Archive | August 11th, 2012

Has the Muslim Brotherhood Penetrated the National Security Council?

NOVANEWS

 

by mantiqaltayr

(Artwork, as usual, courtesy of the Mooselim Brotherhood and its Supreme Dude,Skulz)

1. Loonwatch is a good site for those who want to keep tabs on the utter stupidity and evil that has permeated both our popular and governmental sectors when it comes to Islam.  Recently Loonwatch has published a number of articles that relate directly or indirectly to the insane Michelle Bachmann (Shas, Minnesota) and her constant bleating about the threat posed by Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooselims in the United States. You see, they have stealthily snuck into the very core of our society and are on the verge of forcing every guy who marries a chick to pay her a dowry, or something like that. But I digress.

Anyway, after reading this excellent piece on retired General Jerry Boykin, who has also been featured in a video shown on Mantiq al-Tayr a while back, I decided to, uh err, wait just a second.

Hmmm, here’s the video.  See what a man Boykin is as he does nothing while one of his asshole buddies smashes a camera out of a woman’s hand. The woman is Allison Weir, the asshole smashing her camera is a wacko named William J. Murray.

Anyway, Boykin defends the likes of Baumann, damn, Bachmann – after all he actually tried to wage war on Islam while he was a general. Here’s a quote from the Loonwatch piece with the links: [Note to Shas Party Members and people who vote for Bachmann, the red highlighting is mine.]

“Boykin, however, is more than just a cheerleader for Bachmann – he’s a leading force behind the effort to drive Muslim Americans out of public life. Boykin recently became the Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council, but he’s best known as the lieutenant general who was rebuked by President Bush in 2003 and Defense Department investigators in 2004 for aggressively attacking Islam – in uniform – in the midst of two wars and an expansive anti-terrorism effort in the Middle East and South Asia.”

Anyway,  Baumann, Bachmann, sorry,  is convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the Department of Homeland Security, The State Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and she has sent letters to these departments telling them to fess up or she’ll personally visit them and sing a sefirah version of HaTikvah. Oh and the Department of Defense is also penetrated. That’s why the Department of Defense is bombing Israeli settlements in Palestine.  But I digress.

Anyway, we here at Mantiq al-Tayr ask former kibutznik Baumann, oops, Bachmann “Why do you stop there?” Yeah, Michele baby, let’s go up even higher. Let’s go look at the incredible Muslim Brotherhood influence in the National Security Council itself. It’s rife with Moooooooooooooooooooselims.  Why didn’t your Israeli Lobby masters point this out to you? I mean they could have easily also written for you yet another letter to the NSC just like they did for the others. And they could no doubt quote from the stupid bullshit program you cite in each of your letters –  a “course” produced by an outfit run by two well-known Israel-Firsters – Frank Gaffney and David Yarushalmi.  A previous major study by these two clowns, btw, is acknowledged even by the FBI – a frequent target of criticism on this blog and for good reason – to be complete bullshit.

Oh, by the way, Boykin was an advisor to their childish “course”.  Go to this link and look at all the absolute wackos who participated in that piece of Zionist bullshit.

So let’s take a look at the National Security Council and look at all the radical extremists it has.

2. Here’s the membership of the NSC taken from Wiki. (with a few minor edits.)

Structure of the United States National Security Council (Current)[3]

Chair

Barack Obama (Israeli Vice President for American Affairs)

Statutory Attendees[4]

(Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden) (Israeli Vice Vice President for American Affairs.
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State)
Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense)

Military Advisor

Gen. Martin Dempsey (US Army) (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Intelligence Advisor

Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper (Ret.) (Director of National Intelligence)
Gen. David Petraeus (Ret.) (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency)

Drug Policy Advisor

Gil Kerlikowske (Director of National Drug Control Policy)

Regular Attendees

Tom Donilon (National Security Advisor)
Jacob Lew (White House Chief of Staff)
Denis McDonough (Deputy National Security Advisor)

Additional Participants

Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury)
Eric Holder (Attorney General)
Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security)
Pete Rouse (Counselor to the President)
Gene Sperling (Assistant to the President for Economic Policy)
Susan Rice (Ambassador to the United Nations)
Jacob Lew (Director of Office of Management and Budget)
John O. Brennan (Homeland Security Advisor)

Hmmm, I don’t see anyone there with those funny Arabic names like Huma Abdin or Dalia Mogahed, Hesham Tilawi, Sayyid Qutb, Mayada al-Shereef,  Mark Glenn, Mohammad Badie or anything like that. Hmmm.

But it’s all taqiya anyway.

So, go look up Jacob Lew who is the White House Chief of Staff, having replaced former Islamic Group member Rahm Emmanuel. (Technically he replaced the goy who took over after
Rahm, can anyone even remember his name?) Clearly Lew is a radical whose infiltration into the White House should have all good Americans shakin in them der boots o’ ders.  Lew got a tremendous endorsement from another radical extremist when Lew got appointed. It’s worth reading. Turns out all Lew cares about is following his version of Shari’a.  Here’s another link you all might want to read.

Okay, I can hear you all bitching and moaning, “Mantiq, that’s just one guy, it could be a fluke.” Well, you are right. So let’s look at another Mooooooooooooooooooooooslim extremist on the NSC.

General David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence. Yup, Bachmann is correct, taqiya is alive and well at the highest levels of government. This guy says one thing, but behind the scenes he reveals his true agenda. Now he ain’t no Mooooslim per se, but he’s sort of a Gum’a goy (as we say in Egyptian:-)

Okay, that’s two. Let’s go for a least a hat trick.

Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury.  Again, Bachmann is right on. Another master of taqiya. On the surface he is one thing, but as this non-Frank Gaffney-supported researcher shows, even the radicals themselves have acknowledged his membership in the club.

Okay, let’s see if we can find a four-leaf clover.

Hmmm, how about Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy? He’s from Michigan so he must have Muslim Brotherhood ties. He is indeed a member of the club.  Can’t find any real evidence of divided loyalties, but I guess that’s cause he’s just practicing dat der taqiya thingy.

But it only gets worse, with  Muslim Brotherhood Sharia Imposition on the Talmud (MBSHIT), it always does.

How about Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security? A well known Italian Methodist, and we know there are lots of them, it really doesn’t matter whether or not her mother, Jane Marie Winer, was a Muslim or not.

Okay, I can see you all now bitching and moaning again. “Mantiq, “A well-known Italian Methodist” is a dangling participle – hanging out there just like Antony Weiner’s schlong.”  Yes, you are correct. But I don’t feel like changing it.

Anyway, more proof of Bachmann’s allegations is that Weiner, a well-known Zionist-Jew, is just Huma Abdin’s taqiya-boy-toy – the poor guy has been used by her as a cover for her radical Islamist tendencies since under Shari’a Law Muslim women are required to marry Zionist Jews. But I digress.

Anyway, Napolitano has quite a history of funneling government funds to non-profitsrun by obvious fronts for Muslim Brotherhood organizations. This should cause an uproar and we here at Mantiq al-Tayr encourage Bachmann to have Napolitano’s outfit thoroughly investigated. It turns out that DHS’s program which has funneled over 100 million dollars (about 666 Euros) to these fronts was in effect taken over by a larger front group similar to the Islamic Society of North America. Read all about it here.

So there’s your NSC, infiltrated to the core by MBSHIT types.

3. For those of you who might be new to this blog, here’s a piece I did a long time ago on the nature of the Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooslim threat.

4. As I write these words it is the 23rd of Ramadan and it could just be that last evening was Layt al-Qadr – a night often thought to be on one of the last 0dd-numbered days of Ramadan. Often the night of the 27th is celebrated, but there is no universal agreement as to which date is definitely correct. What is Layt al-Qadr? I thought you’d never ask. How will you know what it is? [Note to Shas Party members, click on the arrow for the video to play.]

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Has the Muslim Brotherhood Penetrated the National Security Council?

Press TV: Are Israeli-American Mobsters Buying America’s Government?

NOVANEWS
Are Israeli-American mobsters buying America’s Government?

By Press TV and Gordon Duff

Yesterday a window opened, one quickly closing.  Major newspapers and news outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reuters and others announced and the billionaire gambling “magnate,” some call him “mob boss” who runs gambling from Las Vegas to China where he is fighting bribery charges, is facing a major criminal investigation.

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s goal is to buy an American attack on Iran by using money now tied to a criminal investigation to buy extremist candidate Mitt Romney the presidency.

Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal made the following announcement about Sheldon Adelson’s organization:

“The investigation involves Zhenli Ye Gon (who has been indicted on counts of trafficking methamphetamine ingredients) and Ausaf Umar Siddiqui, (a former executive of Fry’s Electronics who went to jail on bribe charges) who wired tens of millions of dollars to the Sands Venetian casino in Las Vegas during the mid-2000s.

According to the WSJ, the government is investigating whether the Sands ignored the wire transfers or failed to have the right systems in place to flag sketchy activity. Sands chief Sheldon Adelson is not under investigation.

…The case is one more legal headache for Sands CEO Adelson, a major Republican donor, who has given more than $10 million to the Super PAC of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and pledged to give a “limitless” amount of money to defeat Barack Obama.”

Murdoch was careful to let his close friend, Adelson, “off the hook” by announcing that Adelson was NOT subject to an investigation that is, in fact, highly classified.  The WSJ story is a “white wash” as Murdoch, an Israeli citizen as are the Koch Brothers, make up, with Adelson, the “triumvirate of sleaze” that buys and sells, using cash, wiretapping, Mossad agents, blackmail, many of the world’s governments.

As Adelson’s staff is facing prison for laundering cash for, not just drug dealers but suspected terrorists, Murdoch has been under a year of investigation for blackmail and wiretapping in Britain and may well face the same in the US.  His top staff members face decades in prison while he and his son are still free.

The other third of the triumvirate are the Israeli Koch brothers who control the world’s gasoline futures and wholesale market.  On a whim last week, they raised gasoline prices by nearly .80 cents a gallon, taxing the American people hundreds of billions of dollars.

Why?  An attack on the American economy prior to the election or simply more monopoly profiteering is a standard ploy used by the Israeli and “bankster” lobby to create fear and panic.

Murdoch’s stranglehold on the world’s news organizations sets the stage while Adelson, with the Koch brothers, literally own most of America’s government.

The cabal, with its control of the U.S. House of Representatives, America’s courts, police agencies, and financial regulators, combined with their partnership with worldwide arms and oil interests, has made the idea of free elections in America impossibility.

What changed yesterday is that, here in the US, Adelson, who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to pro-Israel candidates and personally financed groups pushing for war with Iran has now had his “organization” tied directly to organized crime.

SODOM AND GOMORRAH IN AMERICA

Adelson owns much of Las Vegas, the inheritor of the early crime families of the 1920s and 30s, Bugsy Siegel, Arnold Rothstein and their “Murder Incorporated” organization seen in films such as The Godfather IIOnce Upon A Time in America and the HBO TV series by director Martin Scorsese, Boardwalk.

Decades have been spent trying to put an Italian face on American organized crime whose roots trace back to criminal groups, fellow Jews, that preyed on Jewish immigrants that came into the US at the end of the 19thcentury.  The “Italian Mafia” was, at most, a minor sub note to the groups that later emerged as “Zionist” organizations, Jewish “defense” groups and the Israel lobby, whose activities, gambling, prostitution, money laundering, espionage and “murder for hire” established the basis for America’s current relationship with Israel, a very “one sided” one at that.

AUTHOR DOCUMENTS CRIMES

Author Jeff Gates, former lawyer for the US Senate Taxation Committee, describes this history in his book,Guilt by Association and in his website, www.criminalstate.com.  What is important about Gates is that he is a difficult target, a trained scholar with strong relationships within the American Jewish community, he sticks with facts and education and limits rhetoric and editorializing.

It has been a key methodology, used by these criminal organizations, to fund or create their own opposition groups and then characterize all who work to enforce honest elections and protect the public from organized crime as “anti-Semites.”

AMERICAN JEWS “PUSHED ASIDE” BY WAR LOBBY

Oddly, nearly 80% of America’s Jews politically support the “other side,” voting consistently against candidates financed by Adelson, Murdoch and the Koch “boys.”  For those with a detailed knowledge of American politics, the truth of it is that “the right,” where the “triumvirate” is closely aligned,  consists of political groups that have a long history of organized discrimination against Jews in the United States.

For decades, Jews, African Americans and even Catholics were barred from organizations, weren’t allowed to live in some communities, even persecuted in entire states.  In truth, the roots of the religious groups that represent “Christian Zionism” are racism and persecution of American Jews.  Near my own home is the “Jewish golf course,” the only place “they” could play until only a few decades ago.  The term “Restricted,” seen on signs across America meant “No Jews Allowed” and was always tied to the American “right” and the Republican Party and the candidates funded by Adelson, Murdoch and Koch.

Their way of combating this hate is not by fomenting justice but by redirecting it toward fear and hatred of Muslims, donating endless millions to anti-Muslim organizations and using their huge press and entertainment resources to create images of Muslims as extremist and dangerous.

STOPPING A WAR BY STOPPING ORGANIZED CRIME

Russia Today, aided by sources from Reuters, who censored their own story, broke the following news today about Israel’s actual “war plans” on Iran:

Israel’s threats that it could attack Iran at any time appear to be a tactical ploy, after a government insider revealed that no military plans against Tehran have been discussed by Israel’s top ministers for “months.”

The information was leaked to news agency Reuters by a highly-placed official who has been briefed on all the meetings of the octet – an inner council of the top eight Israeli ministers, presided over by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The insider also confirmed rumors that the octet had factionalized, with hawkish Netanyahu held back by top military and security officials who are “entirely against” an Israel-led attack on Tehran’s nuclear program, believing the country does not have the necessary resources for a war with its much bigger rival.

“It is very, very difficult to see a situation where a prime minister will go against the advice not just of the former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, but most of the military commanders,” commented Uzi Rabi, director of Tel Aviv’s Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern Studies.”

Critical to the central theme is the realization that the United States is, despite their own rhetoric, very unwilling to follow Israeli policy while Obama is still in office.  This is why the “triumvirate” of “dual citizens” tied to organized crime, money laundering and worse are supporting policies directly opposed by American Jews who, in general, oppose all wars and seldom serve in the military.

Millions are spent, less and less effectively, repeating the “war and fear” message to American and Israeli Jews, a message that no longer “sells” so easily.  The story continues:

“…Washington may well call Israel’s bluff, partly because of the havoc any large military operation would cause to the prospects of President Barack Obama’s re-election in November’s presidential poll.

“It would not be healthy for Israeli-US relations to carry out such a significant attack that might influence the election. So my guess is they won’t do it before early November, because it might embarrass the US administration,” says Ephraim Kam, Deputy Director of the Institute for National Security Studies.

What could happen after that is anybody’s guess. While Obama has been the very model of caution, his Republican rival Mitt Romney has adopted a hard-line stance.

“We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option,” he said during a recent visit to Israel, while his senior foreign policy aide promises Romney will not condemn any Israeli strike on Iranian facilities.”

Thus the flow of money from financial crimes, gambling, prostitution and economic blackmail continues to flow into America’s “pro-Israeli” right.  However, a closer examination of the “right” shows them to be oil companies, the arms industry and a series of financial institutions seeking relief from controls and investigations that threaten their further attacks on America and the world’s currencies.

The election, funded as though it was about Iran or imaginary nuclear weapons is, as have been so many others, over the right to steal with impunity, for the powerful to remain immune from laws and regulation and for the working people and small businessmen and women of the world to see their future destroyed behind a façade of war.

