(The following articles are from the May 16-31, 2011, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 706 Clark Drive, Vancouver, BC, V5L 3J1.)

 

1) AFTER THE ELECTION: STRUGGLE SHIFTS OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT

Commentary by the Central Executive Committee, Communist Party of Canada

     The May 2nd federal election gave Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party an absolute majority in the new Parliament. But to do it they had to hide their real agenda, and spend millions in payoffs and promises they may never deliver. They haven't convinced a majority of Canadians to privatize medicare and social programs, and they haven't sold Canadians on their sky‑high military spending, the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, or their war on civil, democratic and labour rights. The outcome did not reflect a political swing to the right among voters, and Harper has no real mandate to impose his reactionary agenda on the working class and the peoples of Canada.

     In fact, the Conservatives garnered less than 40% of votes cast, and only 24.3% support among all registered voters. There was no seismic shift to the Conservatives; rather, the Tory majority came about primarily due to vote‑splitting between the Liberals and the social democratic NDP in key ridings, especially in Southern Ontario and British Columbia.

     This election revealed yet again the archaic, undemocratic nature of the "first‑past‑the‑post" electoral system, which always distorts electoral outcomes and in this case negated the anti‑Tory sentiments of the majority of the Canadian people. The struggle for democratic electoral reform, beginning with some form of proportional representation, has become more urgent than ever.

     While support for the Harper Conservatives rose just 2%, there were substantial shifts in voting patterns for the other large established parties. Most significant was the growth in both popular support (30.6%) and seats (102 out of 308) for the New Democrats, earning the NDP the status of "official opposition" for the first time. These gains came particularly at the expense of the pro‑sovereigntist Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party in English-speaking Canada.

     The collapse of the BQ was dramatic, with its popular vote in Québec sliding to 23.4% (from 38.1% in 2008) and its seats reduced from 49 to only 4, with a corresponding massive increase in support for the NDP. A certain fatigue with the sovereignty debate among Québec voters helped caused the Bloc vote to collapse, in favour of the anti‑Harper alternative presented by the NDP. It would be wrong to conclude however that this signifies a marked drop in support for the sovereignty option, considering Layton's public commitment to respect the results of a future referendum vote on separation, and the Québec NDP's shift to support "asymmetrical federalism."

     The increased vote for the NDP, and its enlarged caucus which includes many young first‑time members, is a welcome development, reflecting a growing trend among working people to break away from the grasp of the old‑line parties of big business. Clearly, a larger proportion of electors, especially among youth and students, were attracted by NDP leader Jack Layton's call for "change". Québec is now the NDP's main base, which may push them to take stronger positions on the national question, on war and militarism, and on protection of medicare and social programs. It must be said however that although many identified the NDP as a left‑progressive alternative, the party under Layton's leadership has in fact moved steadily toward the "centre" of the political spectrum as part of their long‑held strategy of supplanting the Liberals as the official opposition.

     Also noteworthy and welcome was the breakthrough election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party representative in Parliament, even though the overall popular vote for the Greens slipped compared to 2008.

     Both the Liberals and the BQ emerged from the election badly mauled, and their respective leaders (Ignatieff and Duceppe) have resigned. The post‑election crisis in both these camps could take the form of further political realignments in the future.

     Not surprisingly given the continued media blackout, votes for the Communist Party of Canada's 20 candidates remained low. But the Communist campaign helped to inject the anti‑war views of millions of Canadians into the debates, and to win support for radical new policies to put people's needs ahead of corporate greed.

     The most immediate outcome is the catastrophic reality of a Harper Tory majority in Ottawa for the next four years. The carefully orchestrated Conservative campaign (heavily financed by its big business patrons) convinced at least a section of the electorate that they had somehow moderated their radical, right‑wing political agenda and could therefore be "trusted" with the immense power of a parliamentary majority. But this scripted image is belied by the facts. The Tories' first two terms in office - even as a minority - revealed much of their militarist, pro‑corporate, anti-environmental and anti‑democratic policies, carried out by the most arrogant, dictatorial and secretive government in Canadian history.

     The Harper Conservatives' full‑blown program will quickly come to the fore: their "law and order" agenda (starting with the "omnibus" crime bill), the further imperialist drive to militarization and war, and a sharpened assault on labour, democratic and social rights and services, not unlike the vicious "austerity" policies being imposed by right‑wing governments across Europe, and by Republican‑controlled states in the U.S. Workers in the federal public service are likely to be among the first targets of Harper's "plan" to eliminate the deficit within three years.

     The so‑called "social conservatives" are already raising demands to "reopen" the debate on women's reproductive rights and to strip away other gender and equity‑based gains, and to eliminate Human Rights Tribunals.

     Given the new balance of forces within Parliament, the capacity of the NDP and other opposition parties to counter this agenda will be significantly weakened; they will offer up their critiques and may succeed in delaying various pieces of legislation, but with the Tories in full control of both the Commons and the Senate, the possibilities of actually blocking or defeating government bills by parliamentary means alone have all but disappeared. In such circumstances, the focus of resistance and struggle against this reactionary agenda must shift decisively to the extra‑parliamentary arena. This is where the next battles will be fought and where victories can and must be won.

     The trade union movement has a critical and central role to play in initiating and leading a broad‑based, pan-Canadian fightback movement against a renewed "Tory majority" onslaught. The Canadian Labour Congress is currently meeting in Vancouver, to be followed shortly by the congress of the Québec-based CSN labour central. The Communist Party of Canada urges delegates at these key labour conventions to seize upon this opportunity to set those wheels in motion.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

2) CUPW HOLDS DAY OF ACTION FOR FAIR CONTRACT

PV Vancouver Bureau

     Entering the final days of negotiations for a new collective agreement, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers held a Day of Action across the country on May 11, as People's Voice was in the printshop. CUPW reports that major issues remain unresolved, and that talks are now in the mediation phase for the union's urban unit, which represents most of its 54,000 members.

     A recent CUPW bulletin stressed the need to focus on key issues, such as efforts to maximize full‑time jobs and implement a process to ensure vacant positions are filled.

     "We are all aware of the problems resulting from staffing shortages in postal facilities across the country," says CUPW President Denis Lemelin. "These not only include occupational health and safety problems, but also problems with service to the public. To preserve universal public postal service, we have to find a practical solution to these staffing shortages. To find such a solution, we need to review the ratio of full‑time jobs and discuss the rules governing the staffing of vacant positions. This is a concrete problem that needs a concrete solution. This will help us determine whether the employer is truly willing to resolve problems.

