Archive | Canada

Tell Trudeau: Canada must repeat its UN vote for Palestinian self-determination

Website_Images-EN-long_for_email_header_580-width2.png
La version française suit…Dear Friend,This time last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surprised us all by voting “Yes” on a UN resolution to support Palestinian self-determination. It is very important that we keep this “win,” and that Canada repeat this vote again this year. Join CJPME and the Coalition of Canadian Palestinian Organizations (CCPO) in calling on Trudeau to vote in support of Palestinian self-determination, as well as more than a dozen other resolutions on Palestinian human rights. 

Click here to send an email to the Prime Minister, Canada’s UN Ambassador (Bob Rae), other federal political leaders, and your local MP. 

Please share this campaign:Click here to share on Facebook.Click here to share to Twitter.Send an email to your friendsMore InfoEvery year, there are 16 resolutions related to Israel and Palestine that are voted on by the UN General Assembly. These include resolutions that condemn Israel’s settlements, call for a peaceful settlement, extend aid to Palestinian refugees, and extend the mandate of committees that investigate Israel’s violations of human rights.In 2019, Canada voted “Yes” on a standing resolution in support of Palestinian self-determination.

This came as a surprise to everyone, because it broke with Canada’s recent pattern of voting “No” or abstaining on every Israel-related motion. This one vote aligned Canada with the international majority (163 other countries), whereas its other “No” votes were joined by only a handful of other countries, including Israel, the United States, and some tiny island nations.At the time, CJPME and the Coalition of Canadian Palestinian Organizations wrote to thank the government for this “lone vote” for self-determination and expressed hope that it might be the beginning of a more balanced approach. However, pro-Israel groups condemned the vote and have been putting immense pressure on Trudeau NOT to repeat it. And some people believe that Canada’s voted this way to curry favour with pro-human rights nations in advance of its bid for a UN Security Council seat.Last year’s “lone vote” for Palestine harkens back to a time only a decade ago when Canada used to have a far more balanced voting record at the UN. In 2003, for example, the Chrétien government voted “Yes” on 12 resolutions and did not vote “No” on any.

For whatever reason, Trudeau has mostly decided to maintain Harper’s radical pro-Israel voting pattern. To make sense of these changes over time, CJPME has created a new resource, the UN Dashboard, where you can explore how Canada has voted on these resolutions from 2000-2020.The CJPME Team

Tom, Michael, Khaoula and the rest of the team.

Email CJPME – CJPME Website

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, CanadaComments Off on Tell Trudeau: Canada must repeat its UN vote for Palestinian self-determination

Trump and Trudeau: More in common than not

Photo of Trump and Trudeau: More in common than not

Dave Havranek

Download PDF flyer

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently met with President Donald Trump for a highly publicized joint press conference in Washington, D.C. While the media went to great lengths to present the two as rival representatives of two conflicting political ideologies, the truth is that Trump and Trudeau have a lot more in common than they would publicly admit.

Trudeau has become a poster boy for liberals both in the United States and Canada while Trump represents the most vile aspects of conservatism. But anyone who hoped for a strong statement from Trudeau denouncing Trump was disappointed. While some media outlets tried to exaggerate a chance photo where Trudeau seemed to give Trump an incredulous look, the meeting was actually friendly and warm. This should come as no surprise to anyone who realize the bedrock that both liberalism and conservatism are built upon.

Two heads of the same coin

Canada is the United States’ second biggest trade partner in the world, trading $2 billion worth of goods a day, with fossil fuels being the biggest export into the United States. Keeping this money flowing to corporations certainly outweighs importance over any difference the leaders may have on refugees or identity politics. Even issues where it seems they have stark differences, Trudeau has a much muddier record than his fans like to admit.

Similar to unpopular pipeline projects in the United States, Trudeau just approved new pipelines last fall to be built in Canada. Like President Trump, he justifies this by saying it is needed for jobs and the economy (as if green energy projects the world is in dire need of would not do the same).

The Trans Mountain pipeline he approved will tremendously increase the destructive and dangerous process of removing crude oil from oil sands in the area. The Tsleil-Waututh nation says this project threatens their very survival.

Trudeau promised in his election campaign that the new liberal government would respect the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people. Indigenous leaders are upset that he is not delivering on that promise.

The new government has been in office over a year, and besides photo ops and press opportunities, very little has been done for the First Nations of Canada. There is still no plan in place to make the vast changes needed to respect Indigenous sovereignty. The RCMP, Canada’s federal police, continue to harass and oppress indigenous communities.

Broken promises

This of course was one of many of Trudeau’s broken promises from his campaign trail. He made a promise that Canada would have a new election system by the 2019 election which would allow a more fair and democratic process. After being elected he openly reversed his decision.

Trudeau himself has recently come under fire from Canada’s ethics watchdog group who questioned him on recent controversies concerning cash-for-access fundraisers his campaign held and an investigation into a private island holiday he took over the New Year holiday.

Trudeau also promised tax breaks for the working class while running for Prime Minister. While the second to lowest income bracket did drop from 22 percent to 20.5 percent, this was actually wiped out by higher payroll taxes which ultimately increased taxes this section of the population pays. The lowest tax bracket got hit the hardest, with no decrease at all and still being burdened with the higher payroll taxes. In fact Trudeau’s new government has eliminated many tax breaks working families need such as Children’s Fitness Tax, Education Tax Credit, Textbook Tax Credit and many more.

Other pledges were to invest $125 billion into sustainable infrastructure and repeal what Trudeau called “problematic elements” of Surveillance Bill C-51. As with other promises no plan has yet to be delivered. Defenders of Trudeau are telling people they need to wait for him to come through. But many Americans are familiar with waiting for 8 years under the Obama administration on broken promises that never came to fruition.

While Trudeau has made some gestures towards respecting the rights of women, the LGBTQ community and immigrants he does not remain consistent. He continues to sign off on permits exporting military vehicles to arm the government of Saudi Arabia, arguably the most repressive regime on the planet. Women and the LGBTQ community suffer tremendously there while the Saudis use this weaponry to stamp out dissidence and pummel Yemeni civilians, adding to the refugee crisis he appears to have such sympathetic approach too.

It is also worth noting a forgotten factor in this refugee crisis is climate change, which has a huge role played in it by the fossil fuel industry he prioritizes and protects.

Thinking outside the box

Defenders of Trudeau, like defenders of President Obama, would argue, not entirely without cause, that the Prime Minister is unable to unilaterally impose his agenda. But if that is the case then Trudeau ran an election in a system that would ultimately carry out these murderous, unacceptable acts regardless. He now sits on top of that system and unapologetically moves it forward. He absolutely does not deserve any admiration as a people’s champion.

The real heroes are in the streets organizing and putting their bodies on the line against this repressive system. If we want to truly move towards justice, we need to be honest about the reality of the Trudeaus and Obamas the system elevates and uses to misdirect progressive people’s energy.

We need to realize that in action, figures like them and Trump have much more in common than they have differences. But if we demand an uncompromising solution that goes well beyond the political system both Trump and Trudeau operate under, we can build a world based on justice, peace, and liberation of all people.

Posted in USA, CanadaComments Off on Trump and Trudeau: More in common than not

Obrador’s Visit to Trump is a Betrayal of the U.S. and Mexican People

by LAURA CARLSEN

Photograph Source: Israel.rosas83 – CC BY-SA 4.0

To praise a tyrant is to insult a people. López Obrador’s proposed visit to Washington is an insult to the American people, and especially to the 37 million Mexican migrants who live in the United States.

The purpose of the state visit with Donald Trump on July 8 is to celebrate the entry into force of the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty (T-MEC) on July 1. It comes at the worst possible time.

First, AMLO is traveling to the United States at the height of the pandemic in both countries. In the U.S., a new outbreak concentrated in the southern states has secured its position as the world leader in deaths from COVID-19, largely attributed to the lack of measures and strategies by the federal government and the disregard for scientific knowledge that President Trump and his supporters publicly express.

As well as the obvious hypocrisy in making a non-essential trip to the US when most of the population is prohibited from traveling in order to control the pandemic, AMLO said he’s going to thank Trump “for his gesture of support and solidarity” by selling — not donating. – ventilators to Mexico to treat COVID-19 patients. Congratulating Trump on anything related to his attitude toward the pandemic is inconceivable now: in addition to recommending potentially lethal treatments, the US president delayed the response to the virus, dismissed and disregarded the recommendations of his own experts, pulled the country out of the World Health Organization, has sought to profit from the tragedy and promoted the reopening that led to the current crisis. In this disaster, recent studies show that the Latino population is dying from COVID-19 at a rate twice that of the white population, while many migrants are unable to access health services and are excluded from rescue support.

If the health context is serious, the political context is even more serious. The main purpose of López Obrador’s first trip abroad, his first since taking office a year and a half ago, is to display the good relationship he has with Donald Trump. Appeasement has always been AMLO’s strategy, ignoring Trump’s racist, authoritarian and often illegal actions, and accommodating aggressions against Mexico and the cruel treatment of the migrant community. Now he plans to pat Trump on the back at a critical moment for Trump’s reelection campaign. With only four months to go until the presidential elections, everything Trump does is thought out in electoral terms. He’s losing in the polls. Trump needs at least part of the Latino vote, and the praise of the Mexican president will serve to dress him up as a statesman and friend of Mexico, despite the constant attacks.

The Mexican president’s show of political support for Donald Trump will also come at a time of massive protests in the United States against racism, and the growth of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. This movement is profoundly radical – anti-capitalist, feminist and pro-human rights–the antithesis of Trump-ism. With broad support from many sectors of U.S. society that are fed up with a repressive government of the 1%, the movement has made remarkable progress in defending human life and proposing new visions for society.

Amid multiple crises and Trump’s attempts to turn back the fight for social justice, BLM offers an unprecedented path for change in the United States. In the context of the pandemic and the revolt, people are building networks of mutual support, learning new ways of living together, dreaming hew societies, and strengthening ties across barriers and borders. Migrant organizations not only support their fight, they share it. Community and national grassroots organizations are giving the world lessons in building popular movements and making social change in favor of the poor.

Mexico should be learning from them, rather than kowtowing to Trump–the protesters are Mexico’s real allies. A visit by the Mexican president to polish Trump’s image and ingratiate himself with the corrupt investor world he represents, is a betrayal of the migrant community in the United States, of the growing movement for justice and of the principles for which millions of the kind of nation Lopez Obrador said he would build, exactly two years ago.

Posted in USA, Canada, MexicoComments Off on Obrador’s Visit to Trump is a Betrayal of the U.S. and Mexican People

An Economic Elephant in Canada’s Room.

Unprecedented Debt Crisis in the Making

By Michelle Rempel Garner and Mark Taliano

There are several economic elephants in Canada’s room. One of them is neoliberal economic orthodoxy.

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism can be defined in terms of a “trinity”: privatization, deregulation, the evisceration of the public sphere. It speaks to corporate power and public subservience.

More expansively, neoliberalism is emblematic of these characteristics, as described by Joyce Nelson in her book, Bypassing Dystopia (1)

Deregulation, open borders for capital, small government/big state, tax cuts for multinational corporations, austerity budgets, union-busting, privatization of public assets (recycling), corporate rights (“free trade”) deals, tax havens, no limits to growth (as defined by GDP), Central Bank “independence” (servitude to international banksterism ie BIS), and privatization of money-creation functions.

Neoliberalism (all of the above) eviscerates middle classes, increases poverty, enriches globalist ruling classes, and it is one of Canada’s economic elephants. The cure? We need to reject neoliberal orthodoxy.

All of Canada’s political parties are wedded to neoliberalism and globalism, as if there were no alternatives. If nothing else, the COVID Operation should teach us that this globalist, warmongering, impoverishing political orthodoxy needs to be identified, understood, and abolished for the abomination that it is.

Am important first step would be the Bank of Canada. Nelson explains that from 1938-1974 Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada at near zero interest rates, for infrastructure and health spending. We did not enslave enslave ourselves to international banksters, and it was accomplished without creating inflationary problems. We could and should do this again, but it requires political will. It requires an enlightened and informed public. The bank belongs to Canadians for Canadians. It isn’t complicated, but reversing the social engineering and the globalist propaganda is a challenge.

Canada and Canadians have paid approximately $1.5 trillion in interest on borrowing since we shackled ourselves to international banksterism, including the Bank of International Settlements, in 1974.Canada Fuels Assault on Syria, but Syrians Are Resilient

We need to reject the Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB), widely regarded as a “privatization” bank, and instead embrace the Bank of Canada.

If we are to regain political or economic sovereignty anytime soon, this subservience to globalism would have to end.

When legislators miss the economic elephant in the room (see below), they are missing everything.

***

The Net Federal Debt will be above One Trillion Dollars.

Canada’s Credit Rating Downgrading.

Our Credit Rating is down the Toilet. There is no economic recovery plan.

He has shut down Parliament.

Posted in CanadaComments Off on An Economic Elephant in Canada’s Room.

COVID-19 Measures Unconstitutional: Legal Proceeding against Prime Minister Trudeau: Filed in Ontario Superior Court

Complete Text of

By Ted Kuntz

We are living in unprecedented times. The mass and indiscriminate containment of citizens, the restriction of access to parliament, the courts, medical and educational services, the destruction of local economies and livelihoods, and the requirement to physically distance, along with the forced use of non-medical masking are extraordinary measures that have never before been imposed on the citizens of Canada.

The impact of these aberrant measures on our physical, emotional, psychological, social and economic well-being is profoundly destructive and these actions are unsustainable, unwarranted, extreme and unconstitutional.

During times of emergency, Constitutional rights do not stop being important. They become even more important.

Vaccine Choice Canada has made numerous formal requests of the Government of Canada and various provincial governments to provide evidence that justifies the declaration of an emergency, the imposition of unscientific and unwarranted measures, and the violations of our Charter rights and freedoms, to no avail.

An over-hyped COVID-19 pandemic narrative is being utilized to create unnecessary panic and to justify the systemic violation of the rights and freedoms that form the basis of our society, including our Constitutional rights, sovereignty, privacy, rule of law, financial security, and even our very democracy.

Many recognized global health and research experts have offered their severe and valid criticism of government overreach and the draconian and unjustifiable measures taken in response to COVID-19. The warning bells are being rung about the dire consequences of these unwarranted, irresponsible, and extreme actions that are in violation of the rights and freedoms well established in Canadian and international law. All this continues to fall on the deaf ears of governments.

On Monday, July 6, 2020, Vaccine Choice Canada formally filed legal action in the Ontario Superior Court to hold multiple parties accountable for their actions with respect to COVID-19 measures. The defendants include: the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, the Municipality of Toronto, various public health officers, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, among others. Vaccine Choice Canada has a long history and enviable reputation of advocating for and defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians when it comes to public and individual health.BREXIT: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights to Become “Civil Maybe’s”

A copy of the issued statement of claim will be available on our website: www.vaccinechoicecanada.com following the press conference. Any questions with respect to the claim are to be addressed to our legal counsel, Mr. Rocco Galati at 416-530-9684.

Statement of Claim

Click here to continue reading…

Posted in Canada, HealthComments Off on COVID-19 Measures Unconstitutional: Legal Proceeding against Prime Minister Trudeau: Filed in Ontario Superior Court

Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-‘Israel’ Bias

Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-Israel Bias

Paul Godfrey, executive chairman of Postmedia, which controls 30 percent of the Canadian newspaper market, chairing the 2014 Jewish National Fund (JNF) of Calgary Negev Gala, whose mandate is to recognize individuals for their excellence in community leadership and dedication to Israel. He is with with the emcee for the gala, journalist Catherine Ford. (Bill Brooks/Calgary Herald)

Glaring Canadian media bias is enforced at every level of the media, from editorial boards all the way to ownership. It remains untouchable.

By Davide Mastracci, reposted from Passage

Last year, I almost quit journalism. A major reason was an evolution in my perspective on the industry.

My first journalism experience was at the McGill Daily as an undergraduate student. The independent paper is explicitly leftist, so my understanding of journalism was built from a progressive perspective. As such, I didn’t think I had illusions about corporate media in Canada, especially as we had an antagonistic relationship with these outlets.

Regardless, when I decided to pursue journalism as a career, I thought I could carve out a niche in the industry for the sort of work I was inspired by. Yet after moving to Toronto for a journalism masters at Ryerson, I started to see things differently, realizing that you can’t be part of something but divorce yourself from the harms it perpetuates. I started to feel that I was complicit.

This change of heart was due to many factors, including a deeper understanding of one of the strongest biases the Canadian media has: pro-Israel and anti-Palestine.

I eventually decided I’d continue in journalism if I could do a few things differently than before, including proactively combating the pro-Israel bias.

With that in mind, I’m now going to explore the bias by offering my experiences with it, and then breaking down the various ways it is upheld, from the level of individual journalists all the way to outside interference on the media. As a whole, this process ensures Israel is rarely held to account for its actions.

My Experiences With The Bias

I’ve never had anything more than an entry-level position in corporate media. Those that have can give you more insightful anecdotes of the bias in action, and I’ll go into some of them later. Regardless, my experience, which has included roles at eight different publications and freelancing for dozens of others, is still useful to see how the bias works at a low level. Here are some examples.

A few years ago, I pitched an Israel/Palestine article to a publication I had little prior experience with. It was accepted, edited by a junior staff member, published and well-received. A day later, I was informed by a senior editor that the junior editor should have run the article by them before sending it to publication. I wasn’t made aware of this procedure beforehand, and didn’t understand why I, as a new writer, was being reprimanded. Then the editor casually added that their publication wasn’t sure of their editorial stance on Israel/Palestine, so it would be especially important to consult with them on this topic. I realized the issue wasn’t primarily about chain of command, but rather that I was critical of Israel. This sent me an implicit message: don’t tackle this subject again.

Another time, an article I wrote on Israel/Palestine was pushed out on social media late on a weekend night — a traffic graveyard — despite being published earlier. This seemed like an attempt to bury the story. I mentioned it to someone in that newsroom, and they told me the person responsible for the scheduling had interfered with other journalists’ critical work on Israel in the past, so it’s unlikely the scheduling was an oversight.

On another occasion a few years back, I was invited onto a radio show to discuss an Israel/Palestine issue. At the time, I was required to get approval from my employer to do any outside writing or appearances, so I asked. These appearances were typically quickly approved, and celebrated, because it meant people cared about our work. This time around, I had to follow up before being called into a meeting with a few people. I was told I could go on the radio show, but couldn’t give my opinion, and could only describe the events from an “objective” perspective. The reason offered was that the brand wasn’t sure about their stance on the “complicated” issue. It didn’t matter that I wouldn’t be speaking on behalf of the company or that I’d made other outside appearances offering views higher ups likely disagreed with. Something about this topic was special.

Finally, a few years back I tweeted a mild criticism of an Israeli official. It didn’t get any retweets, just a couple likes — hardly noteworthy. A few days later, I got a phone call from a higher up asking me to remove the tweet because someone had complained. They wouldn’t tell me who, or even if it came from within the company. They didn’t even seem to understand the alleged problem with the tweet. Regardless, they wanted it down. I was also asked to remove any mention of the company from my Twitter bio, which they claimed was standard procedure. Yet the timing made the real issue clear, especially given others in my position hadn’t been asked to do the same.

I’ve written about many “controversial” things over the years, and this is the only topic where I’ve faced this sort of interference. Others have dealt with more egregious experiences. I know from speaking with Arab journalists that many either avoid the subject, or have received so much hate when they do speak out — including either condemnation from higher ups or no support — that they don’t approach it again.

Yet when journalists refuse to shut up, the bias is enforced in different ways. I’m going to discuss a few now, to show how the bias thrives through individual journalists and editorial boards, corporate interference, journalism organizations and lobby groups, with the cumulative effect of a staunchly pro-Israel media landscape.

Personal and Editorial Views

The personal views of mid- to senior-level journalists can have a major impact on what gets published, in a few ways. One is that critical pitches on Israel/Palestine can be rejected regardless of quality, which, if done enough, tells journalists not to bother anymore. Another is stories in progress being killed, or edited beyond recognition, when the right people find out. Even just a couple of these individuals in the right positions can make a difference in upholding the bias.

The editorial pages of major newspapers in Canada are instructive in this regard. They aren’t representative of all journalists, but they do mark the publication’s official view. In 2018, I looked at the editorial stances the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and National Post have taken on military conflicts between Israel and Palestinians. Below, I will quote heavily from the article.

In 2009, Israel launched a ground invasion into Gaza, killing more than 760 Palestinian civilians, including 345 minors. Israel violated international law, and used white phosphorus, a chemical smoke that burns people’s skin, in civilian areas.

Despite this, the Globe wrote that the invasion of Gaza, which they referred to as “Hamas’s ‘statelet,’” was “well justified,” with no mention of the destruction it caused. In a June 2010 editorial, they simply referred to the invasion as a “regrettable incident,” but claimed that the more important issue was turning Gaza into a territory that wouldn’t pose a threat to Israel.

In 2012, Israel rained missiles on Gaza, killing more than 100 Palestinians, including four children playing on a soccer field.

The Post published a pair of editorials in support of these strikes. They wrote, “Our view is that [prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu] waged this mini-war in exactly the right way,” and that, “Israel had no choice but to strike at Gaza.” They claimed Israel is a “civilized and humane nation” in contrast to Gaza, and argued Israel had been careful to limit rocket fire to “terrorists.” The Star applauded the bombardment, claiming Netanyahu couldn’t be “faulted” for his supposedly justified actions. No Palestinian civilian casualties were mentioned, and while they claimed that the “scope” of the airstrikes “raised a few eyebrows,” they concluded Netanyahu couldn’t seem soft on security in the upcoming elections.

In 2014, Israel launched its most destructive attack on Gaza yet. More than 1,460 Palestinian civilians were killed, compared to six Israeli civilians.

The Globe wrote, “It cannot be wrong for Israel to defend itself,” referring to this invasion as the “latest round of grass-mowing” in Gaza, where Israel supposedly “cut back the military capabilities of their enemies.” The Post described the conflict as a “fight between a Canadian ally and a vicious terrorist group,” failing to mention civilian casualties.

These are just a few examples, focusing on one aspect of the conflict, in just six years. The bias extends far beyond them. I chose to focus on military conflicts because they’re when the contradictions are most laid bare, and you see Canada’s major outlets cheering military efforts that result in mass civilian deaths.

Corporate Interference

While the views of journalists at the editorial level make a difference, upper-management and ownership can be more important, especially as the media becomes increasingly monopolized and centralized.

Before proceeding, it’s important to note that not all Jews are Zionists, most newspaper chains are not owned by Jewish people, not every owner of a paper interferes to the extent you’ll see, and when they do so, it is not always, or exclusively, on Israel, and often occurs on other issues as well. Support for Israel just so happens to be a uniting factor of a wide-range of right-wingers, from Hindutva extremists to American evangelicals. The idea that the media is owned by a secret Jewish cabal, as many anti-Semites believe, or some other Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque conspiracy theory, is wrong and should be opposed.

Owners of news chains do, however, have a record of using them to advocate for their own financial interests and ideological beliefs, including, in some cases, support for Israel. The CanWest news chain — whose properties now belong to Postmedia — offers an illuminating case study of the pro-Israel bias because of how openly and proudly it was carried out, with countless employees testifying to its existence.

CanWest Global Communications was founded in 1974 by Israel Asper, a Winnipeg lawyer and self-declared Zionist who proudly declared an “unshakeable commitment” to Israel, which he saw as a “symbol and teacher of excellence for all of humankind.”

In July 2000, CanWest announced its $3.2 billion purchase of media properties from Hollinger Inc., a media company established by National Post founder Conrad Black in 1985. According to a CBC article that month, the deal meant, “CanWest picks up 136 daily and weekly newspapers, including half of The National Post, 13 large big-city dailies, 85 trade publications and directories … [and] all of the Hollinger and Southam Internet properties.”

In an October 2002 speech to the Israel Bonds Gala, which the National Post published, Asper described his disgust with Canadian media for supposedly “destroying the world’s favourable disposition toward” Israel. Asper claimed this is because journalists, including his own, are “lazy, or sloppy, or stupid” or “biased, or anti-Semitic.” Asper concluded the speech by stating all Canadians should “stand tall … for the right of Israel to exist and to take whatever actions it needs to battle its savage attackers, and to demand that our media and our politicians act with honour in this quest.”

Asper’s newspaper chain had already become a battleground for this war, with many journalists being censured or fired for being anything less than completely supportive of Israel.

In September 2001, Michael Goldbloom, the publisher of then-CanWest property the Montreal Gazette, quit, citing differences with the company. The Globe and Mail reported that this was due in part to “senior editors at the paper [being] told in August to run a strongly worded, pro-Israel editorial on a Saturday op-ed page.”

In December 2001, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter at the Montreal Gazette, went on CBC’s “As It Happens” to discuss reporters pulling their byline from the publication after CanWest imposed a policy requiring all of its local papers to run editorials written by the chain’s editor-in-chief, Murdoch Davis. Marsden noted that this had resulted in a strong pro-Israel perspective.

Marsden told CBC that,

They do not want to see any criticism of Israel. We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East. We do not have that free-wheeling debate that there should be about all these issues.

We even had an incident where a fellow, a professor at … the University of Waterloo, wrote an op-ed piece for us in which he was criticizing the anti-terrorism law and criticizing elements of civil rights. Now that professor happens to be a Muslim and happens to have an Arab name. We got a call from headquarters demanding to know why we had printed this. Now this kind of questioning goes on all the time. 

CBC also interviewed Davis, asking him if a chain in the paper wanted to write an editorial regarding Israel that was “absolutely contrary to the editorial written from your office, would they be able to write that?” Davis said, “No. It is clearly the intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues of overarching national or international importance.”

In November 2001, Peggy Curran, a TV critic at the Montreal Gazette, wrote a column on a CBC documentary, In the Line of Fire, that criticized Israel for its treatment of Palestinian journalists. The column was initially held by editors, and it took Curran filing a union grievance, and then making a major change to the review, for it to be published. Curran quit her job soon thereafter in protest. In April 2002, Curran told the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that, “Usually criticism is criticism and you’re allowed to say what you want. I can’t think of another occasion when this has happened to me.” Curran added, “Whether you know it or not, you start censoring yourself.”

In January 2002, Doug Cuthand, a First Nations columnist for CanWest’s Regina Leader-Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, wrote a column sympathizing with Palestinians. According to a Toronto Star article published that month, Cuthand wrote that “their loss of land, placement in camps and control by a more powerful force, made them similar to Canada’s aboriginal peoples.” The article was killed by editors, the first time that had happened to Cuthand in 10 years of writing for the publications. Cuthand said that some in the newsroom told him the column was too anti-Israel for CanWest. He stated, “Of course I’m going to carry on and continue writing. But it will never be the same … I’ll always be looking over my shoulder.”

In August 2002, shortly after Halifax Daily News was sold by CanWest, columnist David Swick wrote about the pro-Israel bias under their ownership. Swick said, “Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, I wrote a few columns about that event. I was soon informed I was no longer allowed to write anything to do with the Middle East. The reason: I was not perceived to be adamantly pro-Israel. The Aspers are adamantly pro-Israel, and their papers must reflect this sentiment.”

Peter March, another Daily News columnist, said he was dropped from his position of 10 years because of a column he wrote criticizing Israel.

Describing this period, Charles Shannon, a copy editor at the Montreal Gazette, told the Nation in 2007 that, “One definite edict that came down was that there should be no criticism of Israel. And by that I mean not even a mild rapping of the wrist.”

This corporate-enforced bias wasn’t limited to editorials or opinion writing.

In 2006, the Near East Cultural and Educational Foundation of Canada released a study looking at the National Post’s depiction of Palestinians in 2004. According to a 2008 Georgia Straight article, the report found that the “National Post was 83.3 times more likely to report an Israeli child’s death than a Palestinian child’s death in its news articles’ headlines or first paragraphs” which “made it appear that Israeli kids were killed at a rate four times higher than Palestinian children during 2004 when, in fact, 22 Palestinian children were killed for every Israeli child that year.”

That same year, the chain’s bias became so blatant that Reuters asked CanWest to remove the names of their reporters from wire stories before using them, or not include any connection with Reuters at all. The request came after CanWest implemented a policy to use the word “terrorist” more liberally, for example swapping out “rebel” in Reuters articles with “terrorist.” CanWest was also forced to issue multiple corrections after doing the same thing with Associated Press copy, including calling six Palestinians killed by Israeli troops “terrorists” when the original referred to them as “fugitives.”

The examples go on, stretching from Asper’s Hollinger takeover to the period after his 2003 death when his children ran the chain.

In 2010, the chain was sold and became the Postmedia Network. And yet, much remained the same.

In 2008, CanWest had appointed Paul Godfrey, then on the company’s board of directors, to the position of National Post president and CEO. Godfrey was the one to assemble the ownership group that purchased the CanWest media properties, and then became the CEO and president of the new Postmedia Network, a position he remained in until 2019. He is still the company’s executive chairman.

Centralization of the chain has also remained an issue. In 2015, for example, Godfrey ordered every major Postmedia publication to write an endorsement of then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the upcoming election. (The endorsement claimed that Conservatives “kept Canada firmly on the right side of history in Ukraine, the Middle East and in North Africa.”) Moreover, according to a 2019 Canadaland article, “Postmedia has given a directive for all of its papers to shift to the political right, in an unprecedented, centralized fashion” that employees fear “will eradicate the local perspectives and political independence of some of Canada’s oldest and most important newspapers.”

While it may be tempting to write this off as the work of one newspaper chain, Postmedia is the largest in the country, controlling nearly 30 per cent of the Canadian newspaper market as of 2017. A maintenance of uncritical support for Israel as part of the paper’s continued rightward shift would be very dangerous.

Journalists scoff at the idea that higher ups tell them what to do, but the record proves it to often be true. To make matters worse, the sort of groups that used to call out corporate interference have become part of the problem.

Journalist Advocacy Groups

When the Asper family was pushing a pro-Israel line in their newspapers, journalism watch groups in Canada and abroad took notice and fought back. Now, however, some journalism groups have effectively worked to keep a pro-Israel bias in place.

A recent, and particularly galling, example came in April 2018 at the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), ostensibly a group that “defends and promotes free expression and access to information in Canada and internationally.” This incident, more than almost any other, was what damaged my faith in the profession.

On March 30, Palestinians took part in the first of a series of protests calling for the right of return to their land. Israel cracked down harshly. On the first day of protests, at least 17 Palestinians were killed, and more than 1,400 were injured, including 10 journalists.

On April 2, CJFE’s promotions and communications coordinator Kevin Metcalf put out a statement calling on the government to “condemn the one-sided use of military force against civilian demonstrators and media in Gaza.” Despite the organization’s mission of protecting journalists, examples of similar statements the CJFE put out directed at other countries and the clear violation of press freedom and international law by the Israelis, this statement was publicly condemned by a range of journalists.

On April 8, two days after Israel killed a Palestinian journalist wearing a blue PRESS vest, the statement was removed from the website. That same day, Metcalf wrote, “I have learned that in the last week, a half-dozen resignations have been tendered on the organization’s executive committee and Gala committee, including the resignation of the acting Executive Director and President of the Board.” He added, “CBC employees who were powerful contributing members of the Gala fundraising committee resigned after they or their handlers at CBC disapproved of the statement.”

Metcalf, who would be fired a week later, also wrote, “It is troubling that pressure exerted by public employees at the state broadcaster has lead [sic] to the censorship of a protest letter by an advocacy organization. It is my opinion that this illustrates an attempt by public employees to exert undue influence over a civil society group, ostensibly on behalf of a foreign government.”

One of the CBC employees that resigned from the CJFE, “As It Happens” host Carol Off, told another CBC journalist, “I think Israel’s excesses should be treated differently than those of Saudi Arabia. Israel has democratic institutions, a free press and a claim to transparency. Saudi Arabia does not. And so I think the language is different, as it would be for the United States.”

The CJFE also released a statement, noting that, “This recent event at CJFE has made it clear that the Board needs to review its governance processes, but most importantly, it needs to focus its efforts on its core mandate and on securing adequate funding to carry on its work. … We will take the next few months to review, refocus, and ensure CJFE is an organization that continues long into the future.” This statement, and other CJFE employees, made it clear the mass resignations and donation withdrawals effectively forced the organization to close its doors.

Over the next few months, Israel killed more than 180 Palestinians in these protests, wounding more than 9,200. This included two journalists killed and at least 39 injured by live ammunition. A United Nations Human Rights Council commission report on the protests found “reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot journalists intentionally, despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such.”

The pro-Israel bias has become so entrenched in Canadian media that a journalism advocacy organization couldn’t stomach mild criticism of a government that likely intentionally killed journalists.

Lobby Groups

When anything remotely critical of Israel manages to slip into publication, lobby groups take over. To be clear, lobby groups exist for all sorts of causes. Yet those working on behalf of Israel are particularly well-funded and effective, as outlined in Al Jazeera’s series on the lobby in the United Kingdom and the United States, which was censored at Israel’s behest and is only available because it leaked. Many of these groups exist in Canada, but I’m going to focus on one in particular because it has a sole purpose of working to ‘defend’ Israel in the media.

HonestReporting Canada (HRC), founded in 2003describes itself as an “independent grass-roots organization promoting fairness and accuracy in Canadian media coverage of Israel and the Middle East.” The groups’ Endorsements page includes glowing praise from a former Israeli ambassador to Canada, the former consul general of Israel in Montreal and former CanWest president and CEO, Leonard Asper, son of Israel Asper. The HRC’s website boasts of having more than 45,000 subscribers, and of having “prompted hundreds of apologies, retractions, and revisions from news outlets,” efforts which they claim are “changing the face of the media and reporting of Israel throughout the world.”

Essentially, the way the HRC functions is that employees and subscribers scan Canadian media for things they don’t like. Then, HRC staff work to get corrections, retractions, apologies or the chance to have favourable rebuttals published, by leaning on relationships with compliant journalists or using their email list to flood targets with complaints.

A 2004 incident involving the British Medical Journal (BMJ) provides an insightful example, although it focuses on another HonestReporting initiative, which the one in Canada has been described as being affiliated, but not directly linked, with.

In October 2004, the BMJ published an article by senior lecturer Derek Summerfield critiquing “what he saw as systematic violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the Israeli army in Gaza.” Then, as recounted in a 2009 BMJ article by Karl Sabbagh, the journal and its Arab editor were flooded with criticism, much of which, he claims, “resulted from a request from HonestReporting” for readers to send emails to the journal and its editor. More than 970 emails came in, including death threats against the editor, claims of bias because of his “mid-eastern name,” violent Islamophobia and praise for HonestReporting for attacking them.

Sabbagh writes these sort of campaigns focus on getting articles retracted and editors fired, unlike the “average heated but civilised debate one expects to find in a scientific or medical journal.” Crucially, Sabbagh also wrote that, “For that suppression to take place it has to be directed at people who are unfamiliar with the issues and who might be persuaded that they have somehow got it wrong. Reading through the emails sent to the BMJ, editors, and the people who manage and fund their publications, might well believe that a ghastly editorial mistake had been made. And creating that belief is, of course, the intention. If straying into the Israel-Palestinian conflict provokes such a large and hostile reaction, not to mention strident allegations that important details are wrong, then the temptation is quietly to avoid the topic in future.”

While this example deals with a medical journal, similar tactics are used for the media. As a 2002 post on the U.S. HonestReporting website quoting Jerusalem Post notes, “HonestReporting.com readers sent up to 6,000 e-mails a day to CNN executives, effectively paralyzing their internal e-mail system.” As an editor, I’ve been the recipient of these sorts of emails before, although nowhere near the extent of the BMJ or CNN.

The HRC websitelists more than 75 Canadian publications they’ve successfully taken action against, providing details on each one. Some of the listed corrections are simple errors, such as a wrong date. However, many of their other “corrections,” or attempts to get them, are clearly examples of the HRC’s own bias.

For example, a June 5 “Media Alert” focuses on a tweet from Andray Domise reading, “Shout out to the Palestinian freedom fighters holding space in your hearts for Black folks in our shared struggle.” The HRC post states, “So much for objectify [sic] and political neutrality in Canadian media. HonestReporting Canada has alerted Macleans [sic] editors of this matter.” What crime is Domise, who writes opinion articles for Maclean’s, accused of here? Daring to express solidarity between Black people in North America and Palestinians?

Here is a recent successful example, at Radio-Canada. On April 24, they published an article by reporter Kamel Bouzeboudjen looking at how Israel has exacerbated the dangers Palestinians in Gaza face from COVID-19, featuring interviews with Gazans themselves. Four days later, the HRC sent a complaint to Radio-Canada Ombudsman Guy Gendron about the article, claiming it was “replete with errors.” Canadaland host Jesse Brown noted, “In fact, this list of ‘10 errors’ was not a list of 10 errors. It was a counterargument. Nine of the points were simply saying, ‘It’s not, in fact, Israel to blame. It’s Hamas.”

Despite this, on May 12, Gendron replied to HRC, letting them know that “we decided … to withdraw this article from our platforms,” and that, “Follow-up was done with Mr. Bouzeboudjen and the team to make them aware of this situation.” The article was then removed from the website, with a retraction notice published at another link.

As Brown pointed out, CBC and Radio-Canada’s editorial policies make this decision an incredible oddity. According to CBC/Radio-Canada’s “Journalistic Standards and Practices” on article deletion, “Our published content is a matter of public record. To change the content of previously published material alters that record. Altering the record could undermine our credibility and the public’s trust in our journalism. There can be exceptions to this position– where there are legal or personal safety considerations to the person named.” These exceptions clearly do not apply to this story.

In sum, the HRC was able to get Radio-Canada to violate their own standards to censor an article and scold an Arab reporter because he dared to speak to Gazans, who are rarely heard in the media. This is just one example, but there are hundreds of listed corrections on their website. As you can imagine, these add up to a restricted media, squashing much of the critical reporting on Israel that manages to evade other filters.


Most people see journalism as either having one, or both, of the following two functions: inform the public; comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

The pro-Israel bias has certainly prevented journalists from properly informing the public, as even by the most elementary “two sides to every story” thinking, coverage is insufficient. Readers who rely solely on corporate media for coverage of Israel and Palestine would have a completely warped understanding of the conflict, understanding it along the lines of Israeli propaganda rather than the truth. This is a failure.

Yet the unwillingness to address power imbalances through coverage is even worse. Israel is a settler-colonial state built on the murder and dispossession of Palestinians, who are now subjected to an apartheid system. Israel is in flagrant violation of international law at many levels. It is set to annex major chunks of the West Bank, effectively completing the destruction of Palestine. The media working to enforce a pro-Israel bias now is the equivalent of them defending South African apartheid.

Crucially, the Canadian government is one of Israel’s major supporters on the international level. This means that journalists are failing to do justice by the oppressed, but also effectively falling in line with their government’s foreign policy stance, leading to an abdication of responsibility internationally and at home. This coverage also plays a role in dissuading the public from working to hold Israel to account.

I hope that this article will prove useful in contextualizing the state of Canadian media coverage of the conflict, and will give you the tools to combat the bias when you see it. Although I’m speaking up about the bias now, I’ve been silenced by it before. That won’t happen again.

RELATED:

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression under attack

Canadian Jewish Federations Act as Israel Lobbyists

Canada’s Israel Lobby By Peyton Vaughan Lyon

Canada’s Israel lobby

Canadian doctor: Israeli soldiers shot me in both legs as I was treating injured protesters in Gaza

WATCH: CBC exposé “The Godfather” on Adelson’s influence on US & Canadian policies

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Campaigns, CanadaComments Off on Uncovering Canadian Media’s Devastating Pro-‘Israel’ Bias

Canada’s UN Security Council Loss Shows Its “Foreign Policy Weaknesses”

Will it Embolden a Reform Movement?

By: Nino Pagliccia

India, Ireland, Mexico, Norway, and Kenya after a second round, won the June 17 elections at the 74th United Nations Assembly for five non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council for a two-year term starting on January 1, 2021.

The biggest loser was Canada in its competition with Ireland and Norway for two seats available. A total of 128 votes were needed to secure a two-thirds majority. Norway secured 130 votes while Ireland got 128. Canada received just 108 votes. All efforts of phone calls by the Canadian officials to countries ambassadors to the UN did not help. This is the second loss following the one in 2010 under a Conservative government.

In the next few days we will read several analyses trying to ascertain why Canada lost what it considered a coveted position at the UN. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was campaigning for it since 2015. But the result was not totally unexpected as we suggested before the vote took place.

A very active campaign undertaken by Canadians asking the international community and Ambassadors at the UN not to vote for Canada had already laid out several reasons and may have had a small role in the outcome of the vote.

It is significant to note one of the most glaring contradictions or double standard. Ottawa professes to value the rule of law, however it can’t even abide by the resolutions of the same body it aspired to sit on UNSC. The Canadian government has refused to abide by the 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2334, calling on member states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied in 1967.” The resolution also urges “the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions”. On the contrary, Ottawa has stated that it will act as an “asset for Israel” on the Council. Further, it has consistently voted against the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination together with the US, “Israel” and a handful of other countries.

The Canadian government continues to promote its long-gone value as a “peacekeeping” country. However, that may just be rhetoric or wishful thinking. Canada’s political closeness to the war-prone US government leading to interventions in other countries is more the real image in the era of Hybrid Wars. The Liberal Trudeau government has also signed off on a $14 billion Light Armoured Vehicle sale to Saudi Arabia that was negotiated by the previous Conservative government.

Canada is aligned to most US foreign military incursions by ideology and by deed providing willingly its soft power in the guise of military and police training to countries with questionable records on human rights. In 2017-2018, the Canadian Directorate of Military Training and Cooperation delivered training to more than 1,500 candidates from 56 member countries across the globe. That may not be the offending part of it’s foreign policy as several countries provide similar service, but doing that while stating as part of its mission to “Promote Canadian democratic principles, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights in the international arena”, may well be seen as another contradiction.

Geopolitical reality seems to reveal Canada’s policy incongruity and UN member States may see through that pretentious presupposition. Canada’s silence about the military coup in Bolivia last November and its forceful determination to regime change in Venezuela against the legitimately elected government of Nicolas Maduro betray precisely a disregard for “democratic principles” and the “rule of law” in the international arena. The UN recognises the Venezuelan Ambassador appointed by the legitimate government of Venezuela.

Canada is not a peace-loving internationalist country anymore. It has lost the appeal that may have held in the past, and is criticised today for letting its mining corporations abuse the human rights and the environment in other – mostly – African countries.

At a time when the issue of racism managed to take over the world media stage over the killing of George Floyd in the US replacing the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been suggested that the block of “black and brown countries” of Africa may have rejected Canada’s bid to the UNSC. When pressured to give his opinion on the anti-racism protests in the US at the beginning of June, Justin Trudeau avoided criticising Trump’s administration and chose instead to recognise that there is “systemic discrimination” against racialised groups in Canada.

In concluding, the loss of the Canadian government on the international stage may be a victory for Canadians at home. Usually the Canadian public doesn’t seem to care about foreign policy, which is never on the top 10 list of voter priorities. Only Canadians following regularly foreign policy would react to the news of a lost vote at the UN.

However, the campaign launched by Canadians questioning Canada’s bid to a UNSC seat perhaps shows that Canadians care about Canada’s international image and the possible links to domestic policy. They are willing to speak up and in fact, a new campaign has already being launched calling on the Prime Minister “to fundamentally reassess Canadian foreign policy.” This in itself is a victory.

The international community has not given a vote of confidence to Canada’s foreign policy by denying a seat to the UNSC. That’s all the international community can do. It is up to Canadians now to demand changes to the Canadian government.

Posted in Canada, UNComments Off on Canada’s UN Security Council Loss Shows Its “Foreign Policy Weaknesses”

Canadian policy on Venezuela, Haiti reveals hypocrisy that media ignores

Couple Holding Two Puzzles Pieces Canadian Venezuelan Flags Canada ...
By Yves Engler

If the dominant media was serious about holding the Canadian government to account for its foreign policy decisions, there would be numerous stories pointing out the hypocrisy of Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela.

Instead silence, or worse, cheer-leading.

Venezuela is a deeply divided society. Maybe a quarter of Venezuelans want the president removed by (almost) any means. A similar proportion backs Nicolas Maduro. A larger share of the population oscillates between these two poles, though they generally prefer the president to opposition forces that support economic sanctions and a possible invasion.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Maduro, including questions about his electoral bonafides after a presidential recall referendum was scuttled and the Constituent Assembly usurped the power of the opposition dominated National Assembly (of course many opposition actors’ democratic credentials are far more tainted). But, the presidential election in May demonstrates that Maduro and his PSUV party maintain considerable support. Despite the opposition boycott, the turnout was over 40% and Maduro received a higher proportion of the overall vote than leaders in the US, Canada and elsewhere. Additionally, Venezuela has an efficient and transparent electoral system — “best in the world” according to Jimmy Carter in 2012 — and it was the government that requested more international electoral observers.

Unlike Venezuela, Haiti is not divided. Basically, everyone wants the current “president” to go. While the slums have made that clear for months, important segments of the establishment (Reginald Boulos, Youri Latortue, Chamber of Commerce, etc) have turned on Jovenel Moïse. Reliable polling is limited, but it’s possible 9 in 10 Haitians want President Moïse to leave immediately. Many of them are strongly committed to that view, which is why the country’s urban areas have been largely paralyzed since February 7.

In a bid to squelch the protests, government forces (and their allies) have killed dozens in recent months. If you include the terrible massacre reported here and here in the Port-au-Prince neighborhood of La Saline on November 11-13 that number rises far above 100.

Even prior to recent protests the president’s claim to legitimacy was paper-thin. Moïse assumed the job through voter suppression and electoral  fraud. Voter turnout was 18%. His predecessor and sponsor, Michel Martelly, only held elections after significant protests. For his part, Martelly took office with about 16 per cent of the vote, since the election was largely boycotted. After the first round, US and Canadian representatives pressured the electoral council to replace the second-place candidate, Jude Celestin, with Martelly in the runoff.

While you won’t have read about it in the mainstream media, recent protests in Haiti are connected to Venezuela. The protesters’ main demand is accountability for the billions of dollars pilfered from Petrocaribe, a discounted oil program set up by Venezuela in 2006. In the summer demonstrators forced out Moïse’s prime minister over an effort to eliminate fuel subsidies and calls for the president to go have swelled since then. Adding to popular disgust with Moïse, his government succumbed to US/Canadian pressure to vote against Venezuela at the OAS last month.

So what has been Ottawa’s response to the popular protests in Haiti? Has Global Affairs Canada released a statement supporting the will of the people? Has Canada built a regional coalition to remove the president? Has Canada’s PM called other international leaders to lobby them to join his effort to remove Haiti’s President? Have they made a major aid announcement designed to elicit regime change? Have they asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the Haitian government? Has Justin Trudeau called the Haitian President a “brutal dictator”?

In fact, it’s the exact opposite to the situation in Venezuela. The only reason the Haitian president is hanging on is because of support from the so-called “Core Group” of “Friends of Haiti”. Comprising the ambassadors of Canada, France, Brazil, Germany and the US, as well as representatives of Spain, EU and OAS, the “Core Group” released a statement  last week “acknowledging the professionalism shown by the Haitian National Police.” The statement condescendingly “reiterated the fact that in a democracy change must come through the ballot box, and not through violence.” The “Core Group’s” previous responses  to the protests expressed stronger support of the unpopular government. As I detailed  10 weeks ago in a story headlined “Canada backs Haitian government, even as police force kills demonstrators”, Ottawa has provided countless forms of support to Moïse’s unpopular government. Since then Justin Trudeau had a “very productive meeting” with Haitian Prime Minister Jean Henry Ceant, International development minister Marie-Claude Bibeau‏ declared a desire to “come to the aid” of the Haitian government and Global Affairs Canada released a statement declaring that “acts of political violence have no place in the democratic process.” Trudeau’s government has provided various forms of support to the repressive police that maintains Moïse’s rule. Since Paul Martin’s Liberals played an important role  in violently ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s government in 2004 Canada has financed, trained and overseen the Haitian National Police. As took place  the night Aristide was forced out of the country by US Marines, Canadian troops  were recently photographed  patrolling the Port-au-Prince airport.

Taking their cue from Ottawa, the dominant media have downplayed the scope of the recent protests and repression in Haiti. There have been few (any?) stories about protesters putting their bodies on the line for freedom and the greater good. Instead the media has focused on the difficulties faced by a small number of Canadian tourists, missionaries and aid workers. While the long-impoverished country of 12 million people is going through a very important political moment, Canada’s racist/nationalist media is engrossed in the plight of Canucks stuck at an all-inclusive resort!

The incredible hypocrisy in Ottawa’s response to recent political developments in Haiti and Venezuela is shameful. Why has no major media dared contrast the two?

Related

Crisis & Critique: US Ramps up Aggression amid Pandemic In “War Crimes”

Ottawa’s ties with far right Colombian president undermines human rights rhetoric regarding Venezuela In “War Crimes”

Trudeau’s extraordinary campaign to overthrow Maduro In “Progressive Hypocrite”

Posted in Canada, VenezuelaComments Off on Canadian policy on Venezuela, Haiti reveals hypocrisy that media ignores

5G, the new track of the arms race

by Manlio Dinucci

While Canada has just authorized the extradition of Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of one of Huawei’s leaders, to the United States, the U.S. Congressional Research Service exposes the military component of the G5.

JPEG - 35.7 kb

Arrival at Nellis base of an aircraft classified for G5 tests.

At Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada – announces the Pentagon – construction of a 5G experimental network will begin in July. It will become operational in January 2021.

The Red Flag, the most important air manoeuvre in the United States, took place at this base last March, with the participation of German, Spanish and Italian forces. The latter were also composed of F-35 fighters which – the Air Force says – were “integrated with the best of American military aviation” in order to “exploit the full potential of the aircraft and weapons systems on board”, including certainly the nuclear ones. At the Red Flag in 2021, 5G mobile networks consisting of towers, that can be assembled and disassembled in less than an hour for rapid transfer depending on the operation in progress, will probably already be in operation for testing in a real environment.

The Nellis base is the fifth selected by the Pentagon to test the military use of 5G: the others are in Utah, Georgia, California and Washington State.

A Congressional Research Service paper (see below) explains that this fifth-generation mobile data technology can have “many military applications. One such application is for “autonomous military vehicles,” that is, robotic air, land and naval vehicles capable of autonomously performing attack missions without even remote control. This requires the storage and processing of an enormous amount of data that cannot be carried out solely on board the autonomous vehicle. The 5G will allow this type of vehicle to use an external data storage and processing system, similar to the current Cloud for personal file storage. This system can make possible “new military operational concepts”, such as “swarming”, in which each vehicle automatically connects to the others to carry out the mission (e.g. an air attack on a city or a naval attack on a port).

5G will make the entire command and control system of the US armed forces more powerful on a global scale: currently – explains the document – it uses satellite communications but, because of the distance, the signal takes some time to arrive, causing delays in the execution of military operations. These delays will be virtually eliminated by 5G. It will play a decisive role in the use of hypersonic weapons, which, also equipped with nuclear warheads, travel at more than 10 times the speed of sound.

5G will also be extremely important for the secret services, making possible much more effective control and espionage systems than the current ones. “5G is vital to maintaining America’s military and economic advantages,” the Pentagon said.

Particularly advantageous is the fact that “the emerging 5G technology, which is commercially available, offers the Department of Defense the opportunity to take advantage of this system at lower costs for its own operational requirements. In other words, the 5G commercial network, made by private companies, is being used by the U.S. Armed Forces at a much lower cost than would be required if the network were made solely for military purposes. This also happens in other countries.

It is therefore understandable that the 5G dispute, especially between the United States and China, is not part of the trade war alone. 5G creates a new track for the arms race, which is taking place less in terms of quantity than quality. This is not addressed by the media and is largely ignored even by critics of the technology, who focus their attention on the possible harmful effects on health. This commitment is certainly of great importance, but it must be joined with those opposing the military use of this technology, which is unwittingly financed by ordinary users of fifth-generation mobile phones.

Posted in USA, Canada, ChinaComments Off on 5G, the new track of the arms race

Communists globally mourn the passing of Comrade Michael Lucas in Toronto

Known to friends of the Soviet Union as the editor of the Northstar Compass, Michael was a selfless and dedicated internationalist.

Proletarian writers

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) was deeply saddened to hear of the death of Comrade Michael Lucas in Canada. Our party held Comrade Michael in high regard and we send our sincere condolences to his family.

Our fraternal bonds with Michael Lucas stretch back many years, through his work in the worldwide anti-revisionist and pro-Soviet movement. In recent years, one of our party members was able to work closely with Michael during a prolonged spell of work in Toronto.

We reproduce his words below and fully associate ourselves with his glowing tribute to a true proletarian internationalist.

Central committee, CPGB-ML

*****

Tribute to Comrade Michael

It is with great sadness that I learned of the recent passing of Comrade Michael Lucas. My thoughts and condolences are with his family, with whom he was always very close.

I had the pleasure of working with him for some years in Toronto. By the time I met him, Michael had reached the grand age of 90, yet still remained an extremely hard-working and driven man, dedicated to upholding the glorious memory of the Soviet Union and its people, and to promoting friendship and solidarity between the Canadian people and those of the former USSR.

A true internationalist, Michael took great interest in and maintained contact with progressive people and parties throughout the world.

Michael was a leading member of the International Council for Friendship and Solidarity with the Soviet People and was editor of its paper, the Northstar Compass, throughout the 25 years that it was published.

It was a source of great inspiration to see his selfless work in preparing and editing the magazine, a task he undertook almost singlehandedly. I recall that he would often sleep in the office in order to get it to print on time.

He was also in charge, along with his wife Helen, of the wonderful Friendship House building in Toronto. Many congresses of the International Council were held there, in addition to regular meetings of the NSC editorial board and social events celebrating such key dates as International Women’s DayVictory Day and the Great October Socialist Revolution, which were always well attended and highly enjoyable.

As ever, Michael played the leading role in organising these events and ensuring their success. Friendship House also housed an extensive library of Marxist-Leninist literature, along with photographs from the former USSR – a magnificent resource for local communists.

Michael was a keen and talented artist, and many of his works decorated the walls of Friendship House. A very generous man, he would often give his away paintings, professionally framed, as gifts to comrades, friends and visitors.

Michael led a highly rewarding life, dedicated to the cause of the working class and the people of the Soviet Union. His legacy and contribution to the cause of socialism will live on for years to come.

Red salute to Comrade Michael!

Posted in CanadaComments Off on Communists globally mourn the passing of Comrade Michael Lucas in Toronto

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk