-income voters whose residence tends to be permanent, while frequently disenfranchising students, renters, the poor, and those living from low incomes. 3. Lower limits on election spending to curb the inordinate power of the wealthy class. 4. Expanded mandatory media access for all candidates and political parties in order to make equally available the political platforms of all parties. (Back) (Home)  NO TO HEALTH PROFITEERS! (The following editorial is from the July 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.) People's Voice Editorial, July 1-31, 2004 HEALTH CARE EMERGED as a key issue in the federal election campaign, especially after Premier Ralph Klein virtually announced that full-scale private health care was on the agenda for Alberta. That blunder was one of those "shoot yourself in the foot" gaffes which haunt the Conservatives during elections.      But the narrow win by Paul Martin should not lull Canadians into thinking Medicare is safe. The fact is that underfunding by the federal Liberals has encouraged provinces across the country have been allowed to move increasingly towards a two-tiered system.      A new study on health care costs should ring more alarm bells. Published last month in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study finds that Canadian governments would pay an extra $7.2 billion in annual health care costs if Canada switched to investor-owned private for-profit hospitals. The research builds on findings released in 2002 by the same McMaster University research group that revealed higher death rates in investor-owned private for-profit hospitals and kidney dialysis centres in the United States.      "Our previous study showed the profit motive results in increased death rates, and this one shows it also costs public payers more," said Dr. P.J. Devereaux, lead author of the study. "With for-profit care, you end up paying with your money, and your life."      On the campaign trail, many Liberal candidates vowed that their party would block further moves by provinces towards a two-tiered system. But the Liberals may well choose to cooperate with the Conservatives in Parliament on this and other major issues. We must instead demand that Ottawa act now to preserve the principles of the Canada Health Act and to implement the Romanow Commission. (Back) (Home) CELEBRATE LGBT PRIDE, DEMAND FULL EQUALITY! (The following article is from the July 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.) 2004 LGBT Pride Statement, Central Executive Committee CPC, June 27, 2004 AS THE ANNUAL summer of Pride events begins, members and allies of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities across Canada have been through a federal election which saw LGBT rights emerge as a key issue. Since the next Parliament will include both opponents as well as strong supporters of equality, efforts to preserve and expand our victories must be stepped up.      Those victories, the result of years of organizing and education by many individuals and groups, reflect a growing consensus among Canadians that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is no longer acceptable.      Two years ago, a major campaign by queer rights groups and the labour movement helped Marc Hall to bring his boyfriend to a high school prom. And last year, court rulings finally granted same-sex couples the right to civil marriage, tearing down another legal barrier to formal equality rights. This historic victory points the way to a future in which the choice of family forms will be freed from economic and social pressures which make the patriarchal nuclear family the only "acceptable" form in capitalist society.      Other successes have been won recently. Bill C-250, Svend Robinson's private member's bill to add sexual orientation to the included grounds under hate propaganda legislation in Canada, was adopted just before the election. Some progress is finally being made in the struggle to make schools safe for queer and questionning youth. In British Columbia, school boards in Vancouver and other cities have launched important programs to eliminate homophobia in the schools. Even the Surrey School Board has finally allowed some books depicting same-sex parents.      But there are also warning signs of a backlash by homophobic forces, especially around the issues of equal marriage and Bill C-250.      One worrying trend is the conscious targeting of immigrant and religious communities by groups which spread hatred. At this dangerous time, when ultra-right and even fascist forces are using the so-called "war on terror" to promote "racial profiling" as a tactic to strip away civil liberties for the Muslim and Arab communities in North America, we must act on the concept that "an injury to one is an injury to all." Our democratic freedoms can only be protected by standing together, united in diversity against hatred and war.      Not so long ago, Parliament caved in to demands by fundamentalist groups, by voting to define marriage as "a union between a man and a woman," a privilege available only to opposite-sex couples. Many Conservative, Liberal and Christian Heritage candidates promised to back this narrow definition in a "free vote" in Parliament. The federal Liberals asked the Supreme Court for a reference on the issue, pending further debates in Parliament.      