Today, news organizations around the world are “cleansing” their publications of reports of Adelson’s criminal associates.  The reason?

Hundreds of millions of dollars already donated over the years would have to be returned, all deemed “illegal campaign contributions,” and subjecting everyone from Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin to the entire GOP including Mitt Romney to criminal prosecution for violation of election laws.

Even money spent long ago would have to be returned, bribes that financed wars long lost, bribes that financed the downfall of the western economies and American freedoms and paid for the murder of thousands of innocents throughout the Middle East and Central Asia are now deemed “illegal campaign contributions.”

 

Posted in USAComments Off on Press TV: Are Israeli-American Mobsters Buying America’s Government?

Peaceful world my sincerest wish: Chinua Achebe

NOVANEWS

By Nasrin Pourhamrang

Recently, the classic African novel “Things Fall Apart” by Nigerian author Chinua Achebe was translated into Persian by Ali Hodavand and released in Iran. Nasrin Pourhamrang, Editor-in-Chief of Hatef Weekly Magazine interviewed the author on a wide range of topics from Art, culture and literature;politics, cultural and linguistic preservation;to the legacy of colonialism and his forthcoming book there was a Country-A personal history of Biafra.
Chinua Achebe was born in Nigeria in 1930. He was raised in the large village of Ogidi, one of the first centers of Anglican missionary work in Eastern Nigeria, and is a graduate of University College, Ibadan. His early career in radio ended abruptly in 1966, when he left his post as Director of External Broadcasting in Nigeria during the national upheaval that led to the Biafran War. Achebe joined the Biafran Ministry of Information and represented Biafra on various diplomatic and fund-raising missions. He was appointed Senior Research Fellow at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and began lecturing widely abroad. For over fifteen years, he was the Charles P. Stevenson Professor of Languages and Literature at Bard College. He is now the David and Marianna Fisher University Professor and professor of Africana studies at Brown University.
Chinua Achebe has written over twenty books – novels, short stories, essays children’s books and collections of poetry. His latest work There was a country – A personal history of Biafra will be available from Penguin publishers in September. Achebe has received numerous honors from around the world, including the Honorary Fellowship of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, as well as honorary doctorates from more than forty colleges and universities. He is also the recipient of Nigeria’s highest award for intellectual achievement, the Nigerian National Merit Award; the Peace Prize of the German Book trade (Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels) in 2002; the Man Booker International Prize for Fiction in 2007; and the Gish Prize in 2010.

Nasrin Pourhamrang: Technology has come to the help of the borderless world of art and literature and has eliminated the geographical frontiers. How do you feel about the fact that your novel has been translated into Persian and that Iranian readers can read some of your works for the first time and make an acquaintance of Chinua Achebe?

Chinua Achebe: I received the news of the Persian translation of Things Fall Partwith great joy!Of course, one of the goals of any writer is to connect with his or her readers. Things Fall Apart in particular, indeed all my books, have enjoyed a warm readership. I am particularly grateful for the effort of the translators of my work. They extend the reach of Art, in this case stories, to more people who may not have encountered them in the original English. I am told with this Persian translation that Things Fall Apart now exists in nearly 60 world languages! It is a wonderful blessing and I am deeply, deeply, grateful!So, the fact that readers in Iran can also read my work is very important to me.

NP: Are you familiar with Iran, its culture and civilization? Have you ever heard of the artworks of Iranian artists as well as the work of her authors and writers?

CA: I am a life-long student of Literature, History, Art and Culture. I can’t, however, claim to be an authority on Iranian history and culture. Let me also confess that I was caught looking through my Encyclopedia Britannica before this interview – my grandchildren insist that no one does that anymore!

Nevertheless, I am aware of the writings of Herodotus on the Persian Empire and the spectacular golden art work of the Achaemenid period. I have always wanted to seethe ruins of Thachar palace and Persepolis;the Quajarid reliefs, paintings from Iranian antiquity and the beauty of Persian calligraphyup-close. Of course, Persian carpets, as you are well aware, are adored the world over.In university, we encountered stories about great Persian emperors like Cyrus the Great who Alexander the Great revered. Also Darius the Great…and the later emperors.

As a writer, as you might expect, I have a special interest in the ancient scrolls of Persian philosophy. I have also been taken with the medieval poetry ofRumi, Hafez, Sa’adi, Khayyam, Farrid Attar; as well asepics such Shahnameh (The Book of Kings) by Ferdowsi. Modern Iranian classics such as The Blind OwlbyHedayat and Sin by Farrokhzad should be required reading around the world, in my opinion. On mydesk is Cypress Tree by Kamin Mohammadi, who I understand, is a very talented young female writer.

NP: What will you say if I ask you to talk directly to the Iranian audience and discuss your concerns and wishes with them?

CA: “Peaceful co-existence between all racial and religious groups is my sincere wish for mankind”
After the ancient civilizations of Africa, there are no peoples older than those that inhabit what the British first called “the Middle East.” The great world religions come from this part of the world. Islam and Judaism are considered Abrahamic religions because they are believed to descend from God through Abraham. We would not have Christianity without Judaism and the Jewish people. The three religions share many values and tenets and beliefs. There are parts of the Quran that integrate Jewish history.

I wish to highlight lessons from Iranian history that should be championed by Iranian people in today’s precarious world. It is important for all of us to remember that the Iranians and the Jewish people have enjoyed a very long, mutually beneficial and fruitful relationship. It dates back to 727 B.C. and the deportation of the Jewish people to Media and Persian from Samaria…that is nearly three thousand years ago! Cyrus the Great, who we have mentioned in this conversation, through a decree later known as the “Cyrus declaration” allowed the Jewish people who lived along the Babylon river to return to Judea to rebuild their lives. Many, however, who had lived in Persia for a few generations, decided to remain and formed permanent Jewish settlements of intellectuals, merchants and artisans for centuries.

Jewish scholars (something I am told can be confirmed in the Talmud – a revered Jewish book of rabbinical postulates), teach us that the environment was so tolerant for Jews in ancient Persia during this period that in a mark of their own magnanimity towards the Persian people, there was a call by Rabbis of the time for a picture of Susa the capital of Persian Kings to be engraved on the eastern gate of the temple of Jerusalem!

My appeal, therefore, is to the ancient virtue of Iranian hospitality, tolerance and peace. It is vitally important that the educated classes in Iran point out this glorious history which is central not just to the Middle East; but to all of mankind.

Finally, I would like to see the Dialogue of Civilizations proposed by former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami become reality–bringing together representatives of all of the earth’s people to Tehran in an environment of freedom of creative, intellectual,cultural and religious expression.

NP: Your new work There was a Country-A personal history of Biafra is due from Penguin Books next month- September, 2012 – in the United Kingdom. Can you tell Iranian readers what it is about?

CA: The Nigerian-Biafran war raged from 1967-1970 and claimed nearly three million lives. The conflict wiped out twenty percent of my people – the Igbo and other Easterners- who were known as Biafrans. In There was a Country- A personal history of Biafra, I tell three interweaving stories – using an autobiographical prism torecount twobroader stories – the story of pre and post-independence Nigeria, and the story of Biafra and its aftermath.

I have been asked why it took me over 42 years to write about Biafra…The answer is that I was not ready… I had to find the right vehicle that could “carry our anguish, our sorrow… the scale of dislocation and destruction…our collective pain.”In many ways, I can say that I have been writing this book for about four decades – at least in my head and the very scribbling on paper almost as long – particularly the research, interviews, data collection etc. I discoveredwhile working on the book, quite interestingly, that it would not be a straight forward work. I found that I had to draw upon prose, poetry, history, memoir, and politics and that they were independently holding conversations with each other – perhaps because no one genre or art form could bear the weight of the complexity of our condition.You see, the Biafran war was such a cataclysmic event that in my opinion changed the course, not only of Nigeria, which has not fully recovered from that conflict; but of all of Africa. I hope your readers pick up a copy!

Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe chats with former South African President Nelson Mandela at a Steve Biko memorial ceremony in Cape Town in 2002. Biko, a leader of the Black Consciousness movement, died after being beaten by members of Apartheid’s police force. Photo/AFP

NP: It is interesting to me that your first novel, “Things Fall Apart,” which is also your most widely read and translated book was published by a British publisher (William Heinemann LTD). Why did you offer it to a British publisher while it depicted the difficulties and cultural contradictions which the people of your country have suffered as a result of the colonial presence of the British in the past decades?

CA: That is a timely question…… In my new book,There was a Country-A personal history of Biafra, I point out that when a number of us [i.e. African writers] decided to pick up the pen and make writing a career there was no African literature as we know it today. There were many that preceded my time, but still, the numbers were not sufficient.And so I had no idea when I was writing Things Fall Apart whether it would even be accepted or published. All this was new- there was nothing by which I could gauge how it was going to be received.

In those days one had very few avenues to get published…we had very few choices. My first novel was rejected by a number of publishers before providence led it into the hands of Alan Hill at Heinemann after Donald McRae, another Heinemann executive with extensive experience in Africa encouraged Heinemann to publish the novel with a powerful recommendation: “This is the best first novel I have read since the war.” So, you can tell that I had a good beginning and was only too pleased to have Heinemann publish the work. Later, Alan Hill and James Currey and I developed the African Writers Series (I served as first General Editor for the first one hundred titles). The African Writers Series ended up publishing many of the well-known writers of the era from Africa. In many ways, without the intervention of Alan Hill and Heinemann, many of the writers from that generation may not have found a voice.

NP: Over 50 years have passed since you wrote the book “Things Fall Apart.” Have your viewpoints and approaches toward the presence of a colonial power in the soil of your country changed since that time? Would you make changes and edits if you were to decide to write such a novel or rewrite it now and especially reconfigure the personality and reflections of the main characters such as Okonkwo?

CA: Every thinking person, if you consider yourself a serious intellectual grows…Intellectual evolution and growth does not mean, however, that all of a sudden horrendous things in our shared history appear less appalling. It means that greater knowledge and understanding help place the best and worst of events in clearer perspective.

The legacy of colonialism is not a simple one but one of great complexity, with contradictions- good things as well as bad. We do not have enough time to outline every aspect of the colonial and post-colonial condition…So, one cannot talk about making changes or edits to a book that was written to speak to a condition that existed and continues to exist in different forms and different guises.

In many ways, the world is a much different place today than it was in 1958 when Things Fall Apart was published.Some may say a better place – women’s rights are improving around the world, race relations perhaps can be said to have improved as well. In other ways, many things can also be said to have either remained the same or become worse. So the struggle to make the world a better place must continue!

(L-R) John Pepper Clark-Bekederemo; Chinua Achebe (center) and Wole Soyinka – after meeting with former Nigerian Dictator Ibrahim Babangida (IBB) to plead for the lives of the poet General Mamman Jiya Vatsa and sixteen other officers for staging what has since come to be known as a phantom coup March, 1986

NP: Your books and novels are considered to be the representative of modern African literature. In your view, what are the most prominent features and attributes of the modern African literature?

CA: Yes, well…remember that there was an entire movement, a whole group of us…InThere was a country,I discuss this in greater depth.
Things Fall Apart, I believe, now has a life of its own. I think it is now more famous than I am! (Laughter). The fifty plus translations are a big indication of its impact. I feel like a parent watching a child succeed from the sidelines. The other books have also been successful. It feels good. I am very grateful. What was the second part of the question?

NP: What are the most prominent features and attributes of the modern African literature?

CA: Yes…I have stated elsewhere that one cannot cram African literature into a small, neat definition. I do not see African literature as one unit but as a group of associated units – in fact the sum total of all the national and ethnic literatures of Africa.

National literature in my definition is written in national languages and has a potential audience throughoutthe countries that speak that language. Ethnic literature, by contrast is available to a particular ethnic group within that country or sub-region.

I have often been asked why I choose to write in English rather than in my native language.That is a flawed question and a false choice, because most of us think and write in and speak both our ethnic language and the national languages we were taught in school. Context is very important…Those that ask this question fail to understand my goal and the goal of several other pioneers of modern African writing. When I picked up the pen to make writing a career, African literature did not exist as it does today…the numbers were not there. One of the consequences of colonialism was the loss of the many traditions of Africa.

Many of us engaged Africa’s past, stepping back into what can be referred to as the “era of purity” before the coming of Europe. What we discovered we put in books and that became known widely as “African Culture.” Some of us would decide to use the colonizer’s tools: his language, altered sufficiently to bear the weight of an African creative aesthetic, infused with elements of the African literary tradition. I borrowed proverbs from our culture and history, colloquialisms and African expressive language from the ancient griots, the world views, perspectives, and customs from my Igbo tradition and cosmology, and the sensibilities of everyday people.

It was important to us that a body of work be developed of the highest possible quality that would oppose the negative discourse in some of the novels we encountered. By “writing back” to the West we were attempting to reshape the dialogue between the colonized and the colonizer. Our efforts, we hoped, would broaden the world’s understanding, appreciation, and conceptualization of what literature meant when including the African voice and perspective. We were engaged in what the Nigerian literary scholar Ode Ogede terms “the politics of representation.”

Chinua Achebe, about 1960. Eliot Elisofon—Time Life Pictures/Getty Images

NP: So your choice of writing in English was as much a political choice as a practical one?

CA: Yes. And this requires some further clarification…My books appear in English because it is Nigeria’s national language and the language through which I can reach the most readers, both in Nigeria and world-wide. Many of the national languages, as you are aware, are inherited languages from our colonial history that were “shoved down our throats.”Within Nigeria’s borders, there are two hundred and fifty (250) ethnic groups and distinct languages – note I said distinct languages not dialects – and this requires emphasis because Nigeria with 160 million people, exists in an area of Africa that is one of the most populous, as well as genetically, linguistically, and culturally diverse regions of our planet. A national language in such an environment despite its problems, serves both a practical as well as a logical way to communicate across this diversity, effectively.

Let’s be clear – there are areas of Africa where colonialism divided peoples…But on the whole it did bring together many peoples…And it gave them a language with which to talk to one another…The only reason why we can even talk about African unity is that when we get together we can have a manageable number of languages to communicate in.Indeed we would not be able to hold this conversation if we both did not speak English. We would not be talking about the influence of Things Fall Apart and its impact without this strategic choice.

So there were many practical reasons to write in a National Language: I have already mentioned the fact that I could reach many Africans across languages, but also I could reach others across the world as well, like you. But I have also stated multiple times that it is neither necessary nor desirable for an African writer writing in English to attempt to write like a native speaker…he or she must attempt to find a way as I mentioned earlier to alter the language sufficiently to bear the weight of an African creative aesthetic, infused with elements of the African literary tradition…reinventing the language of the colonizers to tell our stories and retell our collective histories.

NP: There is, however, the problem of the disappearance of native or indigenous cultures and languages…

CA: Yes, the“beating down” of older African cultures and languages, traditions, and philosophies must be halted. We must continue to recapture, revive these endangered cultures, languages and traditions… and this will require large scale intervention…This is a real emergency, and in my opinion requires bold action.

There are two levels to this solution. Economists often talk about the micro and macro levels.On the individual level…I have already spoken about African writers engaged in the retelling of their own stories and recasting their image and the image of their people through novels, children’s books, poetry etc. There are those that write solely in their native languages. I write a lot of poetry in Igbo and edited a literary journal Uwa NdiIgbo for several years – for a focused Igbo readership. I have given full scale lectures to upwards of 20,000 people at a time – the two most recent The Odenigbo lecture and the Ahajioku lectures in 1999 and 2009 respectively; in Igbo land in Nigeria.Thatkind of effort isimportant, but I am afraid itonly scratches the surface of the problem… the sheer scale of the crisis demands big solutions, large scale intervention.

