Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Sozan, Bonnie Glambeck, Janine Bandcroft Sept. 23, 2015

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook - Gorilla-Radio.com


Images of a child, a war refugee washed up dead on a Turkish beach, elicited outrage and condemnation around the globe. Little Aylan Kurdi drown, along with his older brother and mother, when the precariously overloaded boat they bought passage to Greece on foundered and sank. It's an increasingly common story, but the reaction to this particular case was extraordinary.

In Canada, the ill-fated Kurdi's figured in on-going election coverage, with opposition parties using the tragedy to shame and embarrass the government of Canada's immigration policy regarding the Syrian diaspora. But did the media miss the mark?

Listen. Hear.

Canada's immigration policy is indeed shameful, and worthy of condemnation, but how much has that to do with Syria, or the wars various parties in Parliament support?

Sozan is with No One Is Illegal, Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories the quote: "[G]rassroots anti-colonial migrant justice group... a movement for self-determination that challenges ideology of immigration controls...[and] combat[s] racial profiling, detention and deportation, the national security apparatus, law enforcement brutality, and exploitative working conditions of migrants." She's one of the volunteers working on NOII's newly launched, Never Home: Legislating Discrimination in Canadian Immigration, project.

Sozan in the first segment.

And; Clayoquot Sound, site of the legendary War in the Woods of the early 1990's is again up in figurative arms over an accelerated foreign invasion of fish farms. The Japanese trans-national, Mitsubishi is the latest to claim a spot within the iconic, United Nations declared Biosphere Reserve, to turn a buck running a penned-Atlantic salmon feedlot. If established, it would the 16th former Cermaq feedlot in the Sound run by the Japanese industrial giant, but members of the First Nations Ahousaht band say, "No more."

Earlier this month, a so-called "table blockade" was set up to prevent operations, now there are indications Mitsubishi will rethink its plans.

"Bonny Glambeck is a peace activist and ecotourism operator who has worked for the protection of Clayoquot Sound since her first arrest in Sulphur Pass in 1988. She was one of the principal organizers of the Clayoquot Summer 1993 mass protests, and currently works for Clayoquot Action."

Bonny Glambeck and drawing lines in the Sound in the second segment.

And; Victoria Street Newz publisher emeritus and CFUV broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour to bring us newz of good goings on from our city's streets and beyond for the coming week. But first, Sozan and Never Home finding a home in Canada.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca.  He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/
G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.

Brought to You by Western Imperialism!

Refugee Crisis: Brought to You by Western Imperialism

by Andre Vltchek - Dissident Voice



September 22nd, 2015

While Europe is erecting fences, deploying armies and expressing its “concern” about how to deal with the annual influx of some 300,000 asylum seekers, vast areas of the world – namely the Middle East and Africa – are essentially ceasing to exist.

For years, I have been witnessing the desperate movements of millions of refugees and migrants all over the world.

The West has been redrawing the borders everywhere, performing direct invasions, or using proxy wars, in order to destabilize or directly destroy all “hostile” governments (read: those that have been determined to feed, educate, house and cure their own people).

Wherever a socially oriented government gets into power, the West immediately begins to manufacture and sponsor so-called “opposition movements.” Civil wars are triggered, sometimes followed by direct invasions.



Somali refugees, Dadaab © Andre Vltchek

The result is easy to predict: when progressive governments are forced to leave and the extreme, pro-business and pro-Western regimes are installed, the social fabric quickly collapses, brutality begins to reign and millions of desperate people are forced to flee. The same goes for when some horrific civil war is triggered from outside and divides the country.

Internally displaced, people begin to move all around their countries, aimlessly and in deep confusion. In the past it happened in such places as Cambodia, during and after the savage US carpet-bombing of the countryside, and it is now happening in Syria.

Those whose cities, village and livelihood were destroyed have to search for basic safety, food and shelter. After all, parents must feed their children. Natural survival instincts kick in. Borders become irrelevant. The Empire knows all that; it employs thousands of psychologists to analyze and manipulate the world. To claim that the “refugee crisis” comes as a surprise to the West’s governments is absolute hypocrisy.

In just a few years, I have seen masses of Syrian refugees, 2 million of them, scattered all over tiny Lebanon. I have also witnessed Syrians and Iraqis escaping to Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, Syrians fleeing to Turkey, South Asians escaping to Turkey via Iran, North Africans and Central Africans escaping directly to Europe. Sometimes it feels that all of humanity is on the move.

I made a documentary film about the Somali refugees and incorporated stories of Congolese refugees into my film about Rwanda.

The great majority of Westerners has no idea how many human lives of what George Orwell used to call “un-people” have been sacrificed in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, in order for them to be able to maintain their routine and unrealistically high standards of living.

A long time ago, Congo had one of the greatest leaders on earth – Patrice Lumumba. He was a true patriot, and an anti-imperialist fighter. A joint British, US and Belgian operation murdered him (the same thing occurred in Iran in 1953, in Indonesia in 1965 and in Chile in 1973, to name just three places). Much later, in 1995, two of the West’s client states, Rwanda and Uganda, were designated to exploit the DRC, potentially one of the richest countries on earth. They overthrew governments and murdered millions.

The plight of the refugees pouring from the Congo is too far from Europe. The faces of these people will never be seen. Their suffering will not be witnessed on television screens in Paris, London or Berlin. For Europe, these are “perfect refugees” and “perfect victims.” They are dying, getting raped, getting robbed, “silently,” without any scandal, without bothering or annoying citizens of Western countries, without demanding anything, without receiving any compensation for the horrors they are being put through.


 


 Palestinian camp, Lebanon © Andre Vltchek

Nobody knows exactly how many Congolese lives have been lost or shattered (estimated number is 6 to 10 million deaths, between 1995 and now), so cheap coltan can be inserted into the smart phones and tablets sold like hot cakes in the rich world, or for uranium to be supplied to the West military industrial complex… or how many Somali fishermen had to flee their own coast, so the European Union could continue dumping its toxic waste in the sea (all that is said is that “Somalis suddenly became pirates”.

I saw places that most Westerners know nothing about, cannot even imagine: horrendous refugee camps based in Uganda and Rwanda, housing absolutely ruined families or what is left of them, pouring from the Democratic Republic of Congo. I also saw the refugee camps inside the DRC itself, in East Kivu, camps where, as I was told, all women are victims of rape and torture. And, some time ago, I filmed the biggest camp on earth, Dadaab, built in Kenya and designated for refugees fleeing completely decimated Somalia.

All this is not happening “because those countries cannot govern themselves.” On the contrary!

Western companies and governments are benefiting.

And in the West, there will never be any acknowledgement of the suffering of the Congolese or Somali people.

Somali peace agreements were torpedoed. Kenyan forces on behalf of the West invaded it and millions fled.

When filming in Dabaab camp, I heard stories about women entering Kenya from Somalia, being strip-searched, raped in front of their children, robbed by Kenyan border guards, and then forced to walk dozens of miles to the camp through the desert. Many were eaten alive by wild animals. Others died from dehydration. In Dadaab and other Kenyan camps for Somali refugees, people lived in a dry desert for one entire generation, without ever seeing the sea, the mountains, rivers and greenery. Children were born in those repulsive camps; they grew up there, reaching adulthood basically locked in a prison.

The victims of Western geopolitical games in the DRC, Somalia, Papua, and so many other places on earth… Who will ever at least acknowledge those shattered lives?


 

 Somali refugees in Djibuti © Andre Vltchek

Some of the people escaping from Libya, Syria, Mali, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, are now at least able to make it in front of the cameras, to tell their stories, to force their way (at least a few of them are succeeding) into those countries that have destroyed theirs. Not that too many people in the West are really willing to listen and to understand, but still, at least there is some chance.

However, in so many other places that are destroyed by the commercial and political interests of the Empire, people are trapped by dire circumstances; they are killed, or starve to death, silently conveniently far from the West’s cold gaze.

“What are we going to do with them?” I listened to the repeated laments in a the French city of Calais, where hundreds of refugees are staying in a horrific makeshift camp nicknamed the Jungle, jumping on international lorries and running into the Eurotunnel, trying to make it by any desperate means to the UK. I heard the same questions in Greece and Germany. As if the refugees were coming from thin air, not from horrific wars and conflicts triggered by the West.

In its recent editorial, a major Argentinian daily newspaper El Clarin argued that many refugees and migrants are not actually fleeing misery, but Western geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East.

It is correct. Refugees are not always poor, but they are, almost without exception, forced to act through desperation.

Many refugees come from formerly rich countries that were attacked, destabilized and in some cases destroyed by the West: Iraq, Libya and Syria.

Others come from destitute or relatively poor countries that were also destabilized or just destroyed by North American and European geopolitical and economic interests: Afghanistan, Pakistan, several states in central Africa, Yemen and Somalia, to name just a few.

There are also countries that are “exporting refugees” because of the collapse of their economic and social fabric, mainly due to inhuman sanctions imposed on them by the West, such as Eritrea and Iran.

Recently I wrote:

When one looted country after another begins to sink, when there is nothing left there, when children begin dying from hunger and when men commence fighting each other over tiny boulders and dirty pieces of turf, pathetic boats, or dinghies, begin crossing the waterways, bringing half starved, half-mad refugees to the European sea-fronts decorated with marble. What a horrifying sight! As if a woman, her hair waving in disarray, her lips broken, comes begging a man who raped her after killing her husband – begging for shelter and at least some work and a piece of bread. She decided to abandon all her pride, because her children are sick and starving, because it is either this, or death. That is what you reduced the world to, Europe – you, and your huge, insatiable offspring – North America!

I saw the camps on the Turkish-Syrian border, near the city of Hatai, being used by NATO as training and recruitment facilities for Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL/DAESH). But I also saw real refugee camps on Turkish turf. They were well managed and clean. “We want to act as a mini-empire in the Middle East,” I was told by a Turkish intellectual in Istanbul, “Well… then we have to pay for it.”

But Europe does not want to pay. As in the colonial days, it wants booty, in exchange for… nothing.

I talked to several refugees from South Asia, at the bus terminal in the city of Bodrum. Most of them admitted that Turkey has been treating them much better than Greece or the rest of the EU. But their mind was set on Germany and the UK: they were conditioned. It was all totally irrational, but that’s how it was.

In Kos, a horrific provisional camp was not helping the refugees and migrants at all – just a couple of volunteers and one part-time doctor to take care of hundreds. Local activists told me about extreme right-wing groups like Golden Dawn, and about the pogroms against the refugees, periodically. To make things worse, the island now has a right-wing mayor. The Greek economy and the social system have almost collapsed, but European holidaymakers kept coming. While the refugees from several desperate nations were sleeping all over the streets and in the parks, German and Scandinavian tourists were stuffing themselves on fresh seafood, downing liters of wine, just a few steps away.

The Greek coast guard was periodically beating up refugees, sometimes extorting money. Many died, trying to cross from Turkey to Greece. Others died crossing from Africa to Italy or Malta. Those who made it were humiliated, mistreated, and even cheated.

However, refugees keep coming. It is because for many, there is no home, anymore. In their own countries, they are left with nothing. What they used to have was grabbed and transferred to Europe.

In Prague, a Czech philosopher and renowned political performer and a friend of mine, Milan Kohout, has organized several actions in support of asylum seekers: “It is immoral. Europe took everything from so many countries, and now it wants to wash its hands of any responsibility!”

As a result of such statements, Mr Kohout is facing constant death treats, and physical attacks, in an increasingly xenophobic Europe.

In Latin America, before the revolutions, people used to say: “We are poor because they are rich!” Some refugees and migrants coming to Europe are beginning to see it this way, too.

In Calais, a 25-years-old Syrian man, Hassan, half jokingly, half seriously shouted at me: “Many of us are not really emigrating. We are just chasing a thief! We want to go where they took our possessions!”

André Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker, and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest book is Exposing Lies of the Empire. He also wrote, with Noam Chomsky, On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter. Read other articles by Andre.

Bill C-24: are you a second class citizen?

Canada Bill C-24 animation - are you a second class citizen?

by BCCLA

Bill C-24 gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to strip Canadians of their citizenship, not by a court and not appealable.

Bill C-51 expands the definition of "terrorism" to include any action that interferes with "the economic or financial stability of Canada". Its unlikely that the courts would tolerate "terrorism" charges for protests, occupations, and blockades, and even less likely to convict, but its a very slippery slope.

Moreover, the effect of such legislation, especially for new Canadians, is to chill dissent.

Please distribute this short video animation produced by the Comox Valley peace group.


 


Indiegogo campaign: http://igg.me/at/overturnbillc-24

Monday, September 21, 2015

At the Door and in the Sky: Predators, Near and Far


Predators, Near and Far

by Kathy Kelly - CounterPunch

 
Kabul - Some days ago, at the Afghan Peace Volunteers’ Borderfree Center, I met Jamila, the mother of a little girl, Fatima, who comes to the Street Kids School, a program designed to help children working on the streets go to school. Jamila, a young mother of seven, smiles and laughs easily, even though she faces dire circumstances here in Kabul.

#Enough! Fatima needs food and proper medical care, not war!
Fatima in her mud house compound, 

with Ali, an Afghan Peace Volunteer 
teacher who helped Fatima get a proper 
medical assessment. Photo: Dr. Hakim.

Nine years ago, at age 19, Jamila fled escalating conflict in Pul e Khumri, located in the northern province of Baghlan, and moved to Kabul. Jamila had already been married for 12 years.

Her family, desperate for income, had sold her in marriage to an older man when she was seven years old. As a child, she lived in servitude to the family of her future husband, earning a small income for them through sewing and embroidering.

At age 13, She gave birth to her oldest daughter . With her when we met were two of her middle daughters, Fatima and Nozuko. Her oldest daughter is no longer with her, as, at age 12, she was given away, six years ago now, in marriage. Jamila is determined not to give her remaining daughters away in marriage while they are still children.

One and a half years ago, Fatima, then aged 9, developed a fever which lasted for about a month. All four of her limbs became paralyzed. In a hospital at Wazir Akbar Khan, doctors said she was 10 minutes away from death. They treated her for typhoid meningitis and hospitalized her. After a month, the doctors said she was not ready for discharge, but Jamila had other children to take care of and had already incurred huge debt. The doctors made her sign a form saying they were not responsible if Fatima died. They said Jamila must continue with twice-a-day injections of strong antibiotics.

After being discharged from the hospital, Fatima continued receiving the injections for a year and a half until, one day, about three months ago, Jamila abruptly stopped giving Fatima the injections. When Fatima developed a fever, Jamila became panicky again.

Fatima finally ended up in a private hospital whose initial tests cost 3,000 Afghanis (about $50 U.S. dollars). Jamila begged loans from her sister, her uncle and her cousins to pay for the lab tests.

Doctors told Jamila that Fatima needed the injections because the typhoid bacteria were in her blood.

At this point, Jamila, facing a debt of 140,000 Afghanis (about $2333 U.S. dollars ), finds it hard to sleep, worrying for Fatima and her other children. How will she pay her debts? How can she buy flour to make bread so that the children have something to eat?

Her only means of income is through washing clothes. The people she washes clothes for say times are hard, and they don’t have any income themselves. They have only paid her twice over the past two months, once in the form of some meat and rice.

Jamila met the Afghan Peace Volunteers when Hadisa and Abdulhai visited her home in April this year as part of a survey designed to identify children who could participate in the Street Kids School. When Ali, a volunteer teacher at the Street Kids School, learned about Fatima’s illness, he introduced Jamila to Hakim, the mentor for the Afghan Peace Volunteers. Hakim is a medical doctor from Singapore. Since 2004, when he first began working in Afghanistan, Hakim has recognized that the country’s health care system is riddled by pervasively corrupt practices. Appalled by the massive doses of antibiotics prescribed for Fatima, Hakim recommended a stool sample analysis which could be done through the lab of a local hospital. The lab report showed that Fatima no longer needed the antibiotics, that her medical condition was normal.

The medical system in Afghanistan failed to help Jamila and Fatima. Lack of oversight allowed corrupt doctors and pharmacists to over-prescribe antibiotics, and Jamila had nowhere to turn for a second opinion or for any assistance. Greedy predators, purportedly delivering health care, have steadily taken money from desperate people, like Jamila, in payment for useless or even murderous treatments.

Jamila and Fatima clearly trust Hakim. They both looked relieved as he emphatically encouraged the mother and daughter to overcome fears about Fatima’s health. He told Fatima that she can become strong and stay healthy by drinking clean water and having a healthy diet, including her favorite dishes of beans and chick peas. But Jamila faces another tragic health problem – she can’t even afford flour for bread, let alone nutritious but costly beans for her children.

The World Food Programme recently reported an alarming rise in food insecurity, across Afghanistan.

The U.S. pours billions of dollars into surveying Afghanistan, flying Predator drones over cities, towns and roadways, claiming to better understand “patterns of life” in Afghanistan. But the war system establishes tragic patterns of death, of poverty, misinformation, desperate insecurity, and continued despair. If she could flee her circumstances, Jamila surely would seek refuge elsewhere in the world. But she has nowhere to turn and nowhere to hide from Predators near and far.

Young people gathering at the Afghan Peace Volunteer’s Borderfree Center long to embrace innumerable people afflicted by war who share Jamila’s seemingly insoluble problems. Thoughtfully, carefully, they’ve designed a campaign that they call #Enough! – a simple yet compelling call to abolish wars and instead work to meet human needs. We asked Jamila if she thought her problems were connected to war.

 “Yes,” she said.

 “War leads to poverty and because of that poverty I have had so many problems. I hope the war will end so that I can find enough food.

KATHY KELLY co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence and has worked closely with the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers. She is the author of Other Lives, Other Dreams published by CounterPunch / AK Press. She can be reached at: Kathy@vcnv.org This article was first published on Telesur English.
More articles by:Kathy Kelly

GM Leaves Justice in the Dust

General Motors: Homicidal Fugitive from Justice

by Ralph Nader - CounterPunch

Yes, it’s official. General Motors engaged in criminal wrongdoing for long knowing about the lethal defect in its ignition switch that took at least 174 lives and counting, plus serious injuries. At least 1.6 million GM cars – Chevrolet Cobalt and other models – hid this danger to trusting drivers, according to the Center for Auto Safety. Corporation executives who lie to or mislead the federal government violate Title 18 of the federal code, and risk criminal penalties.

But, the long-mismanaged automaker was not required by the Justice Department to plead guilty at all. Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney from New York, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch did not bring an indictment against either General Motors or known culpable officials in GM, including top GM lawyers and safety directors, who participated in the cover-up year after year, while lying to federal officials and not reporting these defects.

The Justice Department fined GM a modest $900 million, which the Wall Street Journalcalled a “lower-than-expected financial penalty.” The government also agreed to a notorious three year “deferred prosecution” deal, which corporate crime expert, Law Professor Rena Steinzor, called “a toothless way of approaching a very serious problem.” Three years of compliance, watched by a federal monitor and then the Justice Department dismisses the charges.

The “problem” is a fast maturing enforcement doctrine – under George W. Bush and Barack Obama – that can be called crimes without criminals. This turns criminal jurisprudence on its head. One standard for big corporations shielding their individual criminals with immunity. There is another standard for street criminals who can be imprisoned for many years for forging checks or burglarizing buildings without harm to humans.

At a press conference to announce the hoisting of this sweetheart deal, U.S. attorney Preet Bharara weakly excused the absence of indictments by asserting: “We apply the laws as we find them, not the way we wish they might be.” Former NHTSA Administraor Joan Claybrook asked Mr. Bharara whether he would urge Congress to meet his wishes. Mr. Bharara dodged the question. He argues that his prosecution was restricted because of “complex structures” in corporations. A multi-million dollar prosecution budget, with many subpoenas, interviews with GM officials and engineers should have penetrated the “corporate veil,” especially since Mr. Bharara waxed eloquent about how GM cooperated and opened itself up for inquiry.

Professor Steinzor, author of Why Not Jail?: Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction, rebutted, saying these excuses “are contradicted by their own creative and aggressive behavior in other cases,” involving some small, criminal companies. In one case, against a peanut company, DOJ got felony convictions and a former owner is facing a life sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.

University of Virginia law Professor Brandon Garrett, author of Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations, pointed out that “individuals were even wrongly convicted of vehicular manslaughter, having been driving defective [GM] cars. A case this serious should result in a criminal conviction for the company, and many criminal convictions for the individuals involved.”

In short, as noted by the Corporate Crime Reporter: “GM did the crime, the drivers do the time.” A former top Justice Department prosecutor, Michigan Law Professor, David Uhlmann, said that the deferred prosecution agreement with GM “demonstrated how badly the Justice Department has lost its way with regard to corporate crime…There is no excuse for the Department agreeing to dismiss its criminal case against GM if the company pays a large fine and cleans up its act.”

The industry is now heavily lobbying the House and Senate to keep a provision for criminal penalties out of the pending highway bill being championed by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). But since 1966, brazen GM and the auto industry have spent millions of dollars to make sure there is no specific criminal penalty, even for willful violation of safety standards that take lives, in the auto safety law.

Unfortunately, these giant companies have Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Senator John Thune (R-SD), the respective committee chairs wrapped around their dollar-spinning fingers.

Senator Blumenthal and Markey severely criticized the Justice Department’s concession: “Knowing and willful violations of the vehicle safety statutes – deception that literally kill American consumers – should be a criminal violation, as we have proposed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2015 and in the Hide No Harm Act.” They should also demand no more deferred prosecution malarkey in dealing with corporate crime generally.

The mass media has given significant lots of coverage to the 64 million cars recalled by the likes of Toyota, Honda, GM, Chrysler, and other auto manufacturers, along with the huge debacle by Takata over its air bag cost cutting. So the politicians on Capitol Hill, having conducted tough talk public hearings in the past two years, know they are in the spotlight.

Please help the hundreds of victims and their families such as Laura Christian, who lost her 16-year-old daughter, Amber Marie Rose, and is still fighting to bring GM and its culpable officials to justice.

Call Senator Blumenthal’s office at 202-224-0335 or Senator Markey’s office at 202-224-2742 for further information.


Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!
More articles by:Ralph Nader

Pulling Anchor on Cermaq in Clayoquot: Yaakswiis Warriors Say "No!" to Fish Farm

Ahousaht Nation makes salmon farm pull anchors

by Yaakswiis Warriors


September 21, 2015


Ahousaht, BC Canada On Monday morning at daybreak Cermaq has said it will be pulling anchor on it’s new salmon farm north of Tofino, British Columbia. The Province of BC granted Cermaq licenses and permits to operate a relocation fish farm at a site called Yaakswiis in July.

When Cermaq attempted to anchor the farm there 10 days ago, five Ahousaht men stepped onto the farm and told the Cermaq crew to leave. They vowed they would risk arrest rather than see another salmon farm in their territory.

The standoff began on September 9, as Cermaq was dropping its anchors in a remote region in Ahousaht territory. The Ahousaht don’t want more salmon farms because they have seen a decline in shellfish, salmon and herring since salmon farms appeared in their territory in about 1999.

There are currently already 16 Cermaq salmon farm sites in Ahousaht territory. Despite promises of employment and prosperity only 15 jobs have been created in the remote village of 1000 people; Ahousaht Nation itself has 2000 + members in total.

“It’s common sense,” said Ahousaht tourism business owner, Lennie John who was the first on scene when Cermaq tried to anchor the farm

“We fish in these waters for food, we don’t go into Cermaq’s kitchen and leave a mess all over their floor.”

Food, people and support poured into the remote protest camp. People slept in tents tied down to prevent them from blowing away. A small boat was used to cook meals. They called it the Yaakswiis Ocean Action Camp.

The Yaakswiis warriors stated that the Cermaq salmon farm was not legal because the Ahousaht people had not been consulted, nor did they consent, a requirement written into the protocol Cermaq and MHSS (Maaqtusiis Hahouthee Stewardship Society) signed. Consent is also a requirement to fulfill the legal obligations the province has in regards to Ahousaht’s collectively held Aboriginal rights and title.

Additionally, Free Prior and Informed Consent is required by the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, therefore, they declared all Cermaq protocols, agreements and operations were nullified and illegal.

“We don’t want any more salmon farm sites in our territory and will be taking a much closer look at this industry,” Joe James Rampanen.
“We don’t want future generations to inherit a legacy of pollution, these waters feed us.

“Just because three chiefs signed your agreement doesn’t mean you have consent from the whole Ahousaht Nation,” Marshall Thomas told the Cermaq crew.

Lennie John said he will be watching where this farm goes. “Cermaq, you are done here.”

Monday night there is a community celebration dinner in Ahousaht. The Ahousaht are looking forward to written confirmation from Cermaq and MHSS that no new fish farms will be sited, relocated or expanded for time immemorial in Ahousaht territory.


Contact:
Lennie John
Download photos via Dropbox

For more information and pictures:
Alexandramorton.typepad.com
Background articles at Hashilthsa News
and West Coast Native News

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Yemen's Proxy Jihadist Terror Network

West's Proxy Jihadist Terror Network Uncovered in Yemen

by Finian Cunningham - SCF

Significantly, Yemeni sources report that alongside the fallen troops from the Gulf states are allied mercenaries belonging to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militia. The mercenaries are believed to have been infiltrated into Yemen after receiving receiving training in set up in Saudi Arabia.

Given that the United States and Britain are openly supplying the Saudi-led Gulf coalition with fighter jets, bombs and logistics, the array of forces makes for a stark conclusion: the Western states are working in Yemen in direct alliance with jihadist mercenaries. Why this alarming reality is not more readily recognised is simply because Western news media are obfuscating the situation in Yemen.

Yemen can therefore be seen as illustrating the fullest expression yet of the covert relation between Washington and its Western allies and the proxy role of Islamist terror groups.

In the overthrow of the Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi at the end of 2011, the US and other NATO powers provided the air force that assisted the jihadist groups on the ground. In the ongoing regime-change war in Syria, the Western powers and their regional allies have funnelled Islamist mercenaries into that country to destabilise the government of President Bashar Al Assad.

In both cases, Libya and Syria, the Western nexus with the jihadists is vicarious and diffuse, allowing for a degree of official denial of any such collusion.

However, what is emerging in Yemen is that the Western states and their Arab client regimes are openly being seen as on the side of the Al Qaeda-linked terror network.

The US, Britain and to lesser extent France claim that they are supporting the “internationally recognised government of Yemen”. They are referring to the deposed puppet-president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi who fled in exile to Saudi Arabia earlier this year. The country was subsequently over-run by remnants of the Yemeni army and Houthi rebels, collectively known as “Popular Committees”.

On March 26, a coalition of Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, and including Egypt, Jordan and the four Persian Gulf monarchies of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates, launched an aerial bombardment campaign on Yemen. That bombardment has continued for nearly six months, resulting in over 5,000 deaths. The bombing coalition is instrumented primarily by the US and Britain, with the supply of F15, F16, Tornado and Typhoon warplanes.

In recent weeks, the Western, Saudi-led coalition has extended its operations with a ground-war front, involving up to 10,000 foreign troops based in the central Yemeni province of Marib, east of the rebel-held capital, Sanaa. The mainly Arab foreign troops have been suffering heavy losses from the Yemeni Popular Committees. Up to 45 Emirati soldiers and five Bahraini military personnel were killed in one rocket attack earlier this month.

The Western media have barely reported on the escalating violence in Yemen and the involvement of their governments alongside Saudi and other Arab forces in an increasingly bloody war of dubious legality against a sovereign country. The Western-backed coalition does not have a UN Security Council mandate for its actions, which therefore constitute foreign aggression.

Virtually blacked out, too, from the Western media coverage is the fact that serving alongside the Western, Saudi-led forces are jihadist mercenaries. This aspect has, however, been reliably reported by Saba news agency, Al Manar and Press TV, among others.

Occasional Western media reports claim that Islamist extremists are gaining ground in Yemen amid the chaos of Western-backed Arab coalition forces fighting against Houthi rebels. A New York Times report in April headlined: ‘War In Yemen Is Allowing Qaeda Group To Expand’. While the Reuters news agency reportedat the end of June that: ‘In Yemen chaos, Islamic State grows to rival al Qaeda’.

However, rather than this development being a mere accidental consequence, Yemeni sources claim a very different scenario. They say that the Islamist groups are being activated and supplied by the Western-backed Saudi coalition to help prosecute the counterinsurgency war against the rebels. The rebel Popular Committees are calling for a pluralist democratic government in Yemen, which would mark a dramatic change from decades of Western and Saudi-backed dictatorships in the country.

Western media reports have obliquely acknowledged at least a tacit relationship between the Western-backed coalition and the jihadist mercenaries. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have noted how during the past six months the Western-assisted bombing coalition has not once targeted Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP) or the Islamic State (IS) group.


 

Indeed, a Wall Street Journal report on September 10 from southern Yemen even admits that the Arab military forces are collaborating with the jihadists in pushing a joint offensive against the rebels. The WSJ plays down the significance of this military cooperation as being a transient pragmatic arrangement.

Nevertheless, such collaboration fits with a bigger pattern seen elsewhere in Yemen, where Western-backed air forces are reported by Yemeni sources to have dropped off munitions and other supplies to Al Qaeda groups.

The same pattern has been identified in Syria. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has disclosed in the past week that the US-led bombing coalition supposedly operating against the IS network in that country has under American command instructions often refrained from attacking IS bases. Lavrov pointed out that this avoidance of air strikes against the supposed “terror enemy” indicates that the US is not serious about its claims of trying to defeat the IS group. The Russian diplomat infers that the purpose of Washington-led bombing coalition in Syria is really aimed at inflicting damage on the Assad government forces.

That Washington should go a step further in Yemen and actually be in direct military alliance with al Qaeda-linked jihadists should be of no surprise. Especially in light of the revelation by former US Defence Intelligence Agency director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. In an interview with Al Jazeera news channel on July 29, Flynn said that Washington took the “wilful decision” to promote Islamist jihadists as a way of prosecuting regime change in Syria as far back as 2012. In other words, what later evolved into the IS terror group is a creation of Washington for its illicit geopolitical scheming in the Middle East.

Yemen’s Al Qaeda franchise (AQAP) has been targeted by Washington in drone assassinations going back several years. But, as with intermittent lethal strikes in Syria and Iraq, that does not mean that Washington is intent on “degrading and defeating” the jihadists, as President Barack Obama claims. Alternatively, Washington’s policy can equally be seen as a cynical one of “containment and management” to better serve its ulterior agenda.

In June this year, a CIA drone attack killed the AQAP leader Nasir al Wuhayshi in the Yemeni province of Hadramawat. The Washington Post described the killing as a “substantial setback to an al Qaeda affiliate that is regarded as the terrorist organisation’s most dangerous affiliate”.

However, as a Reuters report also noted, the US policy of targeting AQAP has had the effect of bolstering the rival IS group. “While most analysts agree that AQAP remains resilient, some argue that US methods, including drone strikes, help create a climate conducive for the nascent Islamic State to attract new followers,” reports Reuters.

It is significant that the Islamic State militia has only become active in Yemen this year, emerging at the same time that the Yemeni rebels kicked out the Western, Saudi-backed Hadi regime. Days before the Western-backed coalition started bombing Yemen, a double suicide blast at two Shia mosques in Sanaa killed over 130 people. The massacre was claimed by the IS – believed to be the first of its operations carried out in Yemen.

It should be noted that prior to that atrocity, the Al Qaeda supreme leader Ayman al Zawahiri had issued a prohibition on AQAP attacks on mosques in Yemen.

Then in April, only a few weeks after the Western-backed bombing of Yemen had started, the IS released a highly stylisedpromotional video showing its cadres operating in the desert of Yemen, and swearing allegiance to the IS leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, in repudiation of the AQAP emir Zawahiri. According jihadwatch.org, the video’s audio message said: “We have come to Yemen with men hungry for blood to avenge the Sunnis and to take back the land they [the Houthi rebels] have occupied…”

The question is: come to Yemen, from where? Under whose direction and auspices?


The murky history of American collusion with Islamist terror groups is well documented, going back to the instigation of the international Mujahideen brigades in Afghanistan as proxies against the Soviet Union during the late 1970s. In that covert project, the US was enabled by intelligence counterparts from Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. (See, for example, Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11.)

It is also documented how the Afghan proxies later transformed into Al Qaeda under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, which has served the US well in its bogeyman role for the “war on terror” pretext allowing Washington to carry out foreign invasions and occupations. Al Qaeda has since evolved into Islamic State, which officially came into being during 2014, splitting away from Al Qaeda. In all this mayhem, the organisational names and leaders may change, but the fundamental role of serving as a proxy for Washington’s imperialist objectives remains.

What we are witnessing in Yemen with the invasion of troops from Western client Arab regimes is the full-blown relationship between the Western powers and the Islamist proxies being made manifest. The Islamic State appears to be the proxy of choice for the West and its clients over the former cats paw incarnation, Al Qaeda. Yemen is bringing the clandestine contradictions to a new and terrible light.

When Pigs Fly: Navigating the Security Skies

The No-Fly Follies: How to Censor Yourself Before the Government Even Has the Chance

by Rebecca Gordon  - TomDispatch


It was August 2002. My partner Jan Adams and I were just beginning our annual pilgrimage to Massachusetts to visit my father and stepmother. At the check-in line at San Francisco International Airport, we handed over our driver’s licenses and waited for the airline ticket agent to find our flight and reservation.

Suddenly, she got a funny look on her face. “There’s something wrong with the computer,” she said. “I need to talk to my supervisor.”

So began a day of confusion and fear, followed by several years of indignation, frustration, and litigation, as we struggled to find out why -- as the agent’s supervisor soon informed us with a similarly strange look on her face -- we’d both “turned up on the FBI’s no-fly list.”

Her eyes grew wide as she looked us over. “I don’t understand it,” she said. “You don’t fit the profile.”

She was right, of course. A pair of middle-aged, middle-class, white lesbians did not fit the profile of the “Arab terrorists” she expected the no-fly list to contain. What she didn’t know was that our suitcases held hundreds of copies of War Times/Tiempo de guerras, a free, bilingual antiwar tabloid we’d helped start. Could aging pacifists have fit the danger-to-America profile? 
Tomgram: Rebecca Gordon, Flying the Unfriendly Skies of America

Rebecca Gordon’s piece today triggered a little repressed memory of mine of a trip I took in 2003. Arriving at the airport, I turned my suitcase over to the ticket agent, only to be told that it had been singled out for special inspection. I was already running TomDispatch and I couldn’t help wondering, somewhat nervously, if my activities had preceded me to the airport. I was directed to another spot in the terminal where I lifted the suitcase onto a table in front of a Transportation Security Administration agent. She promptly unzipped the bag, flipped it open, and front and center, face up atop my folded clothes, was a book that had “Unabomber” in big letters in its title. It felt as if a jolt of electricity had shot through my body and my eyes were bugging out of my head at my obvious stupidity. As if to confirm that feeling, the agent looked stunned, too. We were both silent for a too-long moment, contemplating the reckless passenger who had a book about the Unabomber conspicuously displayed in his bag. Then she said, “How is it?”

It was the last question I expected to hear and I stumbled far too quickly to respond with something like: “I don’t know. I haven’t read it yet. A newspaper asked me to review it.” (All true, but in translation it clearly meant: “Hey, I know this looks terrible, but I’m a reputable book reviewer, not your basic terror-lovin' sorta guy.”) Not much else was said, but believe me, my bag and backpack were inspected with a thoroughness that had to be seen to be believed. A second agent was even called in to lend a hand. In the end, the bag was cleared for departure and, chastened, I headed for the security line, already unfastening my belt.

And there’s a little p.s. to this episode. Not so long after, I set out on another trip, this time carrying Tariq Ali’s book, Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads, and Modernity, with me. As I was packing, I noticed that its cover featured George Bush’s face superimposed on Osama bin Laden’s. It was a striking image and in a split second I was slipping the jacket off the book to leave at home. If I got singled out again, I had no intention of letting an agent find a cloned bin Laden-Bush image among my possessions.

In this way, microscopic act by microscopic act, whoever we are, whatever we think we think, we can’t help but absorb the limits, the directives, the intentions that our ascendant national security state wants to impose on us. In all sorts of devious ways, without serious thought, in acts that hardly register, we make their agendas, their surveillance, their searches our own; we turn their taste in reading and thinking and expressing themselves into ours. Someday, there’s a great book to be written on all the hidden triumphs of that ever-more powerful shadow state that has embedded its version of the American way of life inside our own. In the meantime, check out TomDispatch regular Rebecca Gordon’s account of how we create our own no-fly lists and become our own no-fliers in the unfriendly skies of twenty-first-century America. Tom 

The No-Fly Follies: How to Censor Yourself Before the Government Even Has the Chance

by Rebecca Gordon


You might think that the no-fly list is old news, a relic of the panicked early days following the 9/11 attacks. In fact, as recently as 2012, there were still more than 21,000 names on the list, and it seems unlikely to have gotten any shorter since then, though we do know of at least four names that, with some legal prodding from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), were recently removed from it: Muhammad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah, Naveed Shinwari, and Awais Sajjad. All four men were American citizens or permanent residents who ended up on the list as retaliation for refusing to become FBI informers and tell tales on their neighbors and others in Muslim communities in this country. For years, they could not visit wives, children, or ailing relatives in countries like Pakistan and Yemen.

According to a suit filed by the CCR in 2014, as reported by Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic, Jameel Algibhah’s troubles began in 2009, when he refused the FBI’s request to infiltrate a mosque in Queens, New York. The legal complaint continues:

“When Mr. Algibhah declined to do so, the agents then asked Mr. Algibhah to participate in certain online Islamic forums and ‘act like an extremist.’ When Mr. Algibhah again declined, the agents asked Mr. Algibhah to inform on his community in his neighborhood. The FBI agents offered Mr. Algibhah money and told him that they could bring his family from Yemen to the United States very quickly if he became an informant. Mr. Algibhah again told the FBI agents that he would not become an informant.”

So the FBI retaliated. Since 2010, Jameel Algibhah has been unable to visit his wife and three daughters in Yemen. Not content with preventing Algibhah and the other three from flying, the FBI began interviewing their friends, family, acquaintances, and employers, generating suspicion about them. “They lost jobs, were stigmatized within their communities, and suffered severe financial and emotional distress,” reports the CCR.

In June 2015, just before their case was to go to court, the men received letters from the government officially informing them that their names had been removed from the list. The CCR believes that "the letters are a de facto acknowledgment that the men never posed a security threat of any kind and that the FBI only listed them to coerce them into spying on their faith community."

The letters restored the men’s right to fly, but they didn’t make up for years of stigma and distress. So the four continued their litigation, but on September 3rd, a federal judge dismissed their suit, which means that they will not get any recompense for the damage done to their lives. In June 2015, the Associated Press reported that Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Blain argued the case should not continue, in part for reasons of “national security” and because “neither the law nor the evidence supported finding the agents personally liable for violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.” In fact, the government’s original motion to dismiss the suit argued that “there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.” That’s right. Your government says that if it wants to make you a snitch, you have no right to refuse.

Given that these four men without criminal records or any other obvious reason for government suspicion were, like my partner and me, put on the no-fly list leads me to wonder about the other 21,000 people on that list, including at least 500 Americans. (In fact the overall number could turn out to be as high as 44,000, according to “60 Minutes,” or even 48,000, according to the Associated Press. We just don’t know because, like so much else in our new post-9/11 world, information about the list remains classified.)

What did all those other people on the list do or refuse to do? How have their lives been damaged? And how dangerous are they really? My partner and I certainly had no intention of turning our airplane into a terrorist weapon. What are the odds that any of the other 21,000 or 44,000 or 48,000 people did? And if potential airplane bombers or hijackers do exist, what are the odds that any of them are actually on the FBI’s list? After all, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber,” wasn’t. Neither was the infamous “shoe bomber” Richard Reid. All this list-making has been marked by an odd -- and dangerous -- combination of intrusion and incompetence.

The National Insecurity State


In our case, even though we didn’t fit “the profile,” the agent, a little shakily, followed her protocol. She called the San Francisco Police, who have an airport substation. Three armed members of the city’s finest arrived a few minutes later to stand guard over us and our luggage in the middle of the lobby, while they waited to hear from headquarters about whether we were on what they called the “master list.” No one ever told us what this “master list” was, or how it was different from the list the airline’s computer was consulting. As I pondered the master list, and our chances of appearing on it, my mind kept wandering to those copies of War Times sitting a yard away from the officers’ feet. Suppose they asked to open our luggage? How would they react when they saw those papers?

To be honest, both of us figured that two white U.S. citizens with plenty of class privilege were not going to suffer anything much worse than a missed flight, and it turned out that we didn’t even miss our flight. After about 20 minutes, however, I was getting antsy -- and thirsty.

“Would one of you officers walk over there with me, so I can get a drink?” I asked, pointing to a water fountain across the way.
No. We’re going to stay right here until we hear from headquarters,” came the reply.

The initial sense of fear was slowly draining away as the minutes ticked by and passengers boarded the flight we now feared they were never going to let us get on. I knew it was time to draw on my dramatic chops. (Sometimes it helps to have an actor for a father.) Putting on my best Frightened Little Woman voice, I asked, “Suppose we are on this master list? Then what? Are you going to arrest us?”

“We wouldn’t arrest you, but we’ll have to detain you until the FBI gets here and decides what they want to do with you,” came the answer.

We were probably all relieved when, a few minutes later, the lead officer’s walkie-talkie crackled to life with news from headquarters. We weren’t, it seemed, on the “master list.” So the officers marked our boarding passes with a big red “S” -- which we learned years later stands for “selectee” -- put our luggage through a special X-ray machine (but never opened it), and escorted us past security to our gate, with the airline agent in tow. There, they saw us onto our flight.

I turned to the agent. “Is this going to happen every time we fly?”

“I don’t know,” she replied, “but if I were you, I’d get to the airport early.”

To our surprise, more police met us at our stopover in Chicago, where we changed planes, perhaps in case we decided to blow up the airport. They then escorted us to the next gate, waiting with us until we boarded.

Once in Boston, we continued our journey unhassled by bus and boat to Martha’s Vineyard. However, on either that trip or a later one -- my memory fails me -- our ferry to the island was escorted out of Woods Hole harbor by two 50-foot Coast Guard Zodiac boats, each sporting a 50mm machine gun on the bow -- as if we might be attacked in the coastal waters of Massachusetts, and by an enemy capable of being defeated by a machine gun. Once we got to deep water, where such an attack would be more likely, however, our escorts turned around and left us defenseless. I promptly burst out laughing.

“Well, I don’t know about you,” growled a well-dressed guy standing beside me on the deck, “but it makes me feel more secure.”

A lot of unlikely things made many Americans feel more secure in those days and still do. Maybe it was because we were then -- and remain today -- frightened in a way that bears no relation to any actual threat we face. That fear, however, feeds the desire of the national security state to maintain its centrality in our lives. Among the curious things that added to our sense of “security” in those years: the rounding up of 600 Muslims living in this country in the days following 9/11, who were then tortured and held incommunicado in a Brooklyn detention center for six months; the suggestion from a liberal columnist in Newsweek that it was “time to think about torture”; or to mention just a couple of no-fly follies -- putting Senator Teddy Kennedy on the list, along with at least one nun, and until 2008, Nelson Mandela. (That was also the year he was finally taken off the U.S. terrorism watch list.) Oh yes, and don’t forget a couple of no-name peace activists.

As it happens, at the time we had our experience at San Francisco airport, my stepmother’s brother was a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, the guy the Chron had assigned to the Unabomber story some years before. When he got her email about our run-in with the national security state, he was on the phone to her immediately. Did she think we would be willing to talk to a reporter? Oh, yes, my stepmom assured him, we definitely would. And thus began perhaps the longest-running “story” I’ve ever been part of. Three years later, we were still getting requests from German and Dutch television stations to reenact the event at the airport. While we in this country settled into the new normal, it turned out that Europeans remained shocked by U.S. government doings.

As it happened -- the FBI really had done a lousy job of vetting us -- my partner was then consulting for the Northern California ACLU. When she told them about our experience, they wondered: Would we be willing to let them file a Freedom of Information Act request on our behalf to try to figure out how this had happened? We agreed in hopes that the documentation we got our hands on would help us understand how we’d gotten on the no-fly list in the first place and -- far more important to us at that moment -- whether or not we’d been removed. We also shared the ACLU’s more general concern that this list was fast becoming a tool of government fear mongering and coercion. That concern turned out to be well founded.

But we were, of course, living in the post-9/11 United States, in an era in which the government seems to have given up pretending that it has to obey the law when it comes to anything that falls under the category of “national security.” So we didn’t even get a reply to our FOIA request (although in theory the government was obligated to respond to it) -- at least not until the ACLU sued. By this time I’m sure you won’t be shocked to discover that the pro bono attorney working on the case for them also found himself on the no-fly list.

Eventually, the ACLU’s suit did bring us about 300 pages of paper from the feds. But most of what was written on those 300 pages had been redacted -- completely blacked out. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer (brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer) was not amused. He made the feds show him privately every document they wouldn’t allow us to see and required them to explain the rationale for each redaction. But we never saw the unredacted material ourselves. Who knows what those 300 pages contained, and how much of it was about us personally? Judge Breyer did at least award the ACLU $200,000 in court costs for their efforts. But we never found out why we were on the list in the first place. That was a secret he allowed the feds to keep, presumably to prevent prospective terrorists from figuring out how to avoid getting listed. Here’s a hint: don’t publish an antiwar newspaper.

The only time we’ve had trouble flying since then was when my partner took the same airline to Chicago for a United for Peace and Justice conference. Apparently, some people are only dangerous on some airlines.

Winners and Losers


When I told our no-fly story to an ethics class of mine recently, one of my students asked, “So who won, you or the government?” I had to stop and think about that. After all, while the ACLU got their expenses back, which was a moral win, but we never found out why we were on the list, or even whether we’d been removed.

Then I remembered something else: just how afraid I was that day simply because we were carrying multiple copies of a perfectly legal antiwar paper in a perfectly legal manner. I remembered as well how frightened I later became after one of the pages that the ACLU shook loose from the government suggested that our names might have been sent as potential terrorists to U.S. embassies and agencies all over the world. (This may have been as part of another example of what seems to be endless post-9/11 government list gathering: the State Department’s Consular Lookout and Support System, known as “CLASS.”)

And I thought about those four Muslim Americans on the no-fly list because they refused to become FBI informants, and about Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian student studying at Stanford University who ended up on the list because an FBI agent checked the wrong box on a form. Nine years later, she finally won her suit to get off the list, only to find that the U.S. embassy in Malaysia had revoked her student visa -- because she’d ended up on the CLASS list, as a result of the same original error. I thought about all the nuns, babies, and people with the misfortune to be named Mohammed who ended up on the list in error. And I was struck by the fact that, for 14 years, the national security state has been serving up a uniquely pernicious stew of incompetence and intransigence.

Finally, I thought about the times I’ve quietly chosen not to carry a particular book, or wear a particular T-shirt or button, when travelling by air. No reason to give the Transportation Security Administration any more excuses to pay me special attention. It’s easier, safer, just to conform. So did my partner and I win our suit? When so many of us become frightened enough of our own government to do its censoring for it, I’d say that we’ve all lost.

Rebecca Gordon teaches in the Philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and the forthcoming American Nuremberg: The Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post 9/11 War Crimes (Hot Books, 2016).

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2015 Rebecca Gordon

Voter Suppression: Harper's Other Republican Election Stealing Trick

Stephen Harper's Plot to Get You Not to Vote

by Linda McQuaig


JUNE 10, 2015

Stephen Harper's re-election strategy depends on a lot of you not voting. And if you mess with his plan by showing up at the polling station on Election Day, he's prepared for that, too: he's made it a lot harder for you to vote.

The prime minister has made it so much harder that "many tens of thousands" of Canadians may be denied their constitutional right to cast a ballot in the upcoming federal election, according to Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer for British Columbia.

In fact, the number of disenfranchised Canadians could actually be much higher, based on the evidence from a pilot project run by Canada's chief electoral officer, Marc Mayrand.

Harper has mostly managed to avoid being accused of Republican-style voter suppression, and the lawsuits, among other tactics, employed to challenge voting lists stateside. But recent changes to Canada's election laws under the so-called Fair Elections Act will make it considerably more difficult for many low-income and marginalized Canadians to exercise their constitutional right. That could help Harper get re-elected in what is shaping up to be an extremely close election in October.

Now, in a dramatic countermove with time running out, two public interest groups have gone to court seeking an injunction to block the new voting rules, which came into effect last December.

The Council of Canadians and the Canadian Federation of Students are urging the Ontario Superior Court to set aside key parts of the new voting rules, which they say will make it very difficult for many students, aboriginals, the homeless, as well as disabled and elderly people living in care to establish proof of residency so they can vote. People moving to a new residence in the weeks prior to the election may also be affected. The injunction is set to be heard in the first week of July.

According to the groups, a mere 6,201 votes across 14 ridings handed the Conservative party a majority in 2011. Even though he's had the support of less than 40 per cent of Canadians, Harper has held power for almost a decade by focusing on getting out the vote among his loyal base, who tend to be older and more affluent.

The Conservatives put the new election laws in place ostensibly in response to the national outcry over the robocall scandal, in which party operatives were accused of using automated phone calls to direct non-Conservative voters to the wrong polling stations on election day. The misleading calls were reported in ridings across the country and appeared to be targeted based on information from closely guarded Conservative party data.

In the end, only one person, Conservative staffer Michael Sona, who worked on a local campaign in Guelph, was convicted and jailed. However, in his verdict, Judge Gary Hearn wrote that "the evidence indicates he did not likely act alone."

The scandal raised the extremely serious question of whether the governing party had deliberately undermined the legitimacy of election results. Surely what was needed was a thorough investigation and a tightening of the election laws to ensure no such thing ever threatened our democracy again.

What we got instead was a bait-and-switch that the Conservatives have turned to their advantage. They overhauled the election laws all right, but the new laws did nothing to prevent the sort of treachery involved in the robocall scandal. If anything, they make it tougher to uncover robocall-style deception in the future by preventing the release of details about investigations conducted by Elections Canada.

Having ignored the very real problem presented by the robocall scandal, the Harperites instead focused on clamping down on an imaginary problem - people voting multiple times, which is not a problem at all, as Neufeld states in an affidavit in support of the court injunction.

Pretending that they were addressing this non-problem, the Harperites overhauled the election laws in ways that will make it harder for voters to confirm their identity instead.

Confirming your identity and address for the purpose of voting is very simple - if you have a driver's licence, which includes both your photograph and your address. That's all you need.

But for those without a driver's licence - including many low-income, disabled people or those moving from one location to another - it's more complicated. They need two pieces of ID, including something establishing their address, which is not included, for instance, in health cards or passports.

This problem of establishing one's address could be easily solved by allowing voters to use voter information cards (VIC). The government-issued cards, which are sent to voters' homes before an election, tell them where to vote. The cards include voters' addresses.

In a pilot project administered by Canada's chief electoral officer during the 2011 election, polling stations serving seniors' residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves and student residences permitted voters to use their VICs, along with another piece of ID, to vote. Approximately 400,000 voters - almost half those eligible - used their VICs to vote.

Yet, unbelievably, the new election laws actually ban this practice, raising the question of whether many of these 400,000 people will simply lose the right to vote in the upcoming election.

Harper's new election laws also throw fresh obstacles in the path of the homeless. In the past, homeless people or those with little or no identification were able to vote by having another registered voter vouch for them. The Harper government has now made this option much more complicated and difficult.

Neufeld notes that the vouching process could have been replaced with a simple procedure - requiring the voter to make a signed declaration, which would provide a paper trail in the event the person's vote was later questioned. Instead, the new rules replaced vouching with procedures that Neufeld describes as "more cumbersome to administer and even more difficult for voters to understand."

Apathy on the part of the electorate is Stephen Harper's best shot at winning the next election. But should apathy let him down, he's ready with his backup plan to deprive thousands of our most vulnerable citizens of their most basic democratic right.

Author and journalist Linda McQuaig is the NDP candidate for Toronto Centre in the upcoming federal election.

news@nowtoronto.com

A Glimmer of Daylight Between Britain's "Liberal" Media Cousins on Corbyn Coverage

Guardian’s terrible dilemma over Corbyn

by Jonathan Cook


20 September 2015

In autumn 2002 the Observer newspaper’s correspondent Ed Vulliamy found confirmation of a terrible truth many of us already suspected. In a world-exclusive, he persuaded Mel Goodman, a former senior CIA official who still had security clearance at the Agency, to go on record that the CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq.

Everything the US and British governments were telling us to justify the coming attack on Iraq were lies.

Then something even more extraordinary happened. The Observer failed to print the story. In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies recounts that Vulliamy, one of the Observer’s most trusted reporters, submitted the piece another six times in different guises over the next half year. Each time the Observer spiked the story.

Vulliamy never went public with this monumental crime against real journalism (should there not be a media trials section at the Hague?). And the supposedly liberal-left Observer was never held accountable for its grave betrayal of its readership and the world community.

But at the weekend maybe the tables turned a little. The Observer gave Vulliamy a platform in its comment pages to take issue with its editorial the previous week savaging Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader.

In understandably cautious mode, Vulliamy called the paper’s stance towards Corbyn “churlish”, warning that it had lost the chance to stand apart from the rest of the British media, including the Guardian. All had taken vehemently against the new Labour leader from the very beginning of his candidacy.

"we conjoined the chorus with our own – admittedly more progressive – version of this obsession with electoral strategy with little regard to what Corbyn says about the principles of justice, peace and equality (or less inequality)."

What do these two confrontations between Vulliamy and the Observer –13 years apart; one public, one not – indicate about the changing status of the liberal-left media?

To understand what’s going on, we also need to consider the coverage of Corbyn in the Guardian, the better-known daily sister paper of the Sunday Observer.

All the Guardian’s inner circle of commentators, from Jonathan Freedland to Polly Toynbee, made public that they were dead against Corbyn from the moment he looked like he might win. When he served simply to justify claims that the Labour Party was a broad and tolerant church, these commentators were in favour of his standing. But as soon as he began to surge ahead, these same liberal-left pundits poured more scorn on him than they had reserved for any other party leader in living memory. In a few months Corbyn has endured more contempt from these fearless watchdogs of the left than the current Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, has suffered over many years.

The Guardian’s news coverage, meanwhile, followed exactly the same antagonistic formula as that of the rightwing press: ignore the policy issues raised by Corbyn, concentrate on trivial or perceived personality flaws, and frame the stories in establishment-friendly ways. We have had to endure in the Guardian the same patently ridiculous, manufactured reports about Corbyn, portraying him as sexist, anti-semitic, unpatriotic, and much more.

We could expect the rightwing media to exploit every opportunity to try to discredit Corbyn, but looking at the talkbacks it was clear Guardian readers expected much more from their paper than simple-minded character assassination.

Red neoliberals


The reality is that Corbyn poses a very serious challenge to supposedly liberal-left media like the Guardian and the Observer, which is why they hoped to ensure his candidacy was still-born and why, now he is leader, they are caught in a terrible dilemma.

While the Guardian and Observer market themselves as caring about justice and equality, but do nothing to bring them about apart from promoting tinkering with the present, hugely unjust, global neoliberal order, Corbyn’s rhetoric suggests that the apple cart needs upending.

If it achieves nothing else, Corbyn’s campaign has highlighted a truth about the existing British political system: that, at least since the time of Tony Blair, the country’s two major parliamentary parties have been equally committed to upholding neoliberalism. The Blue Neoliberal Party (the Conservatives) and the Red Neoliberal Party (Labour) mark the short horizon of current British politics. You can have either hardcore neoliberalism or slightly more softcore neoliberalism.

Corbyn shows that there should be more to politics than this false choice, which is why hundreds of thousands of leftists flocked back to Labour in the hope of getting him elected. In doing so, they overwhelmed the parliamentary Labour party (PLP), which vigorously opposed him becoming leader.

But where does this leave the Guardian and Observer, both of which have consistently backed “moderate” elements in the PLP? If Corbyn is exposing the PLP as the Red Neoliberal Party, what does that mean for the Guardian, the parliamentary party’s house paper?

Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral compass, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.

They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.

Character assassination


The Guardian and the Observer, complicit for so long with the Red Neoliberals led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, thought they could kill off Corbyn’s campaign by joining in the general media bullying. They thought they could continue to police the boundaries of the political left – of what counts as credible on the left – and place Corbyn firmly outside those borders.

But he won even so – and with an enormous lead over his rivals. In truth, the Guardian’s character assassination of Corbyn, rather than discrediting him, served only to discredit the paper with its own readers.

Corbyn’s victory represented a huge failure not just for the political class in all its narrow neoliberal variations, but also for the media class in all its narrow neoliberal variations. It was a sign that the Guardian’s credibility with its own readers is steadily waning.

The talkback columns show the Guardian’s kneejerk belittling of Corbyn has inserted a dangerous seed of doubt in the minds of a proportion of its formerly loyal readers. Many of those hundreds of thousands of leftists who joined the Labour party either to get Corbyn elected or to demonstrate their support afterwards are Guardian readers or potential readers. And the Guardian and Observer ridiculed them and their choice.

Belatedly the two papers are starting to sense their core readership feels betrayed. Vulliamy’s commentary should be seen in that light. It is not a magnanimous gesture by the Observer, or even an indication of its commitment to pluralism. It is one of the early indications of a desperate damage limitation operation. We are likely to see more such “reappraisals” in the coming weeks, as the liberal-left media tries to salvage its image with its core readers.

This may not prove a fatal blow to the Guardian or the Observer but it is a sign of an accelerating trend for the old media generally and the liberal-left media more specifically. Papers like the Guardian and the Observer no longer understand their readerships both because they no longer have exclusive control of their readers’ perceptions of what is true and because the reality – not least, polarising inequality and climate degradation – is becoming too difficult to soft-soap.

Media like the Guardian are tied by a commercial and ideological umbilical cord to a neoliberal order a large swath of their readers are growing restless with or feel downright appalled by.

In 2003 the Observer knowingly suppressed the truth about Iraq and WMD to advance the case for an illegal, “preventive” war, one defined in international law as the supreme war crime. In that age – digitally the equivalent of the Dark Ages compared to now – the paper just about managed to get away with its complicity in a crime against humanity. The Observer never felt the need to make real amends with Vulliamy or the readers it betrayed.

But in the age of a burgeoning new media the Observer and Guardian are discovering that the rules are shifting dangerously under their feet. Corbyn is a loud messenger of that change.

A Cultural Anthropomorphic Autism

Autism: A Cultural Condition

by Ray Grigg - Shades of Green

 
In one of Thomas Berry's seminal books, Dream of the Earth, the Catholic theologian — he called himself a “geologian” — posited that the key to explaining our dysfunctional relationship with nature may be a condition he called cultural autism, “a pathology [that] is manifest in the arrogance with which we reject our role as an integral member of the earth community in favour of a radical anthropocentric life attitude.”

Berry uses a child's elegantly simple definition of autism to sharply focus his point:

“It is when a person becomes so locked up in themselves that nothing else can get in.”

By applying this definition to our collective behaviour, Berry means that all nature is teeming with intelligence and wisdom but we have been too closed and unreceptive to notice.

Our cultural pathology — hopefully not a human pathology — keeps us from recognizing nature's teachings and prevents us from integrating harmoniously into the biotic community that constitutes Earth's living fabric of life. This blockage in communication, the result of our compulsive and obsessive anthropocentricity, has caused the unfolding environmental crisis in which we now find ourselves.

Like an autistic person, we have isolated ourselves from the extended family of animals and plants of which we are an inseparable member, and therefore from the entire social biosphere which provides virtually all our nourishment, belonging and meaning.

A momentary exercise of the imagination can confirm the validity of this notion. Try to imagine yourself raised totally separate from Earth, with no connection or memory of it. Everything constituting intelligible experience would be radically different. All meaning would be misshapen without the commonplace rhythms of day and night, without the referential proportions of mountains and trees, without such ordinary objects as flowers, stones and ferns.

Think of the most mundane of experiences and they are inseparable from events that could occur nowhere else but here on Earth. A fish's splash. A dog's bark. A hyacinth’s scent. An eagle's feather. A strawberry's sweetness. The morning chorus of birdsong, the drip of dew off wet leaves, the smell of fresh rain on dry grass are exclusively experiences of Earth.


All the things we know and think and feel are synonymous with Earth. Any notion of being separate from it is a delusion, a pathology, a cultural autism that impairs our ability to acknowledge, communicate and interact with life's community in a respectful and reverential way.

To repeat the autism metaphor, we are so “locked up in ourselves than nothing else can get in.” It's what Thomas Berry meant when he called himself a “geologian” — the appropriate theological study is not some otherworldly abstraction, but Earth itself. As Berry would argue, Earth is “the primary source of revelation.” The divine is manifest in creation. By this measure, a truly spiritual existence is one in which the miracle of Earth itself is held in awe and reverence.

This feeling of awe and reverence is the place where awareness, spirituality and environmentalism overlap. Protecting nature is a form of worship, a gesture of intimacy, a communicative response, a sign that the autistic barrier is dissolving and that we are opening to the living world that enfolds us in its wholeness.