During the election, a Conservative supporter physically assaulted a member of Canadians for Equal Marriage - and the shocking response by Stephen Harper was to laugh off the attack as a joke. While the ultra-right Christian Heritage Party has only small pockets of voter support, the CHP openly calls for the criminalization of homosexuality and lesbianism, and even endorses the Old Testament call in Leviticus for gays to be executed.      Homophobia still extends far into the community, as evidenced by the gay-bashing murder of Aaron Webster in Stanley Park, the gay bathhouse raids in Calgary, the ongoing Canada Customs seizures of publications ordered by bookstores which serve the LGBT community.      In the name of "traditional family values," right wing and fundamentalist groups are serving the corporate interests which aim to destroy democratic rights, roll back gender equality, gut social programs, privatize all public assets, splinter the public school system, all in their drive for profits.      This sobering reality must not be forgotten while we celebrate our important legal and political gains. But despite this venom, surveys show that a majority of Canadians in most provinces, especially in younger age groups, agree that marriage should be the right of all people. Equality-supporting Canadians need to keep pressure on politicians, since fundamentalist religious groups are campaigning hard to demand that Parliament use the infamous "notwithstanding" clause to block rescind same-sex marriage rights.      Like racism, sexism, and national chauvinism, homophobia and transphobia are weapons used by the ruling classes to divide working people. Even within the labour and people's movements more work is needed to ensure that defending the rights of LGBT members and citizens is a priority, not an afterthought.      The key to progress lies in building broad coalitions toward a genuine People's Alternative to the neoliberal agenda, based on unity between labour and the popular movements of youth and students, women, seniors, environmentalists, peace activists, the LGBT community, farmers, aboriginal people, immigrants, and many others.      Ultimately, this wider struggle can lead towards full social emancipation and genuine people's power in a future socialist Canada, where our economy will be socially owned and democratically controlled. In such a society it will finally become possible to eliminate all forms of exploitation and oppression, and to defend our sovereignty and protect the environment. This process will help turn hatred and bigotry into relics of the past, and allow us to create a society in which, as Karl Marx wrote, "the free development of each is the condition for the development of all." (Back) (Home) THE MILITANT MINERS OF CUMBERLAND AND CORBIN (The following article is from the July 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.) (From the keynote speech by veteran labour activist Betty Griffin at the 19th Annual Miners' Memorial Day, June 20, 2004, in Cumberland, BC.) Good evening - it's great to be back in Cumberland again to celebrate and honour the heroic coal miners and their families who faced privation in Dunsmuir's Union Camp, Cumberland's original name - an apt one at that. Known as the most dangerous coal mnes on Vancouver Island, 295 miners met death underground and hundreds more were maimed and faced an early death with blackened lungs. Their solidarity in the two-year strike of 1912-14 is unbelievable. When the war of 1914 broke out, the blacklisted miners were cynically told "your king and country need you - we don't".      Deep in the hearts of thousands of workers the opposition to the war grew and found expression in the militant campaign against conscription led by the Socialist Party, which had won three of the twenty seats they contested with the backing of the B.C. Federation of Labour. As you know, the event that ignited all the opposition to conscription and the war was the murder of Ginger Goodwin, a former vice-president of the B.C Federation of Labour, union organizer, and a member of the Socialist Party. As the whole town of Cumberland followed the funeral procession, Vancouver was brought to a standstill in Canada's first general strike.      I want to look at Corbin, another little coal mining town in the Kootenays, a company town in the early 1930s, now a ghost town. The day was April 17, 1935. Two hundred and fifty miners and their wived were lined up on a narrow mountain ledge leading to the mine. Facing theeir picket line were more than 60 provincial police. Behind the police were a number of scabs. But it was the sound that dominated everything else - the ominous rumble of a bulldozer, its blade poised in the air before the picketing miners and their wives.      Corbin was a wretched little place with "... housing conditions unbearable for anyone to live in. Some instances the show blows in through the cracks in the walls, through the doors and window sashes. ... Hardly one of the shacks was fit for human habitation. In one case a workers, his wife and six children lived in a singel room, nine by twelce feet with cracks in the walls and ceiling through which snow and rain entered." In response to an official committee of investigation, the government and the American mine owner did nothing.      In 1934 the company called for a four perent wage cut amid rumours of layoffs. The miners struck on January 20 to protest the firing of their union secretary, John Press, as well as demands for better housing and living conditons. On April 15, Tom Uphill, the well-respected Labour MLA for Fernie, who had intervened to help get a settlement, announced that a tentative agreement had been reached. But the mine owner vetoed it the next day, and sent in scabs to re-open the mine. The Attorney-General ordered in a special provincial police force immediately.      And now on this lovely April spring day, the miners faced the police. From the ranks, the women formed themselves into a line, taking a position at the head of the picket.      Suddenly, the bulldozers roared and lurched forward, crashing into the line, pushing the screaming women before it. Within seconds, the legs of several women had been crushed. One woman was dragged 300 feet before the blade pushed her aside. One of the women had to be hospitalized because the flesh had been torn from her legs. Another, who was pregnant at the time, was clubbed by the police, first across the shoulders and then the abdomen. She lost the baby.      In retaliation for the brutal attack, the miners seized rocks to force the bulldozer operator to halt. In the pitched battle, more than fifty were injured, only fourteen of them police. Seventeen strikers, including the president and secretary of the union, were arrested. But the mine remained closed... (Back) (Home) WAR RESISTERS SUPPORT CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED (The following article is from the July 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.) (EDITOR'S NOTE: Last minute changes to the July 1-31 People's Voice left no room for this important article to appear in print.) A GROWING NUMBER of Canadians are demanding that the federal government make provision for US war resisters to have sanctuary in this country. In the event that they are returned to the United States, US war objectors face incarceration and possibly even the death penalty.      "From the time of the United Empire Loyalists who fled to Canada in the eighteenth century, to the draft resisters of the Vietnam era who came here more than thirty years ago, Canada has been providing refuge for Americans," says author June Callwood. "We have a moral obligation to continue to do so."      At a May 27 news conference in Toronto, a War Resisters Support Campaign was launched. Speakers included actor Shirley Douglas; Wayne Samuelson, President of the Ontario Federation of Labour; musician Bill King and representatives of different faith communities.      To raise this issue in the federal election, the new campaign sent the following question to political parties:      "During the period of 1965-73, many draft-age Americans came to Canada refusing to participate in the Vietnam war. The Government of Canada allowed U.S. war objectors to remain in Canada. Nuremberg Principle #4 states that persons are required to act according to the rules of international law even against the orders of their government or of a superior, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to them. Given that the war in Iraq was illegal under the Charter of the United Nations, is your party committed to a special amnesty in Canada for American war objectors?"      The Campaign also released the following declaration: During the period of 1965-1973 more than 50,000 draft-age Americans made their way to Canada, refusing to participate in an immoral war. At the time, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said: "Those who make the conscientious judgment that they must not participate in this war... have my complete sympathy, and indeed our political approach has been to give them access to Canada. Canada should be a refuge from militarism."      Thirty years later, Canada is faced with the same moral choice - to give refuge to those who refuse to be accomplices in the US-led war on Iraq which many legal opinions have deemed illegal under international law.      There are currently at least two young people who have made their way to Canada in objection to the US government's war on Iraq. Jeremy Hinzman was a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division. He and his family arrived in Toronto in January 2004 and are currently seeking refugee status. Brandon Hughey, a 19-year-old American soldier, arrived in St. Catharines two months later and is also seeking refugee status.      Regardless of the technical decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, we believe Canada should not punish US war objectors for exercising their conscience and refusing to fight. If they are returned to the United States, they face incarceration and possibly even the death penalty.      Canada must not facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by returning them to the United States.      The majority of Canadians did not support this war. The Canadian government did not support this war. We call on the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and the treaties to which it is a signatory, by making provision for US war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.      Signed by: June Callwood, Shirley Douglas, Maude Barlow, David Suzuki, Steven Bush, Anton Kuerti, Bill King, Heather Mallick, Naomi Klein, Jane Orion Smith, Margaret Clare Ford, John Hagan, Gale Zoe Garnett, Zafar Bangash, Wayne Samuelson, Canadian Labour Congress, Ron Hawkins, Buzz Hargrove, Paul Cliche, Amir Khadir.      To sign a petition on this issue, or for further information, see http://www.resisters.ca. (Back) (Home)

sitemap