Let me let you in on a well-guarded secret…For several decades, the Achebe foundation –an organizationthat is now run by my son Dr. Ike Achebe and on whose board I serve as Chairman-has been working quietly on the Igbo Language project. This initiative was developed to create a language dictionary, a vast array of language tools and educational and linguistic guides, as well asa data base of phonetics, syntax, grammar etc.- to preserve Igbo, a fast disappearing language.

NP: What you describe is quite remarkable but sounds so incredibly daunting…

CA: Yes, in many ways it is…but one must not let despair crush our resolve!There is another layer of complexity that I would like to point out that makes this work so vitally important: Literacy in African traditional languages – the number of people who can read and write in a given language – is very low. This is not unique to Africa, indeed it also true in all places around the world where we find theproblem of linguistic extinction. The building blocks of literary and linguistic fluency (equally important) – the alphabet, phonetics, penmanship, diction, syntax, grammar etc. must be also captured and widely taught. It is also important to state that language does not exist in a cultural vacuum…in cultural isolation. The ‘Omenani’ of a people – their belief system, customs, cosmology, values, and worldview – are channeled through a people’s language. Now, these are aspects of a people’s culture (and there are other vital components)that should be captured as well, if one is to attain the goal of preserving a people’s language effectively.

NP: How do you avoid the perception that you are imposing your will on others- something that your work has so eloquently highlighted?

CA: That is an excellent question…The Achebe foundation’sIgbo project does not and will not practice cultural imperialism.Wedo not impose artificial structures on the languages (a subject of my Odenigbo lecture of 1999), but willstrive to preserve what is on the ground and respect linguistic dynamism. That means having the people themselves lead the way and having members of our team approach the work with humility…not with the “I am here to save the world” mentality, but with a “how can we, together, accomplish this incredibly important task!” spirit.Another way to protect indigenous cultures is to make sure you have present local representation and a diversity of workers and perspectives on the project.

A small army of experts and partners from around the globe – linguists, computer scientists, statisticians, literature professors, linguistic historians, educators, etc. – have been working on this for several decades. It is all very exciting, but it also means that no one group can exert an undue influence or pressure on the work. There is also a major push to capture what has been termed “linguistic idiosyncrasies” – speech patterns and accents that may have been lost to history. For instance, in the dictionary there is a list of several versions of a single word (in various dialects) rather than one standardized version.

We intend very soon to present our work to the local schools and provide teachers, students, parents, communities, women’s groups and others with tools to preserve, engage with, and propagate Igbo language and culture.

NP: Your work with the Igbo Language projectis incredibly important. Do you intend to spread your effort to other parts of Africa, other endangered languages of the world?

CA: Yes and I hope that the funding will be available.There are many other languages that UNESCO and others have placed on the endangered list. We would like to provide a helping hand in confronting the problems facing several other African languages in much the same way we have tackled the Igbo Language project, to protect them from extinction… but we cannot do it alone. This project has been very expensive and has required personal expenditure on my part…and I do not consider myself a wealthy person. Thankfully, it has also been supported by several foundations and universities in America, but more funding is needed.

International NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] and African governments should tackle this alarming problem as well. African governments have a lot of work do -there are stumbling blocks to reading that we have discovered – poor eyesight for example. There is a great need for reading glasses in the millions – it is quite alarming.
You can see from what I have described and how long it is taking in just one instance that language and cultural preservation is a painstakingly difficult process that requires an army of dedicated workers and a great deal of resources and effort.This is not a simple problem but one of great complexity. And we need well-funded,large-scale projects to tackle this problem before it is too late.

NP: You’ve experienced living in what you have termed the “poorer addresses of the planet” – in African nations – as well as indeveloped Western countries. What’s your evaluation of the relationship between wealth, technology and culture?

CA: In my opinion, good art can come from any culture and background. Great Art does not cluster in one part of the world or the other. We are living in interesting times. Globalization is our reality, for good or ill… and I can talk about the problems for hours!There are also good things – technology: the internet, television, emails; other tools– have made our world smaller. Many of the best artists and writers are global citizens – they move constantly.Today, there exists a significant degree of cross-fertilization of cultures, ideas, values, stories, art, music, languages – you name it, on a grand scale across the globe. Many artists might have come from former less developed colonies but now they operate on the world stage. So the times have changed.

Having said that, I still feel that before we can announce the arrival of the Great World Story, or Universal culture, we should hear all the stories… appreciate all that the world has to offer. We should hear more stories and revel in the Art from indigenous societies of Africa, Australia, from the Middle East, from Eastern Europe, from Native Americans, from China,India, Brazil and under-represented cultures of Latin America-countries like Ecuador, Uruguay-the Caribbean, and Oceania etc.

Artists from the developing world do no one a favor by blindly copying Western styles and forms. And let me be clear, because I am often misunderstood: I am not decreeing how a writer should write. I am not suggesting that artists should not or cannot be influenced by other artists from different parts of the world. That is welcome. I am suggesting that an artist should be true to who and what they are and should aspire to produce the best art that they can …that is when the magic in art is released. What I am calling for is an environment where freedom of creative expression is not only possible but protected… where an artist from any part of the worldcanacquire and develop their unique voice and then express themselves on the Great Cultural Stagein full ear shot of the world!

NP: You are now based at Brown University – an American Ivy League University, where you hold the David and Marianna Fisher University Professorship and spearhead the Achebe Colloquium. Tell me a bit more about this initiative.

CA: Yes… well the eminent Ruth Simmons, the former President of Brown recruited me to Brown in 2009,to start a new project in keeping with my life’s work. The Achebe Colloquium on Africa as it is called annually brings together an international group of scholars – Africanists, officials from African governments, the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and other organizations – for two days of intense deliberation and exchange of ideas on the importance of strengthening democracy and peace on the African continent. We have had three gatherings since its inception and discussed topics like Corruption, the leadership crisis in Africa, the Rwanda Genocide, the Crisis in the Congo, Nigeria’s myriad problems, the Arab Spring etc. This year’s conference will focus on Governance, Peace and Security in Africa.

Q: Let me end on a lighter note. Why have you attempted to write books for the children while you’ve been mostly focused on writing serious novels for the adults? How is it possible for you to shift your concentration from the complex and problematical world of adults to the simple and happy world ofchildren? Which type of writing is more enjoyable to you?

CA: I decided to write for children as a matter of urgency and necessity. I first noticed there was a problem when I had my first child Chinelo and went to the bookshopsto buy books for her. This was soon after independence from Great Britain. The books about Africa for children were, to put it mildly, not appropriate. So I decided that if I did not like the content of the children’s books, I would write my own. Now, around the same time, my friend Christopher Okigbo – Africa’s greatest modern poet – was the Cambridge University Press’ representative for the entire West African region. He also wanted to create a body of work that was based on local thought and African values for our children. Okigbo was a phenomenal publisher. He was so busy with the world and life and yet he got Cyprian Ekwensi to write a Passport of Mallam Ilia. He then came to me and said “Chinua you must write a children’s book.”

So, in many ways, Chike and the River was a mandated work by Christopher Okigbo. Okigbo had a way of “getting you to do something that you want to do.” He had a saying that the books he published must be first rate or he wouldn’t bother at all. He outlined the Cambridge University Press ‘culture’ – their expectations for a certain number of pages, for a particular moral code, for a particular standard of writing etc. When I accepted to write the book, I already had an inspiration in my life from which to draw for this particular story. I shared in Okigbo’s desire to mold young children into good citizens through good story telling. It sounds heavy, but infact, good writing has a heaviness of its own – like the moral purpose that pervades Shakespeare or the work of Charles Dickens.

So when I took my manuscript in 1966 to Okigbo, he sent it immediately to the Cambridge publishers and they said they liked it but it was too short, to which Okigbo said in good humour to me: “go and read Ekwensi’s children’s book to get a sense of what we want.” So I went back to work and increased the length of the book. It wasn’t something I was planning to get done immediately, but Okigbo gave it an urgency. We were both concerned that African literature for children as it was formulated up to that point, had numerous stories in our oral tradition, but nothing in published form, so I too understood that there was work ahead of us to do, and quickly!I later published other books for children How the Leopard got its Claws, the Flute; and the Drum.

I think writing is very serious work and very important. All writing for me is a privilege and a joy. I do not have a favorite genre and I have written novels (prose), poetry, children’s books, essays, non-fiction works and political commentaries.

I will leave you with a passage from my new book There was a country-A personal history of Biafra, that I feel encapsulates my sentiments about writing:
The triumph of the written word is often attained when the writer achieves union and trust with the reader who then becomes ready to be drawn deep into familiar and occasionally unfamiliar territory, walking in borrowed literary shoes so to speak, towards a deeper understanding of self, society, or of foreign peoples, cultures and situations.

Posted in AfricaComments Off on Peaceful world my sincerest wish: Chinua Achebe

From British Columbia to IsraHell/Palestine: The Trail of Kwitsel Tatel in Historical Context

NOVANEWS

by Kwitsel Tatel and Anthony Hall

Israeli abuses of the human rights of Palestinian people find a reflection in the historical and contemporary treatment of Indigenous peoples in North America. This observation helps support the argument that there is much more going on than immediately meets the eye in the trial of Kwitsel Tatel.

The Criminalization of Indigenous Peoples in North America, Israel/Palestine and Throughout the Colonized World

The criminalization in Canada of a single Aboriginal mother, Kwitsel Tatel, for trying to feed her children is one small saga in the ongoing holocaust of the Americas that began in 1492 and continues to this day. The case of Kwitsel Tatel began with a dispute over the contemporary place of Aboriginal fisheries in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. BC is the westernmost of Canada’s ten provinces.

Sto:lo Drummers and Activists Rally in Front of the Chilliwack Court House on July 26. On July 25, the prior day, Kwitsel Tatel and her son, Kwiis Hamilton, were both jailed and penalized for her decision to drum and sing her evidence into Court dressed in  Aboriginal regalia. This attack on Kwitsel Tatel’s person and Aboriginal rights echoed the criminalization of her maternal grandmother, Margaret Leon. As Kwitsel Tatel remembers, her grandmother was once jailed in BC’s notorious Oakalla Prison for transgressing Canada’s laws prohibiting Aboriginal dancing and singing.

Whether the resource in question is fish from the Fraser River, trees from Amazonia, hydroelectricity from Quebec, oil from Uzbekistan, or blood diamonds and blood coltan from the eastern Congo, the same patterns of appropriation are replicated again and again. On one frontier after the next of imperial, national and corporate expansion, Indigenous peoples have been demonized, dehumanized, criminalized, and attacked with the intent of seizing ownership and control of their Aboriginal lands, waters, and persons. In the Africa, the Middle East, Indochina, Australasia, and throughout the Americas, imperial powers and their successor states have developed all sorts of legal tricks to give a patina of legitimacy to the theft of natural resources from First Nations citizens whose human rights are regularly attacked to fuel the corporate violence of coercive appropriation.

YouTube

The ongoing repressions of Indigenous peoples throughout the Americas tend not to be as starkly and insistently highlighted as the assaults on the human rights of Aboriginal Palestinians. The violent disentitlement, dispossession, and collective criminalization of indigenous Palestinians flow from the militarized expansion of the Israeli settler state.  There is much that is similar in the fate heaped on the Indigenous peoples of North America over several centuries and on the Aboriginal inhabitants of occupied Israel over recent decades.

As Shared Legacy of Colonialism Links Israel’s Overzealous Criminalization of Indigenous Palestinians and Canada’s Criminalization of Indigenous Peoples

Those of us in the so-called West who rightfully condemn the violent repressions of the Israeli state need constantly to remind ourselves that the injustices directed at the Palestinians reenact older injustices interwoven into the living national fabrics of countries like the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Where the South African government sought before the 1990s to replicate the constitutional mold of the so-called “White Dominions,” under President Nelson Mandela this pivotal polity eschewed apartheid whose legacy and substance remains a factor in the organization of the political economies of Canada, Israel, Australia, the United States. Like the conquering founders of Protestant Ulster in northern Ireland, all these polities derived expansionary zeal from the religious mythology of the Judeo-Christian civilizing mission.

The History of Criminalizing Aboriginal Peoples in Australia is Especially Dark.

In much the same way that Canadian, Australian and New Zealand prisons are disproportionately crowded with Native people even to this day, the dark dungeons of Israel continue to be stuffed to the brim with thousands of Palestinian prisoners. Many individuals in these criminalized groups are guilty of nothing more than being born into nationalities whose continuing Aboriginal rights to the soil and waters of their ancestors call into question the legitimacy of the societies built by settler regimes with the genocidal intent.

As cultural and genetic offspring of imperial Europe, many of these receiving stations for immigrants were bolstered with the integration into their national myths of Old Testament premonitions promising a New Jerusalem, a City on the Hill to be built to replace the old world civilizations of Indigenous peoples.

As epitomized by the preoccupations of New England’s Puritan founders, the new settlers were often animated by biblical passages supporting their claims to be Israelites embarked in taking possession of an expanding land promised to them by God. They thought of themselves as God’s Chosen People with a manifest destiny to spread the seeds of their Protestant civilization even as they subjugated, extinguished and pushed aside those they viewed as inferior beings not destined to enter Heaven or to invest posterity with their presence, influence, and heritages. Indeed, on July 4, 1776, the founders of the United States announced in the American Declaration of Independence the collective criminalization of their Aboriginal neighbours as “merciless Indian savages.” The Aboriginal lands of these targeted peoples formed the enticement for, and medium of, transcontinental expansion.

Kwitsel Tatel and the Existing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada

Kwitsel Tatel is a name bestowed by a wise mentor in the Halq’emeylem language. It signifies a mother grizzly bear. Kwitsel Tatel’s Christian name is Patricia Elaine Kelly. A single mother of an eighteen-year old son and a seventeen-year old daughter, Kwitsel Tatel was born in December of 1963 on the banks of the Fraser River in a family fishing camp maintained by her mother, Rene Pennier.

Until Kwitsel Tatel was twelve this fishing camp in the Chilliwack area lay at the heart of her political economy and that of her ten bothers and sisters. They are the survivors of the sixteen children born to her mother and father, Patrick Walter Kelly, who died of severe alcoholism when Kwitsel Tatel was six years old. In 1976 when she was thirteen-years old Kwitsel Tatel’s mother died, leaving the young fisher and her siblings as orphans.

The knowledge and practice of Aboriginal fishing runs primarily through Kwitsel Tatel’s maternal heritage. Her grandmother, Margaret Leon, was convicted and jailed in Burnaby’s Oakalla Prison for the supposed crimes of Aboriginal dancing and singing which were outlawed by the Canadian Parliament from the late 1800s until 1951. As a girl Margaret had witnessed at the Hudson’s Bay Company post in Langley BC a ritual Roman Catholic burning of sacred masks. This anti-traditionalist ceremony was meant to remove cultural obstacles to the Christian dominance sought. This act of cultural extinguishment was part of a dark genocidal heritage in the Americas that began with the burning by Spanish priests of many sacred texts recording Aztec, Mayan and Inca heritages. The federally-funded Indian residential schools would continue this genocidal heritages including through concerted efforts to silence Aboriginal languages.

Oakalla Prison where Kwitsel Tatel’s maternal grandmother, Margaret Leon, was incarcerated for Aboriginal singing and dancing contrary to the Canadian Parliament’s notorious Indian Act.

Christian missionaries had lobbied the Canadian Parliament to outlaw the West Coast potlatch and prairie sundancing because these Aboriginal spiritual traditions supported the legal functioning of sovereign Aboriginal societies. As long as potlatching and sundancing continued to thrive, strong Aboriginal nations on the resource frontiers of western North America remained more or less impervious to mass conversion to the religions and political economies of the newcomers.

Like many Coast Salish people, of which her Sto:lo nationality forms but one part, Kwitsel Tatel has a Chinese ancestor, the father of her maternal grandmother Margaret Leon. The Chinese settlers in British Columbia tended to gravitate towards Indians because both groups were segregated in enclaves of exclusion outside the framework of Canadian citizenship. Registered Indians throughout Canada were not able to vote in Canadian, provincial and municipal elections until the 1960s.

Kwitsel Tatel/ Patricia Elaine Kelly

As wards of the federal government– as “non-persons” from the perspective of Canadian law– registered Indians could not enter into binding contracts, hold political office outside their Indian reserves, or take those that had exploited and dispossessed them to court in civil litigation. Alternatively the mining, railway, and logging companies in the forefront of stealing lands and resources from Indigenous peoples were extended the status of legal “persons” by the same authorities that had defined the Indigenous peoples as “non-persons.”

As wards of the Canadian government Kwitsel Tatel and her younger orphaned siblings were ushered in and out of a federally-sponsored religious residential school, part of a network of similar institutions whose stated purpose was to wean Aboriginal youths from the Aboriginal heritages, traditions, and languages of their ancestors. Quite clearly the operations of these schools for de-Indianization, some of which persevered into the 1970s and 1980s, met the criteria of the UN Genocide Convention sanctioned by Canada from its inception in 1948. In its brief description of what constitutes genocide, section 2(e) of the Convention refers to “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Both the governments of Canada and Australia have officially apologized to Aboriginal peoples for the crimes often imposed on Aboriginal youths in pursuit of the states’ assimilationist objectives. Too often Australia’s and Canada’s “stolen generations” were made victims of predators’ violence in institutions that some have characterized as havens of pedophilia. As a survivor of a federally-funded religious residential school, Kwitsel Tatel was not exempt from the abuses inflicted on her. The abuses of the religious residential schools for Native people were inter-generationally compounded in the succession from grandparents, to parents, to Kwitsel Tatel’s generation.

YouTube 

Section 35

The case of Kwitsel Tatel began in 2004 when she was charged with the illegal possession of fish contrary to provisions in Canada’s Fisheries Act. Stage one of her trial proceeded until 2008 when Kwitsel Tatel was found guilty by Mr. Justice Thomas Crabtree. In 2010 Judge Crabtree became Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Then the trial entered a new phase during which time Judge Crabtree determined that Kwitsel Tatel would not receive resources to level the playing field in the constitutional phase of the trial. This constitutional phase was to have begun on July 25 of 2012.

Clad in a ceremonial paddler’s dress, Kwitsel Tatel drummed and sang her evidence into the Chilliwack Court House. For this she was stopped on the stairs and assaulted by several large armed sheriffs. After punching her son Kwiis Hamilton and after smashing apart the box of evidence I sought to deliver to Judge Crabtree’s court room, the sheriffs charged Kwitsel Tatel. They jailed her and her son and pressed yet further scurrilous charges against her for what could best be described as resisting assault.

On July 26 stage two of Kwitsel Tatel’s eight-years-and-counting trial began with her request to the court that I be recognized as an expert witness with specialized academic knowledge of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The letter below dated August 3 is Kwitsel Tatel’s response to what we experienced in her effort to introduce and document the argument with my assistance that her criminalization runs contrary the requirements of Canada’s supreme law, but specifically section 35. Its reads as follows:

Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982

35. (1) The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

The Constitution Act 1982 describes itself as well as prior constitution acts as follows:

52. The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

On its way to becoming law, the text of the Constitution Act 1982 had to pass through the Westminster Parliament in Great Britain as the Canada Act. On its way through the British Parliament the Aboriginal provisions of the Canada Act attracted considerable negative commentary. For instance a Conservative MP by the name of Sir Bernard Braine commented,

What are these existing rights? Do they merely amount to the right of these people to continue living in their existing rate of deprivation? Is the right of native peoples to suffer continuing erosion of their land, their land titles and their treaty rights under the Acts of the Canadian Parliament?…. Is it the right of Indian peoples to continue to live with existing discriminations against native education, languages, cultures and customs? Is the right to continue with an existing unemployment rate of 68 per cent? Is their right to continue with their existing life expectancy which is 20 years lower than the average Canadian? Is it their right to continue to suffer the existing suicide rate, which is the most cruel measure of any community’s despair, which is out of all proportion to the national average?

Mr. Justice Thomas Crabtree is the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court in British Columbia. On July 26 he opened stage two of Kwitsel Tatel’s trial for illegally possessing fish. As she continued her own self-representation, Kwitsel Tatel sought to start stage two with her core argument that many agencies of the Canadian government, but especially the so-called Justice Department, are more prone to deny and negate rather than recognize and affirm the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights. In systematically violating section 35 of its own so-called “supreme law,” the Canadian government sets a terrible example by presenting a model of contempt for our most basic institutions.

Will section 35 become an international beacon of reconciliation in a world where the legacy of colonialism blights many sites of turmoil, including the dispute between Arab Palestinians and Jewish settlers in Israel largely migrated from Europe and North America? Or is section 35 simply to be window dressing to cover over the continuation by revised means of one of the most sorry sagas of resource theft and genocide in the entire history of colonialism since 1492. As Labour MP Bruce George exclaimed in the Westminster debate on the Canada Act,

The trouble with academics and politicians is that they tend to confine their conception and analyses of human rights to Argentinians, South Africans, Poles and Russians. We tend to forget people on whom has been perpetrated one of the greatest international crimes of modern history—the destruction of ways of life of indigenous populations, not just in the Americas but in Australia, Africa and China.

In early November of 1981 the constitutional deal making that took place in Ottawa reached a crescendo. Nine of Canada’s ten provincial premiers requested the removal of the positive affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights from the text of Canada’s new supreme law. The tenth premier, Quebec’s Rene Levesque, was not invited to join in the negotiations, a fateful decision that continues to define key aspects of Canada’s political and legal culture. The federal government of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau initially went along with this disgraceful provincialist assault in the human rights of Aboriginal peoples. Only a massive groundswell of public revulsion at such a sorry display of hostile intent on the part of Canada’s highest law makers led to the reinsertion of the controversial words, now with the word “existing” placed before the term, “Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Is the Canadian government upholding the Honour of the Crown when it comes to Living Up Her Majesty’s Promises as Formalized in Crown-Aboriginal Treaties and in the Royal Proclamation of 1763?

Between 1983 and 1987 four first minsters conferences took place in Ottawa with the intent of giving further definition to the concept of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. These conference applied a new amending formula fixing all the authority to change Canada’s constitution in the federal and provincial governments and no voting authority whatsoever to the Aboriginal delegates sitting at the high table of Canadian federalism. “Now that is a biased jury if ever I came across one,” exclaimed George Bruce when referring to this inequity.

In commenting on the hostility of provincial governments in Canada to the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights, Sir Bernard Braine explained,

It is evident that the provinces which have major control over the resources in Canada’s federal constitution were not prepared to concede that any Aboriginal and treaty rights to land should be entrenched. The truth was that the treaty and Aboriginal rights which had been solemnly conferred on the native peoples of Canada by the Crown and which are part of the Constitution of Canada had been overlaid in the past by the Federal Parliament for the benefit of the provinces. The provinces were determined to ensure that a continuation of this process of erosion of native rights would not, if they could help it, be stopped dead in its tracks by constitutional entrenchment…. Aboriginal and treaty rights became a token in the course of the negotiations.

Some of the British parliamentarians engaged in debate on the Canada Act predicted “considerable problems” for Canada in “the bar of world opinion” for its tawdry treatment of Indigenous peoples. MP Bruce George predicted that “Indians in Canada will take their case not only to the domestic public but to an international public.” (Citation from the British parliamentary debates are taken from Hall’s article, “What Are We? Chopped Liver? Aboriginal Affairs in the Constitutional Politics of Canada in the 1980s,” in Michael D. Behiels, ed. The Meech Lake Primer: Conflicting Views of the 1987 Constitutional Accord (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1989) pp. 427-433

Aboriginal Rights and the Legacy of Colonialism

When the first ministers of Canada failed to muster sufficient political will to amend in a substantial way the Canadian constitution to give greater definition to Aboriginal and treaty rights, this responsibility fell to the Canadian judiciary. The trial of Kwitsel Tatel provides one venue for the process of asking the necessary constitutional questions. This process, however, can only if Judge Thomas Crabtree and the Crown prosecutor in the case, Mr. Finn Jensen QC, allow this self-defending Aboriginal fisher a fair chance to develop and document her constitutional analysis. The letter below speaks to the substance of this analysis and the necessary procedures to bring it forward.

The historical context of Kwitsel Tatel’s trial is further complicated by the fact that most of British Columbia has never been the subject of Crown-Aboriginal treaties negotiated according to the terms of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. These treaty negotiations are only now taking place in procedures that deny the necessary international aspect of the transactions.

YouTube 

The constitutional provisions of the Royal Proclamation are only now being applied in British Columbia. As I see it this Royal Proclamation was at the basis of one of the major grievances leading to the secessionist movement in British North America resulting in the founding of the United States. Unfortunately in the USA the imperatives of conquest have often prevailed over the rule of law in the growth of the most militarized polity the world has ever seen. Will British Columbians follow the lead of the Anglo-American secessionists if they are required by the Crown of Canada to make some genuine accommodations with the actual implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights? Will Canadian agree to apportion a fair share of the resource wealth of Canada to the original peoples?

Of course in many parts of the world the distinction between Indigenous peoples and the descendants of immigrants is not as obvious as it is in British Columbia. The Israeli state, for instance, is founded with the view that Jews are the true Indigenous peoples in a land given by God to his chosen people. This view of history, however, fails to deal with the reality that most indigenous Palestinians have more ancestral roots in the region’s Hebrew antecedents than do most Jewish immigrants from Europe and North America. Defining the rights and titles of whole populations in terms of religious stories that often combine some truths with some fanciful myths is always a dodgy business wherever it occurs.

Like Israel, Sierra Leone and Liberia provide important examples of societies that have gone through difficult straits when new settlers see

themselves as returning Indigenous peoples with prior rights that trump those of the true Aboriginal populations. Both African nationalities were created as polities for former African slaves.

The United States has an especially long way to go in coming to terms with its initial identity as a white settler state founded in opposition to British imperial efforts to prohibit vigilantism against Native peoples and to regulate the western expansion of Euro-American settlements into Indian Country. The support of Christian Zionists in the United States for Israeli expansionism has deep theological roots that go back to Puritan culture of New England.

Is there any connection between Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s unstinting backing for the Israeli state’s many assaults on the human rights of Palestinian people and the federal Crown’s anti-Aboriginal positions as consistently put forward by federal agents in court? Will the trial of Kwitsel Tatel provide the needed breakthrough in bringing section 35 forward as a positive factor in the development of a more equitable and fair genre of nation building? Will, for instance, the outcome of the trial strengthen or weaken the position of Indigenous peoples when it comes to their shared opposition to allowing Endbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to cut through their unceded, unsold and unconquered Aboriginal lands and waters? Will Canada continue to court international infamy because of its failure to move beyond its ongoing assaults on the human rights of Indigenous peoples within its own borders?

Thomas Flanagan catches a big fish. Prof. Flanagan works in the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary. He also has been a co-author with, and political adviser to, the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. Prof. Flanagan has been paid handsomely by the federal government for his frequent interventions as expert witness for the federal Department of Justice. Prof Flanagan is well known for his politically-motivated efforts to deny and negate rather than recognize and affirm the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. A US citizen who has specialized in deposing the indigenous Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in favour of a Canadian clone of the US Republican Party, Prof. Flanagan efforts to diminish judicial interpretation of section 35 have been quite effective.

Letter From Kwitsel Tatel to Judge Thomas Crabtree

3 August, 2012

His Honour Thomas Crabtree,

Chief Justice of the Provincial Court of British Columbia,

Suite 602, 700 West Georgia Street,

Vancouver BC,

V7Y 1E8

Dear Judge Crabtree;

I am increasingly distraught as I consider what I perceive to be a breakdown of due process in your handling of the commencement of the second stage of my trial. In this second stage I seek to draw out the appropriate constitutional questions from the systematic infringements of my section 35 rights through the combined actions of the federal Ministry of Fisheries, the federal Ministry of Justice, the RCMP, the now the BC Attorney General’s Office through the actions of some sheriffs in the Chilliwack Court House.

From my perspective the events of July 25 and 26 at the Chilliwack Court House constitute clear evidence that I am not receiving a fair trial. The tests and procedures being applied to my proposed expert witness, Professor Anthony J. Hall, seem very unlike the procedures applied to the other expert witnesses who were afforded recognition to speak in stage one of this trial.  Does this discrimination, like the treatment afforded to me, my son, and those who came to observe the course of my case on July 25, embody some sort of effort to prevent a proper exploration of the constitutional dimensions of the criminalizing process advanced through the combined efforts of officials representing the Crowns of both BC and Canada? As you know, I contend that this criminalizing process constitutes in its totality an infringement not only on my section 35 rights but, by extension, on the Aboriginal and treaty rights of all the Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

At the forefront of my troubled memories of my most recent round of experiences in the violent atmosphere of the Chilliwack Court House are the concluding hours of the proceedings of July 26. The subject at hand was the qualifying process of my proposed expert witness, Professor Anthony J. Hall. After you took over from me without explanation the questioning of the witness, Professor Hall was ushered off the stand following the Crown prosecutor’s cross-examination of him.

With Professor Hall off the stand you and Mr. Jensen entered into an extremely significant closed dialogue as if the matters the two of you were discussing in your own esoteric language were of no consequence for me. You excluded me from the dialogue. Neither you nor the federal Crown’s prosecutor attempted to clarify for me in layman’s terms the subject matter of your closed conversation and its implications for the entire course of this second stage of the trial. In this second stage I intend to demonstrate that Crown officials have not adhered to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the process of criminalizing me for what you refer to as the illegal possession of fish. Without you making any effort to bring me up to speed on the contents of your very consequential dialogue with Mr. Jensen, the two of you raised subjects, issues, terms, usages, and precedents that were new and unfamiliar to me.

Thinking back to those moments when Mr. Jensen succeeded with your consent and complicity in railroading the process, I kept hearing being repeated the terms “necessity,” “relevance,” and something called the Mohan case.  I object to the way you and Mr. Jensen failed to explain to me the connection between these terms and how they applied to the qualification process of Prof. Hall. By denying me a proper explanation of where the two of you chose to go, I was denied the opportunity to explain how Prof. Hall’s testimony would meet the tests of necessity and relevance that I now, in retrospect, understand emerge from the Mohan case.

I allege, Chief Judge Crabtree, that you and Mr. Jensen exploited my traumatized condition to cut me off from having a fair chance to develop my own approach to bringing out how I see the connection between your court’s criminalization of me and the pattern of systemic infringement of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized and affirmed in section 35.  I believe that it was inappropriate for you to have ushered Prof. Hall from the witness stand as a prelude to your closed dialogue with the Queen’s federal lawyer on the question of the necessity and relevance of his proposed testimony.