     "We must continue to put pressure on the employer at the negotiating table and on the work floor. We must intensify activities and solidarity actions as we prepare for the May 11 National Day of Action. Together we will win!"

     Illustrating the problems in dealing with Canada Post was a recent presentation by Paul Vincelette of the Montreal CUPW local. Documenting the impact of the introduction of "Modern Post" mechanized letter sequencing at the company's Monterey Depot, Vincelette's research revealed a dramatic increase in injuries, sick leave and overtime.

     Senior management responded that many of these issues should be dealt with at the local level, but as Vincelette pointed out, local management always says that the problems have to be resolved at the national level.

     In other recent sessions, the parties discussed issues such as the union's demand for a comprehensive cost of living allowance (COLA), Canada Post's short term disability plan and the surplus in the disability insurance fund. But CUPW reports that "there has been no response at all from management on the Union's demands. Nothing on proper rotation of duties, protection against contracting out, contracting in new work or providing new services to name only a few."

     Management's "clarification" on their proposed short term disability plan states that CUPW members "are not going to lose their bank of sick leave credits". However, under this scheme CUPW members will not be able to use any portion of their sick leave credits for absences of five days or less, and will receive no pay for these absences once their personal days have been used up.

     The company's "clarification" also claims that Manulife initially only denies one out of every twenty sick leave claims under the short term disability plan. But the union warns that if Manulife does become the decision‑maker when it comes to receiving pay under the short term disability plan, this will give a private insurance company more power over the lives of postal workers.

     Meanwhile, Canada Post is demanding wide concessions, starting with a proposal to pay new employees 30% less and give them reduced benefits, an inferior pension and weaker job security.

     Canada Post also wants to dramatically increase the amount that retirees have to pay for their extended health care plan, and to turn back the clock on many other contract provisions to slash labour costs. Yet the company has made profits for 16 years while having one of the lowest standard postage rates in the industrialized world.

     In response, CUPW wants recognition that postal workers have helped Canada Post increase profits and productivity, and a contract which shares some of these gains, instead of attacking wages, rights and working conditions.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

3) ANTI-HARPER DEMO CAPS CAMPAIGN IN NEWFOUNDLAND

By Sean Burton, May 4, 2011

     Stephen Harper attempted to woo Newfoundlanders and Labradorians during the election with the usual campaign promises, but the majority of people in this province demonstrated that they have not forgotten or forgiven the federal Conservative Party's contempt.

     This province was largely ignored by the mainstream parties save for a handful of token visits by party leaders. As the campaign moved on, the word on the streets was largely that it would take a miracle for the Conservatives to win any seat here. Nonetheless, a group of about 35 concerned citizens rallied in downtown St. John's on April 29th to denounce the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Harper, under the banner of "Stop the Majority".

     Organizer Adrian House condemned the Harper government for its cuts to social programs, excessive military spending and overall right‑wing agenda, as well as the PM's lack of commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The rally proceeded to march through St. John's to the old legislature building on Military Road, chanting and condemning Harper over the megaphone and encountering considerable support from passersby all the way.

     It was not surprising that the Conservatives once again failed to win a seat. The sole exception was Labrador. Although that victory is being spun as a Conservative breakthrough, in a staunchly liberal riding, Peter Penashue won only by a very narrow margin. Penashue was the president of the Labrador Innu Nation and one of the major negotiators for the Innu with the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, but even that did not guarantee a strong victory. Similar stories can be told across Canada, all of which should be used as fuel to challenge the first‑past‑the‑post electoral system.

     Regardless of the election outcome, only vague commitments were made to the province on economic development. Harper's minority government as well as the previous Liberal government have not had a good record of keeping promises, and now that Harper has a majority, there is even less reason to do so. Since many Newfoundlanders have vocally rejected the Conservatives twice in a row, Harper may well act out of spite.

     The Conservatives were evidently hoping for quite the coup in Newfoundland, putting up a number of high‑profile candidates and also having the apparent support of the post‑Danny Williams provincial government. It is now obvious that Kathy Dunderdale and her supporters felt ill at ease with Williams' opposition to the federal government. Dunderdale has been under fire, particularly since appearing with Harper at a rally in St. John's. Given the rejection of the Conservatives here, it is not inconceivable that the premier may seek to intercede with Ottawa in lieu of the Liberal and NDP MPs. Any such behaviour may well undermine the provincial government when elections are held here in October. Another landslide victory for the Progressive Conservative party already seems most unlikely.

     It is bittersweet that Harper was defeated here and rejected by over 60% of Canadian voters, who still have to face the fact of a Conservative majority government. Many people worked hard fighting against that majority, and now is certainly not the time to give up. Rather, all Canadians who value peace and democracy must redouble their efforts to challenge the right and expose the Conservatives as the enemies of the working peoples of Canada.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

4) UNITY PROPOSED FOR VANCOUVER CIVIC ELECTION

PV Vancouver Bureau

     2011 will be a year of elections in British Columbia, including the recent federal campaign; the May 11 byelection in Vancouver Point Grey, where Liberal leader Christy Clark is seeking a Legislature seat; a mail-in referendum on the hated HST; a provincial election expected in September; and municipal elections scheduled for Nov. 19.

     Just as the federal race entered the final lap, Vancouver's main centre and left municipal parties reached an agreement-in-principle. On April 28, COPE (the left-wing Coalition of Progressive Electors) and Vision Vancouver announced initial plans to run a common slate of candidates. The result of lengthy negotiations, the proposal must win majority support from COPE members at an upcoming meeting to take effect.

     If accepted, this would be the third consecutive cooperation agreement between COPE and Vision, aimed at defeating the right-wing Non-Partisan Alliance (NPA), which has usually dominated Vancouver city council and school boards since the 1930s.

     Six years ago, the first attempt at electoral cooperation between COPE and Vision failed to block the NPA from narrowly regaining office after an overwhelming defeat in 2002.

     But in 2008, the NPA elected just one city councillor, as Vision won the mayoralty and seven council positions, along with two COPE candidates. Vision also elected four school trustees, along with three for COPE and two from the NPA. While the Vision majority on council has avoided day-to-day cooperation with COPE's Ellen Woodsworth and David Cadman, the two parties have voted along the same lines on most issues. At School Board, the Vision and COPE trustees quickly formed a strong alliance, helping to lead province-wide demands to provide adequate funding for public education.

     This time around, the proposed agreement could see COPE win a bigger voice on city council. The deal would provide three spots for COPE on a joint slate, up from two in 2008. At School Board, the proposal is for five Vision and four COPE candidates. Vancouver voters also elect a seven-member Parks Board. This agreement would see four Vision candidates, and two from COPE; the final spot would go to the civic Greens, pending their approval.

     Announcing the tentative agreement, COPE External Chair Marcus Youssef said, "COPE has a long history of cooperating to ensure progressive politics in Vancouver, and we're pleased to have reached an agreement with Vision Vancouver to continue this history."

     Youssef said the agreement reflects the hard work COPE Councillors have done at City Hall. "We needed to grow our numbers to keep up that work, and this agreement provides for that," he said. "City Hall is better with COPE, and having a chance to expand on our team there is going to be good for Vancouver."

     Within this framework, COPE has been able to influence many critical civic policies, especially around emergency shelters and housing, civil liberties, preventing school closures, and ecological initiatives.

     "Political cooperation has been a very good thing for this city," said Youssef. "Unlike the divisive and backward‑looking politics of the NPA, COPE's goal of creating a Vancouver for everyone is best served by working collaboratively."

     The shift in council slate positions may also reflect some difficulties faced by the Vision majority at City Hall. Heading into the 2008 campaign, Vision signed up a membership of some 15,000, as Vancouverites rebelled against the NPA's arrogance and its undiluted big-business policies.

     But while Vision remains the largest civic party by a wide margin, some of its members have dropped out or returned to their former home in COPE. Many cite the governing party's tendency to make important Council decisions prior to full genuine democratic consultation. Others have been alienated by pro-developer decisions, or Vision's move to continue the NPA-initiated shift of property taxes away from the business sector and onto the backs of homeowners.

     During the 2008 election, the bulk of labour's support and resources went to the Vision campaign, but the trade union movement in Vancouver has since begun shifting back to the COPE camp. COPE has also made significant gains among the city's important arts and cultural sectors, and is reaching out to ethnic and racialized communities. Not least, COPE's six elected officials have won wide recognition for their principled stands to defend democratic rights and the interests of working people. In a nutshell, COPE is in a somewhat stronger position than in the past two campaigns, while Vision has found it impossible to meet the public's expectations.

     But there is no guarantee that the COPE membership will accept the tentative agreement. Some COPE members are understandably angry about certain Vision policies, and the fact that Vision relies heavily on contributions from the city's developers.

     However, the danger is that divisions between the centre and left forces in Vancouver could open the door for an NPA comeback, as happened in 2005 when cooperation was fragile at best.

     The election of a Harper Tory majority with less than 40% of the popular vote is also a warning that disunity can be deadly. The flip side of this argument is easily found on Vancouver's right-wing political blogs, where the Vision/COPE agreement is angrily denounced as a plot to unfairly deny the NPA's path to power.

     Some activists, such as supporters of ultra-left former councillor Tim Louis, argue that COPE could win a civic election on its own, but this view overstates the extent of socialist views among working people in Vancouver. In fact, COPE has only done well in civic elections where the political right is badly divided, or where the centre-left forces cooperate despite their differences.

     An examination of Vancouver's five federal ridings shows why. In the May 2 election, the NDP won 82,676 votes in Vancouver, about one-third of the 240,000 ballots cast in the city. The Conservatives were second with 77,213, then 68,965 Liberal, and 18,384 for the Greens.

     The 77,000 Tory voters (and many of the Liberals), are the NPA's power base in the city's west and south. Although some Liberals and Greens do vote COPE at the civic level, left-minded NDPers form the core of COPE's east side and Kitsilano base. Vision draws its broader support from Liberals, New Democrats and Greens across the city.

     The conclusion is obvious: any "go it alone" strategy by COPE would almost certainly end in defeat. Well aware of the numbers, most sections of the labour movement which lean towards COPE would probably decide not to throw their scarce resources into an impossible campaign. An isolated COPE slate would be outgunned in an expensive at-large civic race, despite its advantages of "brand recognition" and a dynamic group of elected officials and supporters.

     Will this sober appraisal be shared by a majority at the next COPE membership meeting? Or will anger at Vision's retreat from its progressive image prove more powerful? In our next issue, we'll hear from COPE executive members and elected officials.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

5) ELECTORAL REFORM: MORE THAN EVER

People's Voice Editorial

     It's no exaggeration to state that the May 2 federal election was literally stolen from the 60%-plus of Canadian voters who cast a ballot against the Harper Conservatives. There is wide agreement that the policy platforms presented by the parliamentary opposition parties were sharply different from the Tory agenda. On the whole, the NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and Greens opposed the Harper government's drive to lower corporate taxes, build more prisons, and ignore climate change.

     It's true there was less difference among all the major parties on foreign policy, sadly reflecting the NDP's unwillingness to reject Canada's integration into imperialist war-making. But since none of these parties made foreign policy a key issue in the campaign, the Harper Tories cannot honestly claim a popular mandate for their expansion of military spending and participation in NATO's wars.

     But on the whole, Canadian voters faced a choice between one far-right party, and several others which claimed to stand for progressive values. Not surprisingly, three out of five chose one of the latter, hoping to dump the Tories. Instead, eerily reminiscent of the 1988 "free trade" election, the "first-past-the-post" system allowed a minority party to win a solid majority in Parliament. Only one adult out of four voted for the Harper Tories, hardly a "mandate" for their reactionary policies.

     This outcome should stoke the demands for genuine electoral reform in Canada. Proportional representation would encourage Canadians to support their favourite party rather simply than to vote against the main danger. A mixed-member PR system would combine the benefits of local representation with a Parliament more closely reflecting the views of working people. PR is not a perfect solution, but it would definitely help generate momentum for fundamental social and economic change in Canada.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

6) CONGRATULATIONS TO B.C. TEACHERS

People's Voice Editorial

The recent court victory by British Columbia teachers is a great lesson in the strategy and tactics of class(room) struggle. We congratulate the B.C. Teachers' Federation, and we urge the labour and people's movements to follow this example of how to successfully combine job action, mass protests, and legal challenges.

     This matter goes back to the 2001 election of the Liberal government in British Columbia. The Campbell Liberals imposed the full neoliberal agenda, slashing social programs, attacking the poor, tearing up union contracts, and giving multi-billion dollar tax breaks to the rich and the corporations.

     The response was a powerful fightback by the labour movement, anti-poverty groups, and other forces. Faced with deeply negative impacts on public education, teachers across the province worked with other unions, students, parent groups, and progressive school trustees to hold huge protest rallies, gather petitions, and much more. Education Minister Christy Clark - now Premier - arrogantly dismissed this public anger. Teachers were finally compelled to walk out in defence of their bargaining rights and the interests of students. For two weeks in the fall of 2005, the BCTF stood up to the Campbell government's bullying, finally winning agreement that the issue of class sizes would be addressed.

     This legal ruling against the Liberals is a solid victory for collective bargaining rights, and it was won as much through the political action of teachers as through legal channels. As the ruling says, the right to collectively bargain "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal autonomy, equality and democracy that are inherent in the Charter."

     Next step: defeat the B.C. Liberals and step up the fight to restore education funding cuts over the past two decades!

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

7) THE ELECTION - A VIEW FROM QUEBEC

By Johan Boyden

     The NDP 58‑seat "surge" in Quebec has generated considerable discussion since the federal election. Some in the corporate media have suggested the associated collapse of Bloc Québécois to four seats marks the death‑knell of the sovereignist cause. However, the story is not so simple.

     Overwhelmingly, Quebec voted against the Harper Conservative government, reducing the total number of Tories to six rural ridings. None in major urban areas, where working‑class votes are concentrated, went Tory.

     In addition to their anti‑people, pro‑war and anti‑Quebec agenda, the Tories were embroiled in a scandal. Harper's top advisor in Quebec, Dimitri Soudas, was exposed in a likely violation of the conflict of interest law regarding the appointment of the Port of Montreal's new CEO. "Mr Harper's preferred candidate," appears to have been aggressively promoted by a notorious construction boss with links to the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Mafia, Tony Accurso.

     Harper's government is the first majority in modern Canadian history without a significant number of seats in Quebec. This raises serious implications for the future of federalism.

     Just last winter Ezra Levant, conservative author and self-styled Zionist Albertan "red‑neck", told the founding meeting of Francois Legault's new right‑wing group Réseau Liberté‑Québec (RLQ) that separation would be positive to conservatives in the rest of Canada. (The RLQ aim to become a political party that puts separation second to the attack on unions and environmentalists.)

     Leading right‑wing have long floated scenarios where the inflammation of long‑standing grievances helps provoke the eventual separation of Quebec, an area of strong popular support of the labour movement, social programs, and peace.

     The unexpected mass attraction of Quebec voters to the New Democrats fits that mood. The NDP took some votes away from the Liberals (who won only in seven Allophone and Anglophone ridings on the island of Montreal) and overwhelmingly from the BQ, who lost all their star candidates, including leader Gilles Duceppe.

     This should not be seen as a rejection of sovereignty for Quebec, which exists as an unrecognized nation unequally locked into the constitution. After twenty years of protest votes for the Bloc, voters questioned: what can be achieved this way? For most Québécois, sovereignty will be determined by the people on the provincial level.

     These sentiments have sent an unusually large number of workers, students, Aboriginal people ‑ even a single mother who helps run a pub ‑ to the seats of Parliament, next to lawyers, CEOs and bankers. The corporate media, having Americanized elections into a horse‑race between "the leaders", is mocking the people for electing "rookie" MPs; most people never heard about their local candidates, just Jack Layton.

     What are the implications of the anti‑Harper vote for Quebec politics, the left party Quebec Solidaire, the labour and people's movement, and the next provincial election? These are important questions for progressive forces in the time ahead.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

8) MARKHAM COUNCIL BANS CRITICISM OF ISRAELI APARTHEID

Special to PV

     The municipality of Markham, Ontario, northeast of Toronto, has been known for its rapid population growth in recent years. Now, Markham is in the news for another reason. On May 3, a majority of city councillors adopted a motion to censor "Israeli Apartheid Week", an event held this year in 95 cities and more than 75 universities on six continents. This includes three cities in Israel and four cities in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

     Organized every March by students on Canadian campuses, Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) features film screenings and high-profile forums with prominent academics and community leaders. IAW condemns all forms of racism and discrimination, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti‑Arab racism, and homophobia. Many Jewish students are involved in organizing IAW.

     The Canadian Arab Federation says the May 3 motion "aims to deny Canadian students and academics the rights of freedom of expression and academic freedom, rights that are enjoyed by Israeli students and academics... The motion creates the absurd situation where Canadian students and academics are allowed to freely criticize their own government but are banned from criticizing a foreign government.

     "The motion put forward by Councillor (Howard) Shore is one of several attempts currently being undertaken to censor and suppress public debate on this subject in order to shield Israel's actions from scrutiny and criticism. Such actions are an attack on free speech the likes of which we have not seen since the 1950s McCarthy witch hunts."

     The CAF points out that Markham councillors ignored a comprehensive study undertaken by Toronto City staff, which determined the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" does not promote hatred or discrimination, and does not violate the Criminal Code or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

     Markham City Council also ignored the compelling evidence introduced from the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, the Conference of Southern African Christian Churches, the Association of Civil Rights of Israel and the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, that irrefutably proves Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are systematically discriminated against and that the situation in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa.

     Speakers against the Markham motion represented diverse supporters of free speech and Palestinian rights, including Jews, Christians and Muslims of all ages and gender, and from various backgrounds.

     On the surface, the motion is puzzling, since there are no university campuses or IAW events in Markham. But the municipality includes the provincial riding of Thornhill, represented by MPP Peter Thurman - the same MPP who put forward a non-binding motion in the Ontario legislature last year to condemn IAW.

     Also, Markham City Council decided recently to send a trade mission to Israel. Rejection of Councillor Shore's motion would have implied that the city condones the labelling of Israel as an Apartheid state, leaving it in the awkward position of doing business with an apartheid regime.

     As CAF National President Khaled Mouammar stated, "Regrettably, this politically expedient decision runs counter to the Town of Markham's stated mission to recognize and accept the diversity of its residents, to respect the differences in all peoples and their right to hold different opinions, to promote the value of human rights, and to oppose racism and discrimination."

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

9) WHY AREN'T PEOPLE VOTING?

This commentary by Saskatoon-based political activist Marjaleena Repo was circulated before the federal election, and remains highly relevant as Canadians debate how to democratize our electoral system. Anecdotal evidence from across Canada indicates that many thousands of eligible voters were again denied the right to cast a ballot on May 2, thanks to rigid regulations designed to block Canadians from voting. We welcome other comments and submissions from PV readers on this crucial topic.

     At Guelph University, Conservative operatives recently tried to nullify the vote of several hundred students at a poll set up to facilitate student voting. They failed, but there is a far subtler and more effective way of eliminating troublesome voters, students, Aboriginals, the poor and the elderly alike.

     In 2008, Elections Canada introduced stringent voter ID requirements that cannot easily be met. You have to show proof not only of your identity but of your street address, and this is where the problem lies, as such documentation is not easy to come by, and often impossible. (Take me: I have ID galore with photos and signatures, but nothing with my address, so I must take a utility or phone bill with me to vote, something not everyone can do unless the bills are in their name.)

     There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose address is a box number and that is where wholesale rejection occurs: a box number is not acceptable. Among them are large numbers of rural residents and Aboriginals on reserves where street names don't exist and everybody has a box number. (A scrutineer in a 2008 campaign in northern Saskatchewan that I managed reported that fifty aboriginal voters were turned away for this reason in one poll alone. With 180-odd polls in the riding, you can see how elections are lost and won through the denial of the vote.)

     Elections Canada does not keep track of rejected voters, but had post‑election surveys showing that almost 5% of registered voters (which in 2008 was nearly 500,000 of 13.7 million) "said they did not vote because they lacked proper documentation."

     How older citizens are affected was documented by former Victoria University president Howard Petch, who went to vote as he had always done since WW II, with a walletfull of ID - passport, various health cards, and voter registration card - none of which were deemed acceptable. No longer driving, he did not have a license which could (but doesn't always) have an address. Wheelchair bound, he was told to go home for more documentation or to wait around to get someone to vouch for him. Outraged, he refused and became one of the rejected. Elsewhere, countless seniors were turned away from polls at seniors' residences for the same reason. Today Petch believes that there is a deliberate plan to keep voters away who are the most discontented and likely to vote against the status quo.

     Our voter participation was already decimated by a major change in a system that used to work well. Until the late '90s we had the world's best voter registration system. All potential voters were enumerated after an election was called, and consequently the voters' lists were highly accurate and the voter needed only to prove they were the person in question, not where they lived.

     With enumeration, a high percentage of eligible voters were registered; today we do not even know how many can't make the list as it is now left up to citizens to register themselves, by hook or by crook. Educated and privileged classes have an easier time; others can face overwhelming difficulties. We have moved from the world‑class Canadian system of universal voter registration to the American‑style system of survival of the fittest, each man or woman for him/herself. Large‑scale voter inequality has reared its ugly head and with it comes falling voter participation, from 67% in 1997 when the last enumeration took place to 61% in 2000 and a historic low of 58.8% in 2008.

     Another change added to falling rates. The campaign period was shortened in 1997 to a minimum of 36 days from 47. Time is central to citizen participation in elections, and there can't be much of it when the campaign whirls by at break‑neck speed - neither the candidates nor the voters have an opportunity to engage in a meaningful way. Elections have become virtual ones, taking place mostly in the media, run by pollsters and pundits, and not in our neighbourhoods and communities where they belong. (It is interesting that with a 55 day campaign in 2006, participation rose to 65% from 61% in 2004, then fell below 60% in the last election with a 37 day campaign.)

     There is much ado about "voter apathy", with a focus on young people, who in creative and desperate ways are urged and "mobbed" to vote. Unfortunately, much of this effort is barking up the wrong tree: unless we can guarantee that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are eager to vote can actually do so, we are subjecting them to a nasty piece of Catch 22 where the victims of voter obstruction get the blame for being apathetic and not doing their civic duty. The simple solution is to bring back voter enumeration with all its democratic benefits, and to extend the campaign period to a minimum of 47 days that served us so well.

     [Editor's note: The federal election of Jan. 23, 2006 was longer to allow for the Christmas-New Year holiday period. In the 2011 election, voter turnout rose slightly to 61.4%.]

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

10) CANADA NEEDS A NATIONAL FOOD POLICY

"Food for People, Not for Profits, by Chris Picek, Vancouver

     With the 2011 federal election in the bag we can reflect on the state of our pretend democracy in Canada. The parade of irrelevant personal attacks, mudslinging and personality cults (or lack thereof) had little to do with intelligent, reasoned debate or ground level issues affecting working people.

     One issue that the mainstream media completely ignored is one that affects all humans, regardless of colour, creed or credentials: food.

     This is unfortunate, since for the first time, all major parties included a food policy component in their platforms. The Grits and Tories were largely long on style but short on substance to affect change. The NDP hit closest to the mark by way of the Heritage Breed Act, which would aim to preserve biodiversity and establish a sustainable agricultural sector for the future.

     The Green Party put focus on the critical issue of food sovereignty by amending the Canadian Food Inspection Agency mandate to remove any obligations to agribusiness.

     According to the People's Food Policy, 2.5 million Canadians are food insecure. There has been a surge in the last ten years in farm‑to‑table eating and a resurgence of local farms. This has been spearheaded by chefs, restaurateurs and farmers.

     While an admirable effort to reestablish a link between producer and consumer, it is overlooked that this wonderful bounty is priced out of range for most working people and the poor. The alternative is to resort to the unholy trinity of sugar‑fat‑salt which passes for food in our industrially provisioned supermarkets. Even those who could afford a local, organic diet do not know, due to decades of propaganda by agribusiness that have convinced us it is normal to eat California strawberries in January or Peruvian asparagus in April.

     This illustrates our heavy dependence on imports, often from countries where food production is profoundly undemocratic and relies on migrant labour that may be ill treated and poorly paid. This is compounded by the environmental degradation that comes with industrial agriculture and the huge amounts of fuel, water and chemicals it requires to function.

     An area of specific concern in Canada is that of food deserts. These are pockets in primarily urban suburbs where residents do not have close access to affordable quality food. A visit to the grocery involves a car journey, or a lengthy trip on public transit. This problem is exasperated in some rural and northern communities in particular, where remote locations and very short or non-existent growing seasons mean fresh meat or vegetables are rare and/or prohibitive in price.

     A well thought out policy on food administered at the federal level must take into account the particular needs of our country's disparate regions and their unique populations, climate and demographics. The way to ensuring we all have something good to eat begins with the admission at all levels of government that access to food is the basic human right. This right cannot be overlooked under any circumstance whatever.

     We can start by accepting that smaller scale, biodiverse farms are at least as efficient as their larger counterparts, without the attendant costs and environmental fallout. The biodiversity and integrity of the ecosystem must be protected and nurtured, since it is upon this that we depend for life itself.

     Producers that practice sustainable methods and humane animal husbandry must be encouraged and endorsed at all levels. People must have a framework in which to help themselves by means of an urban food production program that makes use of land that is otherwise wasted: golf courses, parking lots and half‑empty condo developments.

     It is imperative that all Canadians, indeed, all people of the Earth have access to healthy, tasty, sustainable, affordable and appropriate sustenance. The wars of the future may well be fought over food and water, not oil.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

11) CANADIAN BOAT TAHRIR TO JOIN GAZA FLOTILLA

     The Canadian Boat to Gaza campaign has announced the successful conclusion of arrangements to purchase and register a boat to carry the Canadian delegation to Gaza. The boat's name Tahrir (Liberation in Arabic) has been chosen to honour the square in Cairo that was the focus of the democratic uprising in Egypt.

     The Tahrir will sail with vessels from France, USA, UK, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey, and other countries, as part of the Freedom Flotilla II. This international movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people turns the spotlight on the blockade of Gaza and its 1.6 million residents whose access to resources and ability to travel has been unilaterally impeded by the illegal Israeli blockade.

     Fundraising for this campaign has been shared by thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and organizers expect to secure the remaining amount needed over the next few weeks of fundraising.

     The 25‑metre Tahrir will carry about 45 delegates from across the country, high profile Canadians plus journalists. As well, the boat will carry delegates from Australia, Belgium and Denmark. A new website tahrir.ca has been launched, and will now be the site for online donations.

     Despite news that Egypt plans to open the Rafah border crossing, the maritime blockade by Israel remains a major obstacle to achieving normal life in Gaza. The Canadian Boat to Gaza and the Freedom Flotilla movement will continue until the Port of Gaza is opened to ensure free circulation of goods and people.

     "Gaza is the only port on the Mediterranean which is closed to shipping and the only coastal area in the world which cannot access its own territorial waters," points out David Heap of the CBG steering committee. "Until the Palestinians of Gaza can travel freely and trade with the world, we will continue to challenge this illegal military blockade."

     The Israeli government continues to threaten the use of force against the Freedom Flotilla II. The campaign is calling on all Canadians, including Members of Parliament, to demand that the Canadian government take concrete steps to guarantee the safety of humanitarians headed to Gaza.

     "My heart is with the participants in the Canadian boat to Gaza in this important initiative for freedom and justice for Palestine. I urge the Canadian government to do all it can to prevent Israeli aggression against the flotilla and the activists aboard the boats," says Jewish Holocaust survivor and Palestine rights activist Suzanne Weiss in Toronto.

     For more information, visit www.canadaboatgaza.org or email info@canadaboatgaza.org.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

12) SANDINISTAS: WHERE DO THEY STAND TODAY?

By Rozhin Emadi, West Vancouver

     "Viva La Revolucion". These are the words I kept seeing on the streets of Nicaragua, and the power these words contain still amazes me. The Revolution of Nicaragua in 1979 united the people to fight for their rights, and for the change that they deserved after living for years with no ability to stand up for their needs, for their families, and for their country.

     The Sandinistas united the people together for a Revolution to give Nicaragua back to its citizens. Inspired by the philosophies and ideologies of Augusto Cesar Sandino, the Sandinistas were able to provide the people with hope to fight for the country they dreamed of seeing.

     However, the USA feared further revolutions would occur in Latin America. Ronald Reagan often referred to the Sandinistas as "the enemy of freedom", despite the improvements in education, health care, and Agrarian Reform which the Sandinistas provided in comparison to life under the Somoza regime.

      My Global Ed 2011 class at West Vancouver Secondary recently provided me with great opportunities to work and to experience the culture of Nicaragua, while staying in Balgue, a community on Ometepe Island. I wondered how the Sandinistas were viewed in Nicaragua. Did they still give the public hope, or are they going to be beaten in the upcoming 2011 election? After talking to numerous Nicaraguans, I can conclude that a great number of them support the Sandinistas.

     As I sit inside our red tour bus, I look outside, to see and observe Managua. Looking around, I notice phrases written on buildings that portray support of the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional), the party of the Sandinistas. But I wouldn't be able to make a fair analysis based on graffiti. To truly know what Nicaraguan people think of the government, I had to talk to as many as of them as I could.

     I first discussed politics with my Spanish instructor in Laguna de Apollo. Elena is an intellectual young woman. She liked the Sandinistas, she told me, though she mentioned that she doesn't like Daniel Ortega, the leader of the FSLN. She believes that stronger leaders would better represent the Sandinista Party, which always gets her vote. Her whole family are supporters of the Sandinistas, in particular her brother. She showed me a book of all the Sandinista icons, and proudly explained who they were, and why they were inspirational. I listened and tried to understand to the best of my ability, using what little Spanish I knew to comprehend what she was saying.

     Later, I talked to Tania Gutierrez, the translator for our program. She supports the FSLN, because their number one priority is health and education, which she believes are the most important aspects to have in a community. Tania told me that the Liberal Party in Nicaragua wants to privatize much of education and health care, and if they win the next election, they will destroy all the work put into creating a strong health care and education system.      I also talked to Roberto Myrena, the Coordinator of the community we worked in, Mano Amiga. He mentioned that he only ever votes for the Sandinistas, the party that he believes is for the people of Nicaragua. I was extremely honoured to talk to Roberto's grandfather, and a dear friend of mine, Julio Carrillo Castillo, who fought in the 1979 Nicaraguan Revolution. A proud supporter of Sandino, and of the Sandinistas, he referred to himself as "the Sandino of Balgue". He told me, "I'm a supporter of the Sandinista Party, and like Sandino said, it doesn't matter who is running for president, it is the ideologies of a party, which is worth to fight for and to support."

     The majority of the Community in which we spent the most of our time were supporters of the FSLN. My home-stay family were also proud Sandinista supporters of them. Nonetheless, after asking all these people who they thought would win the next election, none had any idea. They were afraid that there could be a chance that the opposition could win.

     Overall, I'm proud to say that the people I got the chance to meet were supporters of socialism and the Sandinistas. We will have to wait till the 2011 election in Nicaragua to get more of a precise viewpoint of where the Sandinistas stand, and how supported their government is by the people.

     "Viva La Revolucion"; three words, with powerful meanings that sum up the fight for change that occurred in Nicaragua, a country I'm honoured to now refer to as a part of me.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

13) MILLIONS MARCH ON MAY DAY 2011

     Marches and rallies marking May First, the International Day of the Worker, took place around the world this year. Millions of people took part, taking a powerful stand against the continued attacks on wages, labour standards and social programs by the transnational corporations and neoliberal governments.

     Activists flooded Turkey's largest city to demand more jobs, better working conditions and higher wages. About 200,000 workers gathered in Istanbul's Taksim Square in the largest May Day rally since 1977, when at least 34 people died and more than 100 were injured after a shooting by right-wing provocateurs triggered a stampede. Turkish unions were finally allowed to hold May Day actions in the square last year. This year's rally, marked by colourful flags, dancing and chanting, was organized by Turkey's four trade union confederations.

     Across Germany, some 420,000 people took to the streets to demand fair wages, better working conditions, and sufficient social security. Michael Sommer, head of the German unions' umbrella group, DGB, said the high turnout was a clear message to the government that it should give up its refusal to introduce a minimum wage.

     In Cuba, hundreds of thousands of people marched through Havana and other cities in a vast show of support for economic changes recently approved by the Communist Party.

     In South Korea, police estimated that 50,000 rallied in Seoul for better working conditions. They also urged the government to contain rising inflation, a growing concern across much of Asia, where spiking food and oil prices pushed millions into poverty. Thousands of workers rallied in other east Asian cities to vent their anger over the rising cost of living and growing disparities between the rich and poor.

     Thousands of people turned out for May Day demonstrations in Paris, where supporters of the far‑right National Front party tried to sow divisions by pushing their racist, anti-immigrant policies. France's five major labour unions organized around 200 marches across the country, calling for measures to tackle the rising cost of living and to denounce racism. The CBT labour federation estimated that more than 120,000 people took part.

     In the Philippines, about 3,000 workers demanding higher wages held a protest in a Manila square that included setting alight the effigy of Philippine President Benigno Aquino III grinning in a luxury car. Aquino has been criticized for buying a second-hand Porsche in a country where a third of people live on a dollar a day.

     In Taiwan, about 2,000 people rallied in Taipei to protest the widening income gap and to demand their government act to create better work conditions. Nearly 10,000 people in Hong Kong took part in two protests calling for stronger labour laws. Best known as a glitzy financial hub, Hong Kong recently introduced the first ever minimum wage for its legions of low‑paid workers.

     In Spain, tens of thousands of demonstrators in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia protested the government's failure to create new jobs. Figures for the first quarter of 2011 put the number of jobless at 4,910,200, or 21.3%, a 14‑year high and the highest in the industrialised world.

     Thousands of Communists and members of other left-wing groups marched through Moscow, carrying a sea of red flags to celebrate their traditional holiday, which in Soviet times was known as the Day of International Solidarity of Workers. The rally was addressed by Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, whose party is the only opposition group in the Russian parliament. Since the 1991 overthrow of socialism, the holiday has been known as the Day of Spring and Labour, and organizations from across the political spectrum held their own marches.

     Austria's Social Democratic Chancellor Werner Faymann spoke a crowd of about 100,000 at a May Day rally in Vienna, denouncing the banking sector. "When everything's going well they fill their pockets," he said. "And when things are going badly, it's the taxpayers who pay."

     In Greece, tens of thousands of labour activists marched in different cities against austerity measures imposed by the country's social democratic government. Greek unions will hold another general strike on May 11, defying the call by Prime Minister George Papandreou for "everyone to support the big changes that the country needs."

     In Portugal, huge protests slammed austerity measures expected to be imposed under the terms of a European Union and International Monetary Fund bailout plan. "Never has social protest been more important," said Manuel Carvalho da Silva, the head of the CGTP union.

     In Seoul at least 50,000 workers gathered to chant slogans calling for higher pay, better job security and to slam the conservative administration. "Our livelihood has been ruined by anti‑labour policies, rising unemployment and a widening wealth gap for the past three years under (President) Lee Myung‑Bak," the Korean Federation of Trade Unions said.

     Thousands of protesters in Indonesia called for better social security, at rallies where they confronted some 10,000 security personnel.

     Several May Day rallies and marches were held across Canada. In Montreal, several thousand took part in a rally organized by Québec's militant trade union movement. Later in the day, police attacked an "anti‑capitalist May Day march" which drew close to a thousand participants. Several people were arrested after police blocked the march.

     In Toronto, two separate May Day marches converged for a joint rally, in a signal of efforts to strengthen unity among progressive movements. On the same evening, activists packed the Steelworkers Hall on Cecil Street for a celebration organized by the United May Day Committee, and endorsed by the Toronto Labour Council and over 30 other progressive organizations.

     Vancouver's renewed tradition of May Day actions continued this year with a demonstration initiated by the Young Workers Committee and backed by the Vancouver & District Labour Council. About 500 people joined the march down Commercial Drive.

     Other May Day rallies were held in Canadian cities such as Winnipeg, Nanaimo and Victoria.

     In the United States, tens of thousands of workers rallied to reclaimed May Day as an American holiday.

     From a podium next to a memorial in Chicago for the Haymarket Martyrs, Terence O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers International Union, said: "May Day is the real Labor Day for American workers. For those who say it is a day associated with ideas too militant or too radical we say that there is nothing too militant or too radical when it comes to what must be done to protect the rights of workers."

     In Milwaukee, the president of the largest U.S. labor federation told a cheering crowd of more than 100,000: "May Day is our day to stand together!"

     "Gov. Scott Walker has declared war on Wisconsin workers," said AFL‑CIO president Richard Trumka. "We reject the idea that America can no longer be a great nation and that we're too broke to treat people fairly."

     The fusing of the struggles for workers rights and immigrant rights was a feature of all U.S. May Day rallies, as unions rejected the notion that immigrants take jobs away from the native born.

     Some 10,000 demonstrators in Los Angeles called for immigration reform, starting with passage of the Dream Act, which would provide undocumented youth with a route to legal residency. In Boston, thousands participated in a march that drew on the global fight for workers' rights with the theme of "From Cairo to Wisconsin to Massachusetts Defend All Workers' Rights."

     In Houston, the local chapter of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement joined with Houston United in a huge rally for worker' rights and immigrant rights. Workers in Buffalo marched more than two miles for a rally to protest the closing of a community health clinic.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

14) THE ASSASSINATION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

Fidel Castro Ruz, May 4, 2011, 8:34 pm.

     Those persons who deal with these issues know that on September 11 of 2001 our people expressed its solidarity to the US people and offered the modest cooperation that in the area of health we could have offered to the victims of the brutal attack against the Twin Towers in New York.

     We also immediately opened our country's airports to the American airplanes that were unable to land anywhere, given the chaos that came about soon after the strike.

     The traditional stand adopted by the Cuban Revolution, which was always opposed to any action that could jeopardize the life of civilians, is well known.

     Although we resolutely supported the armed struggle against Batista's tyranny, we were, on principle, opposed to any terrorist action that could cause the death of innocent people. Such behaviour, which has been maintained for more than half a century, gives us the right to express our views about such a sensitive matter.

     On that day, at a public gathering that took place at Ciudad Deportiva, I expressed my conviction that international terrorism could never be eradicated through violence and war.

     By the way, Bin Laden was, for many years, a friend of the US, a country that gave him military training; he was also an adversary of the USSR and Socialism. But, whatever the actions attributed to him, the assassination of an unarmed human being while surrounded by his own relatives is something abhorrent. Apparently this is what the government of the most powerful nation that has ever existed did.

     In the carefully drafted speech announcing Bin Laden's death Obama asserts as follows: "And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts."

     That paragraph expressed a dramatic truth, but can not prevent honest persons from remembering the unjust wars unleashed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of children who were forced to grow up without their mothers and fathers and the parents who would never know the feeling of their child s embrace.

     Millions of citizens were taken from their villages in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba and many other countries of the world.

     Still engraved in the minds of hundreds of millions of persons are also the horrible images of human beings who, in Guantanamo, a Cuban occupied  territory, walk down in silence, being submitted for months, and even for years, to unbearable and excruciating tortures. Those are persons who were kidnapped and transferred to secret prisons with the hypocritical connivance of supposedly civilized societies.

     Obama has no way to conceal that Osama was executed in front of his children and wives, who are now under the custody of the authorities of Pakistan, a Muslim country of almost 200 million inhabitants, whose laws have been violated, its national dignity offended and its religious traditions desecrated.

     How could he now prevent the women and children of the person who was executed out of the law and without any trial from explaining what happened? How could he prevent those images from being broadcast to the world?

     On January 28 of 2002 the CBS journalist Dan Rather reported through that TV network that on September 10 of 2001, one day before the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Osama Bin Laden underwent a hemodialysis at a military hospital in Pakistan. He was physically unfit to hide and take shelter inside deep caves.

     Having assassinated him and plunging his corpse into the bottom of the sea are an expression of fear and insecurity which turn him into a far more dangerous person.

     The US public opinion itself, after the initial euphoria, will end up by criticizing the methods that, far from protecting its citizen, will multiply the feelings of hatred and revenge against them.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)

 

 

 

15) BUILDING SOLIDARITY FROM SOUTH AFRICA TO PALESTINE

     Excitement is building for a cross‑Canada speaking tour with trade union representatives from South Africa and Palestine. Taking place May 15 to 30, the tour features representatives from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) and the South African Union of Municipal Workers (SAMWU).

     The tour will be an important opportunity for debate and discussion on how trade unionists in Canada and internationally can stand in solidarity with Palestinians.

     Mathematician Dr. Amjad Barham is the head of the Palestine Polytechnic University employees union and the President of the PFUUPE, which represents unions at all Palestinian universities in the West Bank and Gaza. At PV press time, the SAMWU speaker had not been announced.

     Palestinian trade unions continue to confront a daily reality of military occupation, apartheid walls and neoliberal austerity. In Gaza, 98% of industrial operations remain idle as a result of Israel's blockade, which includes severe restrictions on electricity, heating oil, natural gas and construction materials. In the occupied West Bank, 25% of the population continues to face food insecurity as well as a complex network of 400‑500 military checkpoints, roadblocks, fences, and other obstacles that separate Palestinian workers from their workplaces.

     The General Union of Palestinian Workers (GUPW), Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU), and the Palestinian Federation of Independent Trade Unions (PFITU) have been at the forefront of the Palestinian movement challenging these multiple violations of Palestinian workers' rights.

     The tour will help to consolidate the worker‑to‑worker solidarity already established between Palestinian and Canadian and Québécois trade unionists.

     Trade union sponsors and endorsers of the tour and local events include: Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW‑STTP); Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE)-Ontario Division; CUPE Local 15 (Vancouver); CUPE Local 2491; CUPE Local 3903, Toronto; CUPE Local 3906, Hamilton Political Action Committee; CUPE Ontario International Solidarity Committee; CUPE Toronto District Council; FΘdΘration nationale des enseignants et enseignantes du Québec (FNEEQ); FTQ Regional Conseil Montreal; London & District Labour Council; Metropolitan Montréal Central Council, Confédération des syndicats nationaux; Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) Local 568; Teaching Support Staff Union, Social Justice Committee, Simon Fraser University; Toronto Secondary Unit Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association Human Rights' Committee; Vancouver & District Labour Council.

     Other groups include Boycott Israeli Apartheid Campaign, Vancouver; Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid; Faculty for Palestine; Independent Jewish Voices; London Solidarity Coalition for Palestine; Not in Our Name: Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism; Students Against Israeli Apartheid; Tadamon! Montreal; The Canada‑Palestine Support Network (CanPalNet); and StopWar, Vancouver's anti‑war coalition.

     Tour dates:

MONTREAL ‑ Tue., May 17, 7 pm, Centre St. Pierre Salle 304, 1212, rue Panet (metro Beaudry). Info: 514‑659‑0106.

OTTAWA ‑ Wed., May 18, 7 pm, CUPW National Office, 377 Bank St.

WINDSOR ‑ Sun., May 22, 2 pm, Oak Room, Vanier Hall, University of Windsor.

TORONTO ‑ Sat., May 21, 6:30 pm, Beit Zatoun, 612 Markham St. (Bathurst subway). (Also during the CUPE Ontario Convention, Thursday, May 26, 7 pm, Sheraton Hotel, 123 Queen St. West.) Info: 416‑828‑3851.

HAMILTON ‑ Tue., May 24, 6 pm, McMaster University.

LONDON ‑ Wed., May 25, 7 pm, Tolpuddle room, 380 Adelaide St. North (at King), info 519‑858‑9560.

REGINA ‑ Thur., May 27, 7:30 pm, Regina Union Centre, 2709 12th Ave., Info: 306‑569‑9787.

VANCOUVER ‑ Sunday, May 29, 7 pm, Maritime Labour Centre, 1880 Triumph St., (two blocks north of Hastings), Info 604‑779‑7430.

Printer-friendly article

(Contents)

(Home)