Certainly if you had explained to me what the Mohan case was about while Prof. Hall was still on the stand, I could have crafted questions to Prof. Hall that would have helped me to develop the case that his testimony would meet the tests of relevance and necessity brought forward by Mr. Jensen in his closing arguments. Why did Mr. Jensen not lead with these arguments? Why was the Mohan test introduced only after Prof. Hall was ushered off the stand? Why did Mr. Jensen not begin his arguments with the Mohan case and at least bring copies of it with him to share with us? Is this failure of disclosure? Why did not the Mohan case come up in your qualification of the Crown’s many expert witnesses deployed in the process of criminalizing me as if section 35 did not exist? Can we revisit the testimony of the Crown’s expert witnesses through the same lens of qualification applied to Prof. Hall?

Why is your response to my request that Prof. Hall be recognized as an expert witness on the constitutional phase of this trial so dissimilar to the way you responded to similar requests from the Queen’s federal lawyer or from me during stage one of this trial? Aren’t we changing the rules of this trial in mid-course in a way intended to disadvantage my side of the case even further when it comes to demonstrating the systematic failure of the Crown officials to adhere to the legal requirements of section 35 in their concerted zeal to criminalize me.

In retrospect I have become suspicious that you and Mr. Jensen have joined forces in developing a strategy to silence and exclude my primary witness from further participation in this second stage of the trial. As I see it Prof. Hall is much more expert than you or Mr. Jensen on section 35 matters as they pertain to history. Certainly his testimony promises to be necessary to help you understand the history of the issues at play in the trial of Kwitsel Tatel. Certainly Prof. Hall’s testimony would be relevant to the circumstances of the criminal justice system’s systemic infringement of my Aboriginal rights, my human rights in this David-and-Goliath scenario that I believe is so unfair that it cannot withstand outside scrutiny.

Violations of Due Process?

In the days following July 26 I have used the Internet to try to understand the substance of the exchange between you and Mr. Jensen as he seemingly instructed Your Honour on what his employer, the Justice Department of Canada, expects of you in your ruling on my application that Dr. Hall be recognized as an expert witness on the section 35 aspects of my case. As Prof. Hall is prepared to testify, there is a long history in Canada and especially in British Columbia of the criminal justice system being subverted with the goal of precluding a real legal reckoning with key aspects of the Aboriginal title and Aboriginal jurisdiction components of the rights referred to in section 35. The background of this process of criminalizing those that bring forward the most pointed critiques of the oldest and most pervasive genre of human rights abuses in the Americas is very clear in the treatment of, for instance, Louis Riel, Big Bear, Jules Sioui, Andy Paull, Robert Satiacum, Jack Cram, William Jones Ignace, Leonard Peltier, and Bruce Clark.  In retrospect it is very clear to me that this same pattern of subversion and evasion was on clear display in my treatment in the Chilliwack Court House on July 25 and 26.

Was the fact that my son and I faced violent reprisals from officers of the Crown on July 25 unconnected to the fact I was entering the Chilliwack Court House about to substantiate my view that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have been acting illegally in failing to recognize and affirm the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights? Am I supposed not to be rendered suspicious by the fact that that those same Crown officers that assaulted my son and I chose also to vandalize Prof. Hall’s blue plastic box of evidence as it was being carried into the court house? Eventually Prof. Hall picked up the smashed box of evidence from the RCMP who neglected to document the chain of custody leading to his retrieval of it at a site several blocks distant from the Chilliwack Court House?  On whose authority was Prof. Hall’s box of evidence moved from the custody of the sheriffs at the Chilliwack Court House to the custody of the RCMP? Why was not Prof. Hall provided with any documentation in the transfer of custody of potential evidence in my case? Who removed evidence from the vandalized blue plastic box during the period it was in the custody of the Chilliwack sheriffs and then the Chilliwack RCMP?

When Prof. Hall was delivered the smashed, vandalized box of evidence by Constable W. Sundstrom at the RCMP offices in Chilliwack its contents were in disarray and incomplete? How would you respond, Judge Crabtree, if your papers had been treated this same way when you entered court? Would it affect your capacity to carry out your responsibilities to administer the law professionally? Would you not wonder if there might be some connection between the vandalization of your written documents and the subject matter covered in these documents?

Am I not to be made suspicious about why it was that I was presented to your court in handcuffs and leg shackles on July 25? Am I not to wonder if some forces are at work in the chain of events leading to this opening display of my criminalized person when, after eight years of going along with stage one of the juridical process, my turn had finally come to take the initiative in introducing my section 35 arguments in this case? Your Honour, I am not the first one to be processed by BC’s notorious criminal justice system in this way. I am not the first one to have been made to appear before the courts in foot shackles and handcuffs when attempting to introduce the constitutional case that our Aboriginal title in much of the lands and waters of British Columbia is unceded, unsold and unconquered. I am not the first one to face violence from agents of the Crown in stepping forward to advance the constitutional interpretation that British Columbia developed outside the rule of law in the Dominion of Canada, a polity whose constitutional origins in the British Empire began to coalesce with the advent of King George’s articulation of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. I am not the first one to face Crown assertions that the constitutional history of BC and Canada is “irrelevant” to litigious processes such as the one that has criminalized me before the section 35 aspects of this case have been formally considered.  This sequence of criminalization first, consideration of the constitutional law second, I see as a travesty. Is it really fair that I had to be branded first in your court as criminal before I was allowed to introduce the constitutional aspects of my defense? This approach is very convenient for those provincially and federally sanctioned resource-extraction industries that derive wealth from our unceded, unsold, and unconquered lands. The bias of this unconscionable approach has everything to do with the propensity of the governments of Canada and BC to favour the rule of political expedience over the rule of law; to treat as criminals the victims of theft and to put those enjoying the benefits of that theft above the law.

Am I supposed to suspend any suspicion that this display of my brutalized and yet-again criminalized person in your court on July 25 was not in some way connected to the arguments I was about to introduce on the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights. My argument is that these rights and titles are systematically being denied and negated rather than recognized and affirmed in the Chilliwack Court House or in dozens of others Canadian court houses much like it? As it now stands these edifices of injustice could rightfully be described as virtual factories for the systemic criminalization of Aboriginal peoples. Am I to suspend my suspicion that a corporate and government fatwa has been directed through the police against those seeking to bring out the international aspects of the Aboriginal title issue in British Columbia?

Am I supposed to ignore what happened to lawyer and Doctor Bruce Clark when he was taken into custody and sent by a BC judge for a mental exam for attempting to bring forward allegations that the BC courts are guilty of violating the principles of third-party adjudication, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the Genocide Convention of 1948 in their treatment of issues pertaining to Aboriginal title and Aboriginal jurisdiction?  Judge Crabtree, you are Chief Justice of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Do you carry any responsibility to look into what happened on July 25 with the effect of disorienting and traumatizing me so seriously on July 26 that I failed to demand a proper explanation from you as the Queen of BC’s judge and from the Queen of Canada’s prosecutor about what was happening when the words necessity, relevance and the Mohan case were injected improperly into the proceedings?

Were you purposely conspiring with Mr. Jensen with the shared objective of sidelining an expert witness who has devoted many decades of research, scholarship and prolific publication to putting himself in a unique position to help illuminate for the court the necessary background and context of my section 35 arguments? To deny the court the assistance of Prof. Hall as I attempt to develop my constitutional arguments, Your Honour, would rightfully be perceived internationally as a mark that the BC criminal justice system favours the rule of political expediency over the rule of law. Such a denial would break new ground of unfairness in an unfair and inequitable trial that in my view has illustrated at every stage the failure of Crown officials in Canada, but especially the federal government’s prosecutor, to rise to the level of the positive affirmations in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

This provision, section 35, would have been removed altogether from Canada’s supreme law had not Prof. Hall and Thomas Berger among others argued to dissuade Crown officials from violating their fiduciary obligations to Aboriginal peoples in a country where Indians were classed as disenfranchised wards of the federal government until the 1960s, well into my own lifetime. Has the treatment of Indians as non-persons, as sub-humans, ever really ended? If even the Queen of Canada’s own lawyers in the so-called Ministry of Justice fail to recognize and affirm the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights in litigious venues like the one in which I am currently trapped, why should regular Canadian citizens respect the requirements of section 35? Are there any legal consequences for those who violate section 35? The answer is resounding NO as far as I can see.

Is there not a huge bias in the way the criminal law is administered in a country so prone to treat as criminals and outlaws those Indigenous peoples whose Aboriginal lands and waters form the resource base of Canada? Is it not common practice in many colonized societies for Indigenous peoples to be criminalized when they attempt to stand up to those oppressing them and dispossessing them? Have Crown officials ever criminalized those who steal our resources and deny our standing as peoples in international law, seemingly with impunity? How can Canada intervene internationally as a champion and defender of human rights in light of the kind of abuses that have put me in my current impoverished criminalized position that has stripped away many life chances for my two children? How many other Aboriginal children have been made to suffer similar deprivations from the infringements of a criminal justice system whose reign of arbitrary violence and disruption of our societies seems completely unrestrained by the promises formalized in Indian treaties east of the Rockies and in section 35?

Why should Canadians respect the law when they see such stunning examples of government officials charged to uphold the law denying and negating this responsibility by conducting themselves as if section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not exist? Have you already closed your mind, Your Honour, to the possibility that the most serious criminality going on in the Chilliwack Court House is that of Crown officials who have criminalized me contrary to key provisions in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 and in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There is much more to the background and history of these issues, Your Honour, than the Fisheries Act and the Vander Peet ruling. Please, Your Honour, allow me with the help of an esteemed and accomplished expert in section 35 to introduce historical background, depth and context so I can assist you in transcending the fish-bowl-like approach that has been made to prevail in the Chilliwack Court House far too long.

We must look beyond the anti-section-35 biases of the long-serving federal Crown prosecutor and his employers. The narrowness and shallowness of this prosecutor’s unbecoming custodianship of the Crown’s honour I believe is especially apparent in my case, one of many that demonstrates the broad extent of the unaccountability police powers wielded by this federal official in and around the Fraser River fisheries.

Given that you had some idea of what my brutalized family member and I were going through on July 26, why did you rush through such a significant part of the qualifying process as if it was an exclusive and esoteric matter involving only you and Her Majesty’s federal lawyer? Why was I denied notice and clear explanation of the Crown’s main argument to you on the qualifying process?

Drum as Weapon? Mohan Case as Weapon?

As far as I know Mr. Jensen did not give notice of the importance he planned to put on the Mohan case, a 1994 decision disqualifying expert witness testimony brought forward by the defense in the prosecution of Chikmaglur Mohan. Nor was I given an explanation of the contents of the Mohan case, let alone how it might be applied to my ongoing criminalization at the hands of a federal prosecutor and federal police in the BC provincial courts. Moreover, I was given no explanation of how the Crown understood the relationship of the Mohan case to this stage of the trial, where I intend with the help of Prof. Hall to explain to the court the relationship of section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 to the proceedings against me.

Surely the court would be well served by qualifying a witness already recognized by the Superior Court of Ontario as possessing expert knowledge in the history and politics of constitutional relations between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown in Canada and beyond.  As I intend to show, some reference to the history of section 35 and its antecedents will be crucial to the development of my arguments leading to the posing of appropriate constitutional questions as I intend to do.

With all these considerations in mind, therefore, I propose that you not write your ruling on the future role of Prof. Hall in my trial until we have had the opportunity to hash out in open court the applicability of the Mohan case to Prof. Hall’s testimony. As I see it, this discussion may have to extend to consideration of the testimony of other expert witnesses that have already been qualified without your having to address in a written ruling their qualifications. Why the double standard? Was the Mohan case inapplicable to those testimonies? If so what are the arguments to support this contention? Why was the Mohan case brought so late into the proceedings of July 26 only after Prof. Hall was removed by you from the witness stand without any explanation to me of what was intended for the next stage of the trial?

Why was the Mohan case lobbed so malevolently into the proceedings during the closing moments of the July 26 proceedings like a covert weapon aimed at crippling my ability to develop the section 35 aspects of my case? Why did the Crown not give proper notice and why did both you and Mr. Jensen fail to give me a proper explanation of what was going on as a self-representing defendant who only hours previously had been physically assaulted, jailed, and twice fingered both anally and vaginally by officers of the Chilliwack criminal justice system. Why must I be subjected to acts that would clearly be treated as criminal offences against my person in other contexts?

Given the traumatization to which me, my son, my expert witness, and my supporters were subjected to on July 25, wouldn’t it have been appropriate on your part to show at least the same degree of attentiveness as in earlier stages of the trial? Why did you not share with me explanations of the procedures and substance of the Crown’s case against both me and the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of all the Aboriginal peoples of Canada?

Why did you change your demeanour and conduct so significantly at such a crucial stage of the proceedings? What pressures and expectations were you subject to in a setting where you are among colleagues and I am not, in a setting where there is no credible case to be made that I have access to resources comparable to those seeking to criminalize my exercise of the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of my peoples as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Canadian Act, 1982? Why is it that the historical record of my case is being shaped in the publication of transcripts in a fashion that affords me no role whatsoever in deciding what gets transcribed and what does not?

What is to be said of an eight-year process that does not include the apportionment of resources for the production of a full transcript so that I can bring others such as Prof. Hall into this matter with a proper historical record of what has transpired to date? Is there an anti-history, anti-intellectual bias in your court as reflected in the lack of resources to produce a full written historical record of this trial? Is this failure of due process part of an attempt to cover up the dark workings in the abuse of Crown authority to deny and negate the existence of our Aboriginal title? Is this same anti-history bias also reflected by the position of the Queen’s federal prosecutor who could seriously argue without comment from you that knowledge of the history of constitutional relations between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples is irrelevant and unnecessary to the proper arbitration of the section 35 aspects of this case?

Why did you choose the late afternoon of July 26 to seemingly take sides with Mr. Jensen who seemed intent on either excluding Prof. Hall from future proceedings or so tightly circumscribing his future evidence that I will be constrained from properly developing my section 35 arguments? These arguments will include constitutional questions that I shall contend properly arise from many years of my experiencing the criminalizing tactics to which my people have been subjected since Judge Mathew Begbie ordered the hanging of so many BC Indians in establishing the basis of the court you now lead.

Frankly, Your Honour, I have not seen in your court a high level of knowledge on the history not only of Sto:lo people but also on the dealings of Canada and British Columbia with the constitutional, imperial, international, and colonial heritage of Crown-Aboriginal relations in British Columbia. Given the importance of precedent and context in arbitrating legal matters, especially where criminal law procedures overlap with positive affirmations of human rights as is clearly the situation in my case, I think there is every reason to see the testimony that Prof. Hall can bring forward as both necessary and relevant.

Mr. Jensen may not view such testimony as “necessary” to the cultivation of the understanding you need to decide on the relevant facts of this case and then arbitrate them. The forces seeking to criminalize me through the denial and negation of my Aboriginal rights obviously want a very narrow circumscription of the relevant facts. But that type of tight circumscribing of what happens in your court will not serve the cause of justice or reconciliation. There is a significant imperative of necessity in giving a wide birth for an exploration of the relevant facts in this matter. Alternatively there would be much to lose if you were to choose to constrain the discussion of the constitutional dimensions of my case, one that unfortunately for me captures the essence of so many contemporary tensions in the ongoing history of Crown-Aboriginal relations.

My arguments for the relevance of Prof Hall’s testimony— arguments that I was unable develop fully due to the breakdown of due process on July 25 and 26— is derived from the necessity I see in demonstrating the connections between the criminalization of so many of our people and the failure especially of agents of the federal Department of Justice to protect our section 35 rights as well as our very persons. This failure of protection is evidenced in the high levels of uninvestigated or improperly investigated predators’ violence to which we have been notoriously and disproportionately subjected, especially in British Columbia. This failure of protection falls disproportionately on Aboriginal women whose inequity of treatment has now become a human rights issue at the United Nations.

My son and I experienced this failure of protection for our human rights and physical persons on July 25 when I attempted to drum in our evidence to the Chilliwack Court House. This failure of protection for our persons and for our section 35 rights is definitely a factor in the epidemics of self-abuse (including suicide), domestic violence, homelessness, addictions and such to which we have disproportionately fallen prey. For those suffering this fate and for those Canadians of conscience who abhor this blight on our national character, the level of necessity is high to draw the appropriate linkages between socio-economic breakdown and the Crown’s failure to live up to the promises of section 35, especially as they apply to the most disempowered, disentitled, impoverished, and marginalized branches of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

I am requesting therefore that we reconvene on August 29 or some other date to pick up the unfinished business where we left off when the Queen’s federal prosecutor exited the process by lobbing in the Mohan tests in a procedurally-flawed and inappropriate fashion. I contend this breakdown of due process extends to your own deviation from the attentiveness to my situation you have shown at earlier stages of this eight-year-and-counting trial.

In reflecting in retrospect on your apparent character change I recall your stating that you would read your ruling from another location through a video conference connection with the Chilliwack Court House. If I had not been traumatized on July 26th I would most certainly have questioned your statement of intention to conduct my trial through a virtual presence rather than a physical presence. Are you setting a precedent here that could be extended to me if I opted, say, not to attend the Chilliwack proceedings; to be present only digitally rather than physically?

Frankly this idea of yours raises questions in my mind about whether or not you are seeking to avoid the community’s growing attentiveness to my case. This growing level of interest was on clear display on the morning of July 26 in front of the Chilliwack Court House where a surprisingly large assembly of people gathered to protest the sheriffs’ violent response to my decision to drum our evidence into the proceedings on July 25.  I think it was telling how few of those who assembled in front of the Chilliwack Court House were willing to go into the building that seems for many Sto:lo to have become a symbol of oppression through overzealous criminalization of our people; through the high propensity of officialdom to manifest contempt for our symbols, cultural identities, and basic human rights. How should me, my son, my supporters and those who took part in the demonstration of the morning of July 26 perceive your plan to distance yourself from the scene of what I and others view as systemic and institutionalized Crown crimes against Aboriginal peoples.

Does the Canadian Crown’s Prosecutor in This Case Really Speak for Her Majesty?

To conclude this intervention I want to ask that the federal Ministry of Justice’s Crown prosecutor, Mr. Finn Jensen Q.C., be removed from all future proceedings in this case because he is in a clear conflict of interest. I intend to develop the argument in stage two of this trial that agents of the federal government, but especially the Crown prosecutors employed by the Canadian Department of Justice, have consistently violated their fiduciary and section 35 obligations to recognize and affirm the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights. As I have already submitted to the court in Prof. Hall’s essay on the criminalization of Kwitsel Tatel, the case ofUSA versus Washington state (1974) demonstrates what a proper procedure consistent with the rule of law in Canada might look like.

There is something fundamentally and structurally wrong with the process in Canada that puts such heavy emphasis on criminalizing processes even as they touch concurrently on arbitration of the scope and content of section 35 rights. Isn’t there some contradiction between the federal Crown’s heavy resort to the criminal courts in dealing with that part of Canada’s supreme law that recognizes and affirms the existence of our Aboriginal and treaty rights?

Who in the federal prosecutor’s office, the RCMP, the federal Fisheries Department or the BC Attorney-General’s Office has been attentive to the existence of my section 35 rights in the process of criminalizing me in ways that include the imposition of an enormous burden of unfairness on my children? What are the consequences for my children, but especially my son, Kwiis Hamilton, now that he has been assaulted in the Chilliwack Court House and now that he has been left in the lurch when on July 26, after having been released without charge from the courthouse jail.

What are the reasons that Constable W. Sundstrom, the RCMP officer in charge of investigating my alleged crime on July 25, failed to accept as authentic my son’s account to him of the assault against him in the Chilliwack Court House? Why are no charges being pressed on the sheriff that punched him in the jaw without provocation as seen by many witnesses in the Chilliwack Court House? Will Kwiis Hamilton now be targeted as I have been targeted by the notorious criminal justice system of British Columbia? Need we turn to the United Nations for help? What kind of education, if any, has been extended on cultural diversity and on section 35 rights to the Chilliwack Court House sheriffs, some of whom are not much older than my son.

What was it about this education or the orders the young sheriffs received that made them feel so entitled to defile my sacred drum, to rip apart my ceremonial paddle dress, pile on top of me, punch my son, stomp on a box of important evidence in this case, all on the upper stair well of your hall of injustice, and then deny their own culpability in enwrapping me in yet another layer of criminality? Why not be honest and just have the Chilliwack sheriffs deliver me to your court next time in stripped prison wear with handcuffs and a ball-in-chain? Please be aware that nine days after the assault on me I am still covered in blemishes and bruising from the roughing up I received trying to get into your court as scheduled with a well-prepared case to demonstrate systemic infringements of section 35’s supposed protections. According to officialdom so far all the blame is mine and the sheriffs face no penalties at all in your halls of arbitrary violence, lack of accountability, conflict of interest, and injustice.

What are the implications if Mr. Jensen has indeed been advising the Queen inappropriately in her prosecutions of Aboriginal fishers in the provincial courts of BC? What if it can be demonstrated that Mr. Jensen has failed for an entire generation, but especially since the coming into force of the Constitution Act 1982, to give sound and accurate legal directives to Her Majesty especially on Aboriginal fishing matters in the Fraser Valley area? What is Mr. Jensen’s conception of the implications of section 35 for his line of work, for the fisheries of BC, and for the way the political economy of Canada and BC should or should not be legally regulated? What enforcement responsibilities fall on him and the police forces he directs when it comes to section 35? What is the conception of section 35, including matters of Aboriginal title and jurisdiction, that prevails in the Canadian Ministry of Justice? Is it legal for the Canadian Ministry of Justice to fight us so consistently in court? Is it in the national interest? If so, how?

Why is it that all the onus seems to be on me to answer all the Crown’s many questions in seeking my criminalization whereas I run into a wall of hostility and disbelief when I want to ask valid constitutional questions about Crown obligations, including in this court case and other court cases like it, to respect and enforce section 35? What defense can be offered to my allegation that Mr. Jensen has over the course of the quarter century I have known of him and his work consistently denied and negated rather than recognized and affirmed the existence of Aboriginal and treaty rights as referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982?

Mr. Jensen is far from alone among federal and provincial prosecutors in, I would allege, failing to take section 35 into account in his criminal prosecutions. Nevertheless it is Mr. Jensen who has been the federal Crown’s main point person in the process of criminalizing me over the course of this extended trial. Mr. Jensen’s role as the primary driver in the process of criminalizing me makes it inappropriate for him to continue to represent the federal Crown now that we are grappling with the question of whether section 35 has been adhered to by Crown officials or not in proceedings that started with the Crown’s apprehension of my fish on July 14, 2004? These same fish, or the two-thirds of them that remained the next day, were sold by the Crown to Seven Seas Corporation. Does this tight sequence of events not suggest that Mr. Jensen and the criminal justice system he represents has treated me as essentially guilty until proven innocent from the conception of the federal Crown’s prosecution? Does not my being forced into a BC provincial court to face the federal government’s criminal proceedings against me not turn appropriate procedures on their head with the effect of prejudicing my defense of section 35 rights which we are only now being addressed after I have already been branded a criminal in the litigious venue over which you preside?

Not only has Mr. Jensen been the main point person in the Queen of Canada’s criminalization of me since July of 2004. For decades Mr. Jensen has been a main point person in concerted campaigns of Crown crackdowns on the rights of many Sto:lo fishers. These crackdowns and the juridical proceedings that have followed appear to many of us to embody systemic abuses of authority whose effect is to deny and negate the existence of section 35 as well as to strip legitimacy from ongoing Crown-Aboriginal treaty talks.

Rather than dealing with Aboriginal fishing rights and the need for conservation in the context of overlapping jurisdictions, including Aboriginal jurisdiction in unceded natural resources, the courts have been made to intervene in ways that predetermine the outcome of treaty negotiations. Judge Crabtree, will you be preempting the role of treaty negotiators in deciding my guilt or innocence in this matter? From whence did you derive your jurisdiction in our unceded territories and waters to decide my fate and the fate of my people in this way? Where is there Aboriginal consent for this process as required in key provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763? I for one have not yet been asked to give my consent.

Why is there so much responsibility placed on my shoulders to defend our section 35 rights against the hostile weight of so many branches of the Canadian and BC governments? Are these branches of government exempt from the legal requirement to adhere to section 35? Why is it deemed to be in the national interest of Canada for Crown officials to repeatedly fight us in virtually every instance where Aboriginal individuals and entities attempt to assert our collective Aboriginal and treaty rights on the ground, in the water, and in court? Why are we made to be so isolated in our attempts to get the Canadian government to respect Canadian law?

Where is the protection of the benevolent Crown referred to in many treaty negotiations east of the Rockies and in the era when the imperial government sought our alliances in the fur trade and in the defense of Canada from the Indian-fighting armies of the United States? Why is it that I see Crown symbols on all the officers who attack me on the river, at my home, and now in the stair well of the Chilliwack Court House? Has the Queen now become yet one more predator in our systemic defilement and disentitlement? Or is the Queen’s good name and reputation being plunged into infamy by those who claim to be acting on her behalf but are not? Is the prestigious imagery of the Crown being exploited and abused in ways that dishonor Her Majesty and violate the actual constitution of Canada? I am asking, Your Honour, that you make your court a safe place to pursue these kinds of questions. I am asking that you do what is necessary to make the Chilliwack Court House a safe place for my people so that we can go into such fundamental constitutional questions without fear of being insulted, humiliated, demeaned, and beat up by vigilantes in uniforms who seem to make up the rules as they go.

In the Chilliwack region Mr. Jensen is so deeply associated with these alleged Crown violations of Aboriginal rights that he is not the appropriate person to argue on behalf of the Canadian Crown whether those same interventions, including in my case, were legal or not. As was suggested by his last-minute submissions on July 26 Mr. Jensen will be inclined to defend his own personal role in the history of Crown-Aboriginal conflict in the Fraser River fishery.  This kind of personal stake in the outcome of the constitutional phase of my trial makes his efforts to sideline and silence my expert witness suspect. Mr. Jensen is indeed in a conflict of interest.

In my view Mr. Jensen should not be placed in the position where it might be perceived that he is defending his own personal record in the history of Crown-Sto:lo conflicts on the Fraser River and in the courts when it comes to arguing the section 35 implications of my case. Some other federal prosecutor who does not have such a pronounced personal stake in our section 35 proceedings should be made to replace Mr. Jensen. The honour of the Crown requires it. As was harshly demonstrated on July 25 and 26, we need to make some major changes for the public good and my own safety in the way we proceed from stage one to stage two of this trial.

As I have indicated repeatedly since the beginning of this trial, I don’t believe the BC provincial courts are the appropriate juridical jurisdiction for deliberating these matters that include important federal and international dimensions.  Accordingly I propose that you move this matter along with your recommendations on the unanswered constitutional questions that arise from the substance of this case. I propose you do your part in moving this matter to a venue more appropriate than a BC provincial court for arbitrating questions concerning federal jurisdiction in Indians and fish as well as the section 35 rights of all the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. As Prof. Hall indicated to you on the stand on July 26, if the provincial governments had had their way in November of 1981, section 35 would not now be existent in the Constitution Act 1982.

In the historic negotiations in November of 1981 of Canada’s first ministers on patriating Canada’s constitution, the provincial governments demonstrated their antagonism to our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Not only were these rights perceived by Canada’s premiers as representing a significant challenge to the monopoly interests that provincial governments claim in natural resources as well as licensing their corporate exploitation. Because of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867, the provision that indicates that “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” lie within the jurisdiction sphere of the Dominion of Canada’s parliament, these Aboriginal and treaty rights have also perceived as a potential federal wedge in expanding the Canadian Dominion’s powers.

This telling historical episode in Canadian federalism in November of 1981 helps explain why it is that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have looked to the imperial government and then the national government for some protection from colonial and then provincial infringements. What happened to our history of alliance with the British imperial Crown and the Crown of Canada? Why are you, Judge Crabtree, presiding over the determination of my guilt or innocent in the Aboriginal fisheries of the Fraser River? How did the province that empowers you get authority over me, over my people, over our fisheries, and over all our unceded natural resources? What private deals have been cut without Aboriginal consent to put you in the position in which you now find yourself?

We never gave our consent to the transfer of the fiduciary responsibility to safeguard our rights and titles from the imperial government to the Canadian government. Similarly we never gave our consent to further download this responsibility to the provincial governments whose history of denial and negation of our Aboriginal and treaty rights is undeniable, but most especially in BC.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, there should be some outside investigation of the violence and vandalization of evidence that took place in the Chilliwack Court House on July 25. This investigation should not be police investigating police. We have seen enough of that in the efforts in the many scandals currently engulfing the RCMP of BC. Instead of police investigating police we need some genuine third-party arbitration of what took place in the Chilliwack Court House especially on July 25.

Generally speaking all our Aboriginal and treaty rights cases take place without the benefit of genuine third-party adjudication. Most of the judges we face in BC are holders of some form of title to ownership of one or more pieces of BC land. Moreover all the judges we face are paid from government revenues that depend one way or another on what many of us see as the ongoing theft of our resources from our unceded Aboriginal lands and waters. This relationship of BC judges to a system of law that continues to dispossess us without our consent, contrary to the constitutional principles articulated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, has yet to be addressed in a system that is currently governed more by political expediency rather than the rule of law.

If genuine third-party adjudication was ever to take place it would have to include the international involvement of judges not biased by the source of their pay cheques and by their ownership of property in the contested lands and waters of BC. Obviously their possession of these title deeds to BC properties makes BC judges prone to defend a system of land tenure that developed during an era when the colonial and provincial governments of British Columbia opposed all pressures to recognize Aboriginal title and negotiate Crown-Aboriginal treaties similar to those negotiated east of the Rockies or in the Crown colony of New Zealand.

Significantly Prof. Hall gave expert testimony in the one case where BC title issues were subjected to genuine third-party adjudication in a federal court at Portland Oregon. In her ruling in 2000 on the case of USA versus Pitawanakwat, Judge Janice Stewart found evidence of political interference in BC’s criminal justice system. This politicization of BC’s criminal justice system by police, Crown prosecutors and their media mouthpieces was referred to by Prof. Hall in your court and in the evidence he brought forward to Judge Stewart.

Is this finding of the US court in the Pitawanakwat case to be dismissed as irrelevant and unnecessary to the good function of the criminal justice system in BC, including in the unfolding of my case? Would not the dismissal of such evidence as irrelevant and unnecessary be a very political act on your part? As I see this legacy of politicization identified by Prof. Hall and Judge Stewart continues. I see a very political agenda in the effort by the Queen’s federal prosecutor to treat the evidence I have asked Prof. Hall to bring forward as either irrelevant or as unnecessary to your determinations in my case.

I look forward to your responses to these interventions that in my view are calculated to advance the quest for justice of fair-minded Canadians seeking reconciliation through adherence to the rule of law in a society increasingly unhinged from the best of both our shared and distinct legal traditions.

Yours Sincerely,

Kwitsel Tatel/Patricia Elaine Kelly

Defender of Fish, Defender of Section 35 Rights, and Defender of the Rule of Law in Canada

 

Posted in Palestine Affairs, CanadaComments Off on From British Columbia to IsraHell/Palestine: The Trail of Kwitsel Tatel in Historical Context

Orwellian Ramifications Begin to Unfold in Syria

NOVANEWS

By Ismail Salami

There is a horrible speculation that the insurgents in Syria may have seized hold of chemical weapons.

Apart from the catastrophically unthinkable havoc the rebels can wreak in Syria and in the region with the WMDs, the rhetorical question which remains is how these weapons of mass destruction have fallen into the hands of the insurgents who are chiefly composed of Wahhabi al-Qaeda mercenaries of different nationalities including Afghans, Iraqis, Turkish, Yemenis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Saudis.

The situation in Syria is assuming Orwellian ramifications and the possibility to clearly understand or dissect the situation in the country is not an easy task.

In addition to the active role the Saudi-backed Wahhabis, CIA and some western intelligence organizations are playing in Syria, there is one entity, namely IsraHell which is stealthily espying every single development in Syria.

For the first time, an IsraHelli spy official clearly stated that IsraHell supports regime change in Syria and that it really demands an end to the government of President Bashar Assad.

“I hope it will happen, even though I don’t know when or how,” Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor said on Tuesday.

The top spy chief implicated why Assad should go and how it would damage the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“I am not going to try to calculate when Assad’s end will come, but when it happens, Iran’s biggest ally will be gone.”

Taking it for granted that Assad is doomed to go, he said, “I hope the new Syria will understand that joining Iran is a mistake that brings isolation from the Western world.”

Such a feeble perception of the Syrian situation is indicative of one who is either too optimistic or one who is well aware of what is going on behind the scene and that which is not visible to the ordinary people with no intelligence savvy.

Ironically, Dan Meridor does not seem to understand that the situation in IsraHell is spiraling out of control with people protesting against social injustice almost on a daily basis. Since last month, four Israelis have set themselves ablaze from an extremity of despair.

On August 5, John McCain and Lindsey O. Graham, both Republicans, who represent Arizona and South Carolina in the Senate, respectively and Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent, who represents Connecticut in the Senate advised the US government to directly and openly provide assistance, including weapons, intelligence and training, to the insurgents in Syria as they claim President’s Assad’s ‘brutality’ is no longer to be tolerated.

“It is not too late for the United States to shift course. First, we can and should directly and openly provide robust assistance to the armed opposition, including weapons, intelligence and training. Whatever the risks of our doing so, they are far outweighed by the risks of continuing to sit on our hands, hoping for the best.”

Another part of this sabotage axis against Syria is Turkey which plays a very treacherous role in snowballing the Syrian crisis. Turkey has supplied the rebels with dozens of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

According to NBC, the missile supplies might have been provided by Turkey, Saudi Kingdom and Qatar monarchy, the three countries which have made strenuous and costly efforts to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad.

In a press conference at the United Nations in New York City, a Syrian UN representative announced that Turkey shipped US-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to rebels via Turkey, saying that Turkey was pleased with Kofi Annan’s resignation because Ankara and Washington were initially opposed to his six point peace plan.

In fact, Turkey should be grateful to Syria what it has done for it in the past. It is acknowledged by many pundits that it was Bashar’s father Hafiz Assad who tailored a compromise between Turkey and the Kurds living on both sides of the country, thereby vaccinating Turkey for years against any attacks on the part of the Kurds.

The antagonistic policies of Turkey have left President Bashar Assad with no choice but to grant autonomy to the Kurds in Syria who can foment dilemma for the Ankara government and get Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan into hot water.

The ongoing Kurdish insurgency has reportedly claimed the lives of at least 48000 over the past two decades.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is sharply aware of what a deep impact this decision can exercise on the security of Turkey.

He claimed the two groups had built a “structure in northern Syria” that for Turkey means “a structure of terror.”

Turkey is making a tactical mistake by supporting terrorism in Syria and supplying them with weapons, military training and human resources. Turkey will certainly fall into the pitfall it has dug for Syria and the insecurity it envisages for Syria will ultimately recoil against the government itself.

As for Washington and NATO, they are making a selfsame mistake.

The two are fondling terrorism and extremism by throwing support behind the insurgents in Syria. They know that a popular uprising in the true sense of the word is not clearly discernible in Syria and that what has been taking place in Syria is a string of militancy and terrorist operations funded by the Saudis and the Qataris and some western countries who are waiting to reap the benefits of their atrocities in case Bashar Assad’s government collapses. Such a day, if it comes, will open a new chapter of horror in the Middle East with no end in sight.

The unfurling reality is that the hostile states and powers antagonizing Bashar Assad are gradually getting caught up in the labyrinthine Orwellian pitfall of their own folly and that they are consciously or unconsciously working in the best interests of the Zionist regime.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Orwellian Ramifications Begin to Unfold in Syria

Civil Lawsuit Brought Against the Zio-Nazi Ministry

NOVANEWS

Dear All,

On August 28th, the verdict in the civil lawsuit brought against the Israel Ministry of Defense and State by the Corrie family after the Israeli government failed to take responsibility for Rachel Corrie’s murder in 2003 will be heard.  During this time, our friends at the Rachel Corrie Foundation (RCF) are encouraging people concerned with justice for Rachel’s killing and committed to activism aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to take action with the We Divest Campaign.
Please find below a call to action from our friends at the Rachel Corrie Foundation. We encourage you to take part in any and all ways you can–and to spread the word in your networks and communities.
We are honored that RCF sees the We Divest campaign as “one of the most promising attempts to end American complicity in the occupation.” We share with RCF the commitment to pressure TIAA-CREF to divest from American companies profiting from the occupation like Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions, Northrop Grumman, and Hewlett Packard. As always, we invite you to join us.
Onward,
Alissa Wise
National Coordinator of the We Divest Campaign

Mark the Verdict in the Corrie Civil Case in Israel – August 28th!
 

August 10, 2012

Dear Friends,
The Corries are on their way to Haifa for the verdict in their civil lawsuit later this month.  We call on you to act in support.  For ten years, you have remembered Rachel Corrie and followed the work of her family and many others to pursue accountability and justice in her case.  You stood with the Corries when the Israeli Government failed to take responsibility for Rachel’s killing by the Israeli military in 2003.  You stood with the Corries when the U.S. Government was largely ineffective, despite their finding that the Israeli military police investigation of Rachel’s killing did not meet standards of being “thorough, credible, and transparent.”  Seeking every possible avenue to push for transparency and accountability, and on advice of the U.S. Government, the Corrie family brought a civil lawsuit against the Israel Ministry of Defense and State.
 
Now, nearly 7 1/2 years since the case was filed and nearly 2 1/2 years since the trial in Haifa District Court began, we ask you to continue to stand with the Corries as a verdict is announced the morning of August 28th in the courtroom of Judge Oded Gershon.  

All of us at the Rachel Corrie Foundation hope the outcome will provide some measure of justice for Rachel’s killing; but regardless, the larger struggle for justice and equal rights continues.  Inspired by Rachel’s work and her belief that all Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace with dignity and equality, we continue our efforts:

  • To seek a just peace in the Middle East and an end to the 45-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
  • To bring visibility to the oppression but also to the spirit and endurance of the people of Gaza and all Palestinians.
  • To bring attention to the responsibility we all have for the continuing injustices and human rights abuses in Palestine, and for the particular culpability of corporate America and U.S. taxpayers.
  • To end Israel’s impunity regarding human rights violations, including home demolitions.

The Israeli policy of home demolitions, sometimes extending to entire villages, remains as urgent an issue now as it did when Rachel defended homes in Rafah, Gaza.  

Palestinians in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and Hebron Hills live daily with the threat (or reality) of their homes being confiscated or turned into rubble.  More than 1,000 houses were demolished in the Naqab alone in 2011, and the Prawer Plan, approved by the Israeli Government in September 2011, will lead to further displacement of 70,000 people.  We call on you individually and as organizations to mark the week of the trial verdict with actions to end the housing demolitions that deny Palestinians the basic human right to be secure in their homes.  

 

For those in Palestine/Israel:

We are inspired by the incredible work Israeli and Palestinian activists do to challenge home demolitions and confiscations.  We encourage any actions organized the week of the verdict to include Rachel’s memory and spirit. You can include Rachel’s image by printing this poster of her in Rafah, Gaza Strip.  Register your planned action here and we will post it to our website. Send photos or videos of your action to info@rachelcorriefoundation.org.

For information about further actions planned, contact Jen at donkeysaddle@gmail.com.
For those in the U.S.:

We can impact home demolitions by removing support from companies that profit from Israel’s occupation and home demolition policies. The We Divest campaign to pressure investment firm TIAA-CREF to divest from such companies is a promising effort to end U.S. complicity in the occupation.  Caterpillar Inc. is one of these companies.  It profits from destruction wreaked upon Palestinian families, their farms, and their economy using CAT equipment.  Rachel was killed beneath a Caterpillar D9 weaponized bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian family.  While TIAA-CREF recently removed CAT in its Social Choice accounts, it still holds over a billion dollars of CAT stock.

Please take the following actions:  

  1. From Sunday, August 26th until Sunday, September 2nd, deliver letters to TIAA-CREF offices, and remember Rachel as you do. Combine this with a larger event, or designate a few people to do the delivery.  Register your planned action here so we can post it to our website, and we will e-mail you a poster to use of a Palestinian family impacted by demolitions using CAT equipment.  Can you help us exceed our goal of delivering letters to half of the 60 TIAA-CREF offices?   Download a copy of our sample TIAA-CREF letter.   Send us photos and videos from your actions, and we will launch a nationwide social media campaign with images that show the level of support for TIAA-CREF divestment.  
  2. Print this image of Rachel.  Photograph yourself with it, and post it on our new Tumblr blog.  Deliver the photo to the nearestIsraeli Consulate demanding accountability and an end to home demolitions. We will gather images worldwide and also send them to the U.S. Department of State.
  3. Take part in a live conference call with the Corrie family, Wednesday, August 29th, 6:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time/ 9:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.  To participate in the call, RSVP to rochelle@rachelcorriefoundation.org. Host a house party or community gathering for those who want to join the call.
  4. Sign this petition in support of the campaign to pressure TIAA-CREF to divest.

For those in other parts of the world:

We encourage you, too, to use your creativity to take a stand against home demolitions now.  Register your planned action here so we can post it on our website.  Please send photos and videos of your action to info@rachelcorriefoundation.org.  

We invite all our friends and allies to share reflections on Rachel’s stand on twitter with the hashtag #RememberRachel. 

Together, we can seize the moment.  We can tell Rachel’s story.  Most of all, we can cry out with her message of equality and human rights and for her call to end home demolitions and the Israeli occupation!

Thank you for your support as together we build the global movement for Palestinian human rights! 

 

The Staff and Board of Directors
Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice
Olympia, Washington

For info about Rachel Corrie…
For info about the trial in Israel…
For info about home demolitions…
For info about divestment…

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Civil Lawsuit Brought Against the Zio-Nazi Ministry

The Satanic Origin of Modern Cult-ure

NOVANEWS

holmes.jpeg

Left. Life imitates satanic art.

Modern Cult-ure is designed to induct society into a satanic cult, the Illuminati. Under the guise of “secularism” the goal is to deny man’s divine soul and reduce him to a domesticated animal.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

(This combines two articles on the Judeo Masonic basis of modern cult-ure dating from 2005. They both appear in Cruel Hoax. I re-post this essential material for new initiates.)

There should be a POISON symbol over the doors of our universities, cinemas and art galleries. There should be a similar warning on our TV, music and videos.

In the 1920’s, leaders of the Communist International decided that Western society was too strong to conquer. It was necessary to weaken it by subverting its cultural institutions–family, education, religion, art, mass media and government.

They have largely succeeded. While maintaining these institutions in their familiar format, they have subtly changed the content. It’s like lacing a bottle of aspirin with arsenic. The purpose is to gradually poison, paralyse and eventually destroy.

We are noticing that our political and cultural leaders are mostly cowards, dupes, traitors, crooks, opportunists and impostors rewarded by how much harm they can do.

Our failure to combat Communism is due to misunderstanding its real nature. Communism is the creation of a satanic cult (Cabalists) empowered by Illuminati Jewish international bankers. It is designed to put all the world’s wealth in their hands, and eventually to reduce and enslave the human race. The 5-pointed Red Star of Communism is also the symbol of Satan-worship. A demonic virus, Communism has morphed into countless forms (such as fe-manism) and “gay rights” hoodwinking more people than ever.

Western Civilization is built on Christianity, the premise that God is real, in fact the Ultimate Reality, which is a spiritual one. Through man’s Divine soul, the ordinary individual can discern the Divine Will without mediation from a worldly authority. This is why the bankers hate Christianity.

God is the Truth, Love, Beauty and Goodness to which we aspire. This moral order precludes a small clique monopolizing the world’s wealth. So the bankers set out to destroy our belief in a Divine Order by promoting Darwinism, Existentialism etc. They create war, depression and terror so we will demand their “antidote”: the New World Order.

In his brilliant essay, “The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness” Michael Minnichino describes how most of the fashionable intellectual and artistic movements in the 20th century, still in vogue today, were actually inspired by thinkers who were Comintern (Communist International) agents financed by the central bankers. Some of them actually worked for Soviet Intelligence (NKVD) right into the 1960’s.

He writes: “The task [of the Frankfurt School] was first to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an “abolition of culture” …and second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a “new barbarism.” …The purpose of modern art, literature and music must be to destroy the uplifting potential of art, literature and music…”

Funds came from “various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services…”

This subversive movement “represents almost the entire theoretical basis of all the politically correct aesthetic trends which now plague our universities.” They are associated with Post Modernism, Feminism, Cultural Studies, Deconstructionism, Semiotics, etc.

Their net effect is to divorce us from truth, social cohesion and our cultural heritage. They assert that reality is unknowable and that writers and artists are just depicting themselves. For example, postmodernist Hayden White writes, “historical narratives are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found…truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times.” In other words, we cannot know what happened in the past (which is exactly what they want.)

Postmodernism is part of the authoritarian agenda. Similarly the Frankfurt School championed the notion that “authoritarianism” is caused by religion, male leadership, marriage and family, when these things actually uphold society.

As a result, universities are enemy territory and professors usually are obstacles to genuine learning.
THE ANCIENT CONSPIRACY

Communism is the product of an ancient conspiracy against God and man. The Jewish Pharisees rejected Christ because he taught that God is Love and all men are equal in the sight of God.

“The advent of Christ was a national catastrophe for the Jewish people, especially for the leaders,” Leon de Poncins writes. “Until then they alone had been the Sons of the Covenant; they had been its sole high priests and beneficiaries…. ”

He continues: “The irreducible antagonism with which Judaism has opposed Christianity for 2000 years is the key and mainspring of modern subversion…[The Jew] championed reason against the mythical world of the spirit …he was the doctor of unbelief; all those who were mentally in revolt came to him either secretly or in broad daylight…” (Judaism and the Vatican, pp.111-113.)

I suspect that Jewish Messianism may be an instrument of international bankers, a way to consolidate their power. These bankers and their allies are creating a New World Order that cares little for democratic principles. They will be the gods.

Nathan Rothschild (1777 -1836) famously said: “I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.”

In addition to Jewish Messianism, Freemasonry has been the bankers’ tool. It was instrumental in the destruction of the Christian monarchies in Germany, Austria and Russia and the decline of the Catholic Church. This is also the view revealed in The Red Symphony.

In his Encyclical Humanum Genus (1884) Pope Leo XIII wrote that the ultimate aim of Freemasonry is “to uproot completely the whole religious and moral order of the world, which has been brought into existence by Christianity…This will mean that the foundation and the laws of the new structure of society will be drawn from pure naturalism.”

Again Pope Leo XIII said: “Freemasonry is the permanent personification of the Revolution; it constitutes a sort of society in reverse whose aim is to exercise an occult overlordship upon society as we know it, and whose sole raison d’etre consists of waging war against God and his Church.” (De Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican, p. 45)

In Freemasonry and the Vatican, Leon de Poncins uses Jewish sources to argue that Freemasonry is closely related to Judaism. For example, Rabbi Elle Benamozegh wrote: “Masonic theology corresponds well enough to that of the Kabbala.,,,(Israel et L’Humanite, p.73)

De Poncins cites an article that appeared in 1861 in a Parisian Jewish Review La Verite Israelite: “But the spirit of Freemasonry is that of Judaism in its most fundamental beliefs; its ideas are Judaic, its language is Judaic, its very organization, almost, is Judaic… ”

De Poncins writes that the goal of both Freemasonry and Judaism is the unification of the world under Jewish law. (Freemasonry and the Vatican, p. 76)
CONCLUSION
Just as we need healthy food and exercise, our mind and soul needs truth and beauty. We need to see life portrayed honestly, with the real forces identified. Instead, we are deliberately deceived and degraded by a small financial elite with a diabolical plan. White stallions (our souls) are fed a diet of sawdust.

Whether it’s school or mass media, we are bombarded with propaganda designed to produce alienation and dysfunction. We must protect ourselves from this poison before it is too late.

The good news is that modern culture, based on the premise there is no inherent purpose or positive design in human life, has been exposed as a long-term Illuminati psy-op designed to demoralize us. It will fail.

(For More on the Illuminati program.)

Posted in EducationComments Off on The Satanic Origin of Modern Cult-ure

Egyptian president asserts power in Sinai and on the pitch

NOVANEWS

 

Taking on the military: Sports Minister El-Amry Farouk

By James M. Dorsey

Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is negotiating his working relationship with the country’s powerful military in the battle against armed militants in the Sinai and on the soccer pitch.

Taken together, the Egyptian military’s effort to restore control in the Sinai, a region that had become a no-man’s land in the wake of last year’s toppling of president Hosni Mubarak, and efforts by Mr. Morsi’s sports minister, El-Amry Farouk, to resume suspended professional soccer in the presence of fans despite opposition from the interior ministry constitute indications of how the new president will manage his complex relationship with the military as well as the security forces.

If the Sinai is any indication, the military after having given itself broad legislative and executive authority on the eve of last month’s election of Mr. Morsi and securing the defence ministry in Prime Minister Hesham Qandil’s cabinet, appears primarily concerned with shoring up its image tarnished by 18 months of at times brutal transition rule.

The military, long Egypt’s most trusted institution, suffered loss of credibility because of its post-Mubarak efforts to retain its political role as well as its perks and privileges and violent clashes between security forces and youth and soccer fan groups, the military’s most militant opponents.

Mr. Morsi’s response to this week’s killing of 16 Egyptian soldiers by militants has allowed him to position himself as the country’s co-commander-in-chief by firing intelligence chief General Murad Muwafi and ordering troops to restore control in the Sinai. Mr. Morsi is the first Egyptian president since the 1952 overthrow of the monarchy not to be Egypt’s official commander in chief, a title that is reserved for his defence minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, who is also head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

General Muwafi’s firing suggests that Mr. Morsi and the military both considered him to be a convenient scapegoat despite the fact that he was respected by US, Israeli and European intelligence officials and had long advocated a crackdown on militants in Sinai. The general’s popularity with foreign intelligence services may have been the real reason for his downfall. Many saw him as a potential Omar Suleiman, the late general who was Mr. Mubarak’s charismatic intelligence chief and his closest adviser and enforcer.

If the troubles in Sinai suggest that Mr. Morsi and the military have found common ground, the soccer pitch will put to the test the new president’s relationship not only with the military but also with the police and the security forces. Sports minister Farouk by pushing for a resumption of professional soccer is taking on the hard-line interior minister, General Ahmed Gamal el-Din, who is widely believed to be responsible for last year’s vicious street battles with youth and soccer groups in which scores of people were killed and thousands injured. General El-Din justified the casualties as “self-defense.”

General El-Din, who was deputy interior minister prior to Mr. Morsi’s election, has opposed lifting the ban on professional soccer imposed in February after 74 militant soccer fans were killed in a politically loaded soccer brawl in Port Said on security grounds. He sees the ban as a way of controlling expressions of dissent by militant, highly-politicized and street battle-hardened soccer fans who played a key role in the demonstrations that toppled Mr. Mubarak and agitated against the continued political role of the military and the security forces. General El-Din insists that the ban can only be lifted once stadiums have been equipped with enhanced security, including electronic gates, airport-style scanners and security cameras.

Although the demand for enhanced security is not unreasonable, maintaining the ban on soccer constitutes a risky strategy. For one it seeks to avoid the fact that addressing stadium security involves far larger issues including a reform of the interior ministry and its security forces who are Egypt’s most distrusted institutions because of their role as enforcers of the repressive Mubarak regime.

Mr. Farouk, a former board member of crowned Cairo club Al Ahly SC whose fans died in the Port Said incident, is also betting on the fact that the ban risks the government being held responsible for the mounting financial crisis experienced by soccer clubs because of the suspension of matches and the poor performance of Egypt’s national team and top clubs in African championships because they are forced to play in the absence of their fans. The national squad and Cairo’s two clubs, Al Ahly SC and Al Zamalek SC, are among Africa’s most crowned teams.

“Football resumption will be my priority in the coming period. I’m considering allowing fans back to the stands, given the financial losses clubs have incurred during the past period — due to the absence of fans. I’m trying to coordinate with all the relevant authorities to settle on the best possible way to resume football and allow fan attendance. The fans usually breathe life into football matches. We saw how Ahly, (Cairo club) Zamalek and the Egyptian national team were affected because they had to play behind closed doors,” Mr. Farouk said in an interview with state-owned Al Ahram newspaper.

Mr. Farouk’s efforts are backed by the Egyptian Football Association (EFA) which has seen its efforts to resume professional soccer in later August rebuffed by General El-Din. He said earlier that his efforts were also backed by Messrs. Morsi and Qandil.

Mr. Farouk in his first move as sports minister earlier this month fired the EFA board appointed by the military in February after the Port Said incident and appointed former Al Ahly goalkeeper Essam Abdel-Moneim as caretaker chairman with the task of organizing elections within 60 days. The sports minister rejected a FIFA protest against what it said was political interference on the grounds that the dismissed board had not been elected.

“FIFA has received wrong information about the issue. They thought that we sacked an elected board of directors, but this is not the case,” Mr. Farouk said.

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egyptian president asserts power in Sinai and on the pitch

Be Known by the Enemies you Make

NOVANEWS

annett10.jpg

left. Kevin Annett, the only Minister in the history of the United Church of Canada to be defrocked. He opposed sales of Indian lands held in trust; and exposed past genocide of Indian children in church-run residential schools. Both Catholic & Protestant churches were involved.

“With all that shit they say about you, f**k man, I knew you were the real thing!”

by Kevin Annett

spencer.jpeg

The nasty creep was named Phil Spencer, left, and his eyes shone with the same weird glow worn by the kid on our street in Winnipeg who used to  smash prairie dogs to death with a mop.

Phil was a fellow United Church minister.

It was June,1995, and just months earlier, Phil had spearheaded my  removal from a United Church pulpit in Port Alberni. With the same infantile bullyness, Phil now sauntered over to me to as I passed out leaflets protesting my firing.

“Hi Kevin!” he exclaimed, thrusting his smirking, triumphant face into mine.

Revulsed, I thought of my wife Anne’s inconsolable tears and her nervous breakdown after I was summarily fired, and of my two small daughters who had lost their home and friends – all because of Phil. A rage boiled up in me, a loathing for this man, and my fists clenched.

“Hi Kevin!” he jabbered again, as he danced and jumped in front of me.

Disgusted, I looked past the leering buffoon, and walked away from him.

I regretted my forbearance for weeks after that. As every new attack rained down on me, and as my family and I were systematically ripped apart by the church, I imagined that at least I could have landed a well placed blow.

But another truth came to me later that summer when I received a phone call from a woman, another minister from Vancouver island.

“We’re behind you, Kevin, even if we can’t say so” she said. “It’s just sickening what they’re doing to you”.

“Thanks, but it’s not over yet” I replied. “Phil Spencer sure has it in for me.”

The woman laughed.

“He’s doing you more good than you know. Every time he attacks you, everybody sees he’s just a crazy, angry guy. His drinking is out of control again. You just keep the high ground, Kevin”.

The system always rewards its own, of course, starting with its sicko hatchet men. The same year I was defrocked, Phil Spencer was appointed to head the Comox-Nanaimo Presbytery.

Phil Spencer was an unwitting ally of mine that day, and he and his kind have been ever since. For his attacks helped launch me on my new calling, and his deceit gave rise to the truth movement that is bringing down his United Church of Canada and its legacy of child rape and murder.

I suppose I should thank him someday…

WE CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR LEGITIMACY

In reality, the “rulers” of church and state keep revealing by their responses to us where they are the most vulnerable, and how even a small group of us can trigger their downfall.

kevinannettjusice.jpg

One case in point: the day that fifty of us briefly occupied Holy Rosary catholic cathedral in Vancouver during a Sunday mass in early 2007.

We carried a banner that day that declared “All the children need a proper burial”. The pew crowd were respectful and curious. The priests, however, went quite ballistic: one of them lost his saintly guise altogether and tried putting me into an arm lock and wrestling me out of the place.

And small wonder: for by entering their church and confronting their crime, we threatened not only the public image of Catholicism that Sunday, but, more specifically, the cash in their collection plates.

Sure enough, within a few weeks of that catholic church occupation and after we publicly announced that similar occupations would continue, the Canadian government declared that an apology for the Indian residential schools was forthcoming, along with an “official inquiry”.

Loose cannon tactics? Confrontational methods? So be it. They work! And they sure scared the shit out of the Catholic archdiocese in Vancouver, whose lawyer called me up afterwards and literally pleaded with me not to lead any more occupations of the cathedral.

The fifty of us who invaded Holy Rosary church were mostly poor, homeless native men and women. We had nothing going for us except our own resolve. But our tiny group was nevertheless able to do the impossible, and use the very weight of the wealthiest and most “powerful” corporation in history, the roman catholic church, against itself, and force a change.

Frankly, the problem doesn’t lie in such methods, as some claim, but rather with the inconsistency with which we rely on such direct action. Still today, few people are willing to challenge the church like the fifty of us did, even when its crimes have been exposed and the mass graves of its victims located. Too many of us, in truth, are still captive to the illusion that the powerful are unassailable.

The reality is that our campaign to bring down criminal church and government bodies has now reached such a level of successful, critical mass that the criminals in our cross hairs are acting ever more desperately, and are trying to strike at us with the only way they know how: with lies and confusion. Yet by so doing, they are exposing their real nature more quickly to wider numbers of people, many of whom are abandoning the catholic church in droves.

Put simply, the mask of church and state is slipping, and the illusions that have allowed their crimes to continue for centuries are evaporating daily. And it’s up to us now to take full advantage of that golden historic opportunity.

Despite what Christian Sunday school may have taught you, light and darkness are not opposites but rather co-dependent forces that work together for a third and higher purpose, unknown to either. Our enemies, and all that they inflict on us, are the means by which we not only learn endurance, courage and clarity, but have opened to us the real purpose of what we have struggled and suffered through.

OUR GOAL IS REVOLUTIONARY

I began this journey twenty years ago, and only now am I aware of what it’s really all about.

The-united-church-delivers-on-its-promise1.jpg

A religion and a culture that could so systematically kill off generations of children and then hide the evidence and continue to maim the innocent is an abomination that must be gotten rid of. The more seasoned and far seeing of us know this already, and have given up our naive hope that church and state can be “held accountable” for doing the atrocities which come naturally to them. Instead, we are committed to abolishing those murderous institutions altogether, as international law and the safety of children demands.

We have pledged our lives to the fundamental shakeup of our society. And our looming common law court of justice is the first stage in that shakeup.

Yesterday, I was accosted on the streets of Vancouver by a young man who grabbed my hand and exclaimed,

“You’re Kevin Annett! Man, I love you!”

I must have looked self-conscious or something, for the guy smiled and continued,

“With all that shit they say about you, fuck man, I knew you were the real thing!”

Related Makow- Kevin Annett Rips the Mask from Power 

Annett Website Hidden from History 

Whole article can be found here 

Posted in EducationComments Off on Be Known by the Enemies you Make

Anglo-American 1957 Secret Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President. Déjà Vu?

NOVANEWS
By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research

At a time when the British press was still “reporting the truth”, London’s Guardian (27 September 2003)published a detailed report of a 1957 Anglo-American assassination plot directed against the Syrian president, with a view to implementing “regime change”. The similarity to today’s war on Syria is striking.

What is revealing is that the political assassination of the Syrian president has been on the Anglo-American drawing board for over half a century.

The article, which reviews the text of the leaked ‘Secret Document”, confirms that British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and President Dwight D. Eisenhower had ordered the assassination of  the Syrian Head of State.

Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot

Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan”

To consult the complete article by Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003 click hereh ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1

The stated objective of this Secret Plan, entrusted to Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) [today’s MI6] and the CIA, consisted in assassinating the Syrian president together with key political and military figures. “Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.”

 “In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.”  (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

The stated pretext of the Macmillan-Eisenhower plan was that Syria was “spreading terrorism” and “preventing the West’s access to Middle East oil”  Déjà Vu

The secret 1957 Plan called for the funding of a so-called “Free Syria Committee” equivalent to today’s Syrian National Council (SNC).  It also involved  “the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. Under the plan, the CIA together with Britain’s Secret Intelligence Serivce (SIS) “would instigate internal uprisings”.

“Internal disturbances” in Syria would be triggered through covert operations. The “CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents [sic] within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.”

An all out invasion plan had also been envisaged.

What was lacking from the 1957 plan, formulated at the height of the Cold War, was the “humanitarian” R2P envelope.

Moreover, in contrast to today’s Free Syrian Army (FSA) (i.e the foot soldiers of the Western military alliance), the 1957 Anglo-American plan did not contemplate the recruitment of foreign mercenaries to wage their war:

[in 1957] Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west’s oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.

Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus. (The Guardian, 27 September 2003)

The insidious plan was known to key political figures in the British government. It was made public 46 years later in 2003:

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the “preferred plan” reads: “In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.”

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden’s disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as “a most formidable report”. Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency “to chatter”.

Driving the call for action was the CIA’s Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. …

The “preferred plan” adds: “Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

“The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other’s activities… Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures.”

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of “sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities” to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee”, and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba’ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and “would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power”. (Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003, emphasis added)

In contrast to the 2011-2012 Plan, which is supported by the Arab League, with the participation of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in covert ops., the 1957 Eisenhower Macmillan Plan was not carried due to lack of support by neighbouring Arab countries: “The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria’s Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. (Ben Fenton, The Guardian, 27 September 2003, emphasis added)

The ongoing US-NATO aggression directed against Syria has been planned for several years.

An invasion of Syria was contemplated in the immediate wake of the 2003 Iraq invasion by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“Regime change” in Damascus was again put forth by the Bush adminstration in the immediate wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination was casully blamed, without evidence, on Damascus.

President George W. Bush  “denounced Syria and its ally, Iran, as ‘outlaw regimes… Syria and Iran deserve no patience from the victims of terror,'” The British media confirmed in October 2005 that Washington waslooking for a pro-western replacement for Mr Assad.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Anglo-American 1957 Secret Plan to Assassinate the Syrian President. Déjà Vu?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING