Slouching Towards Truth in Libya and Beyond

'Limited But Persuasive' Evidence: Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies

by Media Lens

Libya – Slouching Towards Truth 

Last month, a ComRes poll supported by Media Lens interviewed 2,021 British adults, asking:

'How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?'

An astonishing 44% of respondents estimated that less than 5,000 Iraqis had died since 2003. 59% believed that fewer than 10,000 had died. Just 2% put the toll in excess of one million, the likely correct estimate.

In October 2006, just three years into the war, the Lancet medical journal reported 'about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation, which is equivalent to about 2.5% of the population in the study area'.

In 2007, an Associated Press poll also asked the US public to estimate the Iraqi civilian death toll from the war. 52% of respondents believed that fewer than 10,000 Iraqis had died.

Noam Chomsky commented on the latest findings:

'Pretty shocking. I'm sure you've seen Sut Jhally's study of estimates of Vietnam war deaths at the elite university where he teaches. Median 100,000, about 5% of the official figure, probably 2% of the actual figure. Astonishing - unless one bears in mind that for the US at least, many people don't even have a clue where France is. Noam' (Email to Media Lens, June 1, 2013. See: Sut Jhally, Justin Lewis, & Michael Morgan, The Gulf War: A Study of the Media, Public Opinion, & Public Knowledge, Department of Communications, U. Mass. Amherst, 1991)

Alex Thomson, chief correspondent at Channel 4 News, has so far provided the only corporate media discussion of the poll. He perceived 'questions for us on the media that after so much time, effort and money, the public perception of bloodshed remains stubbornly, wildly, wrong'.

In fact the poll was simply ignored by both print and broadcast media. Our search of the Lexis media database found no mention in any UK newspaper, despite the fact that ComRes polls are deemed highly credible and frequently reported in the press.

Although we gave Thomson the chance to scoop the poll, he chose to publish it on his blog viewed by a small number of people on the Channel 4 website. Findings which Thomson found 'so staggeringly, mind-blowingly at odds with reality' that they left him 'speechless' apparently did not merit a TV audience.

Les Roberts, lead author of the 2004 Lancet study and co-author of the 2006 study, also responded:

'This March, a review of death toll estimates by Burkle and Garfield was published in the Lancet in an issue commemorating the 10th anniversary of the invasion. They reviewed 11 studies of data sources ranging from passive tallies of government and newspaper reports to careful randomized household surveys, and concluded that something in the ballpark of half a million Iraqi civilians have died. The various sources include a wide variation of current estimates, from one-hundred thousand plus to a million.'

Roberts said of the latest poll:

'It may be that most British people do not care what results arise from the actions of their leaders and the work of their tax money. Alternatively, it also could be that the British and US Governments have actively and aggressively worked to discredit sources and confuse death toll estimates in hopes of keeping the public from unifying and galvanizing around a common narrative.' (Email to Media Lens, June 12, 2013. You can see Roberts' comments in full here)

Indeed, the public's ignorance of the cost paid by the people of Iraq is no accident. Despite privately considering the 2006 Lancet study 'close to best practice' and 'robust' the British government immediately set about destroying the credibility of the findings of both the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies. Professor Brian Rappert of the University of Exeter reported that government 'deliberations were geared in a particular direction – towards finding grounds for rejecting the [2004] Lancet study without any evidence of countervailing efforts by government officials to produce or endorse alternative other studies or data'.

Unsurprisingly, the same political executives who had fabricated the case for war on Iraq sought to fabricate reasons for ignoring peer-reviewed science exposing the costs of their great crime. More surprising, one might think, is the long-standing media enthusiasm for these fabrications. The corporate media were happy to swallow the UK government's alleged 'grounds for rejecting' the Lancet studies to the extent that a recent Guardian news piece claimed that the invasion had led to the deaths of 'tens of thousands of Iraqis'.
Syria – Dropping Del Ponte

A natural counterpart to the burying of evidence of 'our' embarrassing crimes is the hyping of the crimes of official enemies.

Thus, the media would have us believe that as many, or more, people have died in Syria during two years of war than have died in ten years of mass killing in Iraq (the favoured media figure is around 100,000 Iraqis killed). The Times reports 'as many as 94,000 deaths' in Syria. (Anthony Loyd, 'War in Syria has plumbed new depths of barbarity, says UN,' The Times, June 5, 2013)

Reuters reports:

'The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], an opposition group, said on Tuesday that at least 94,000 people have been killed but the death toll is likely to be as high as 120,000.'

Figures supplied by SOHR, an organisation openly biased in favour of the Syrian 'rebels' and Western intervention is presented as sober fact by one of the world's leading news agencies. No concerns here about methodology, sample sizes, 'main street bias' and other alleged concerns thrown at the Lancet studies by critics. According to Reuters itself, SOHR consists of a single individual, Rami Abdulrahman, the owner of a clothes shop, who works from his 'two bedroom terraced home in Coventry'.

As we noted last month, clearly inspired by the example of Iraq, Western governments and media have bombarded the public with claims of Syrian government use of chemical weapons. In April, the Independent's Robert Fisk judged the claims 'a load of old cobblers'.

The state-media propaganda campaign was rudely interrupted on May 6 by former Swiss attorney-general Carla Del Ponte, speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria. Del Ponte said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'.

She added:

'We have no, no indication at all that the Syrian government have used chemical weapons.'

Lexis finds 15 national UK newspaper articles mentioning Del Ponte's claims since May 6. There has been one mention since the initial coverage (May 6-8) on May 11, more than one month ago. In other words, this is a good example of the way an unwelcome event is covered by the media but not retained as an integral part of the story.

On May 30, local Turkish media and RT News also reported that Syrian 'rebels' had been caught in a sarin gas bomb plot:

'Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.'

This was another badly 'off-message' story that was again given minimal coverage, not pursued and instantly buried. Lexis records no UK newspaper mentions. A senior journalist told us privately that he and his colleagues felt the story was 'right' but that the 'Turks are closing [it] down.' (Email to Media Lens, June 7, 2013)

Last week, yet more unsubstantiated claims of possible Syrian government use of sarin generated a front page BBC report with the remarkable headline:

'World "must act" Over Syria Weapons'

And yet a BBC article indicated the lack of certainty:

'There is no doubt Syria's government has used sarin during the country's crisis, says France's foreign minister... But he did not specify where or when the agent had been deployed; the White House has said more proof was needed.'

A UK government statement observed merely: 'There is a growing body of limited but persuasive information showing that the regime used - and continues to use - chemical weapons.'

Readers will recall that intelligence indicating the existence of Iraqi WMD was also said to have been 'limited but persuasive'.

As Peter Hitchens notes in the Daily Mail, UK government policy is being 'disgracefully egged on by a BBC that has lost all sense of impartiality'.

The Guardian quoted 'a senior British official':

'Are we confident in our means of collection, and are we confident that it points to the regime's use of sarin? Yes.'

Is the case closed, then? The official added: 'Can we prove it with 100% certainty? Probably not.'

The Guardian also quoted 'A senior UK official' who said it 'appeared possible that Syrian army commanders had been given the green light by the regime to use sarin in small quantities'. 'Possible', maybe, but the Guardian failed to explain why anyone would trust 'a senior UK official' to comment honestly on Syria, or why anyone would trust an anonymous UK official after Iraq.

Adding to the confusion, the Guardian quoted Paulo Pinheiro, who chairs a UN commission on human rights abuses in Syria. According to Pinheiro it had 'not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator'.

Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent, wrote:

'This is potentially a game changer: The French government now believes not only that the nerve agent sarin has been used in Syria, but that it was deployed by "the regime and its accomplices".'

In a recent interview, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald commented:

'I approach my journalism as a litigator. People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.'

Perhaps the BBC's Marcus could take a leaf from Greenwald's book of journalism and dig for evidence to show that the French government is lying when it says it 'believes' that sarin has been used by the Syrian enemy. After all, the US, UK and French governments also 'believed' Iraq was a 'serious and current' threat to the world.

Far less gung-ho than the relentlessly warmongering BBC, a Telegraph headline read: 'US unmoved by French evidence of sarin use in Syria.'

Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary, said: 'I have not seen that evidence that they said that they had and I have not talked to any of our intelligence people about it.'

The US officials' comments 'appeared to expose a growing a widening gap between the US and France over how to respond to Syria's two-year civil war,' the Telegraph noted.

If the record of government and media lying on Iraq fails to inspire scepticism in regard to claims made about Syria, then we might also consider the example of the Western war on Libya from March-October, 2011.

In his excellent book, Slouching Towards Sirte, Maximilian Forte of Concordia University, Montreal, recalls President Obama's March 28, 2011 justification for Nato's military intervention in Libya that had begun on March 19:

'If we waited one more day, Benghazi... could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.' (Forte, Slouching Towards Sirte – NATO's War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, digital version, 2012, p.661)

But when French jets bombed Libyan government forces retreating from Benghazi, they attacked a column of 14 tanks, 20 armoured personnel carriers, some trucks and ambulances. Forte comments:

'That column clearly could have neither destroyed nor occupied Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people... To date no evidence has been furnished that shows Benghazi would have witnessed the loss of "tens of thousands of lives".' (Forte, pp.662-663)

Professor Alan J. Kuperman, professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, observed:

'The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.

'Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.

'But Khadafy's acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya's air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.

'Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The "no mercy" warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya's leader promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away." Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight "to the bitter end."'

On February 23, 2011, just days into the Libyan uprising, Amnesty International sparked a media frenzy when it began condemning Libyan government actions, noting 'persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him'.

A few days later, Human Rights Watch reported that they had 'seen no evidence of mercenaries being used in eastern Libya. This contradicts widespread earlier reports in the international media that African soldiers had been flown in to fight rebels in the region as Muammar Gaddafi sought to keep control'.

Genevieve Garrigos, president of Amnesty International France, later commented:

'Today we have to admit that we have no evidence that Gaddafi employed mercenary forces... we have no sign nor evidence to corroborate these rumours.' (Forte, p.685)

Garrigos repeated that Amnesty's investigators never found any 'mercenaries,' agreeing that their existence was a 'legend' spread by the mass media.

Forte describes 'the revolving door between Amnesty International-USA and the US State department'. In November 2011, Amnesty International-USA appointed Suzanne Nossel as its executive director. From August 2009 to November 2011, Nossel had been the US State Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Organisation Affairs.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, caused more outrage when he told the world's media that there was 'evidence' that Gaddafi had distributed Viagra to his troops in order 'to enhance the possibility to rape' and that Gaddafi had ordered mass rape. Moreno-Ocampo insisted:

'We are getting information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape' and that 'we have information that there was a policy to rape in Libya those who were against the government'.

US Ambassador Susan Rice also asserted that Gaddafi was supplying his troops with Viagra to encourage mass rape. No evidence was supplied.

Forte notes that US military and intelligence sources quickly contradicted Rice, telling NBC News that 'there is no evidence that Libyan military forces are being given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas'.

Cherif Bassiouni, who led a UN human rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the Viagra and mass rape claim was the product of 'massive hysteria'. Bassiouni's team 'uncovered only four alleged cases' of rape and sexual abuse.

As Forte writes with bitter irony, the propaganda surrounding the Libyan war demands 'vigilance and scepticism in the face of the heady claims of our own inherent goodness which can only find its highest expression in the form of aerial bombardment'. (Forte, pp.69-70)

Alas, vigilance and scepticism are in short supply within the corporate media.

Israeli Settlers Blaspheme Christian Dead

Settlers Deface Christian Cemetery In Jaffa

by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies

Thursday June 13 2013 a number of extremist Israel settlers carried out another Price Tag attack, this time targeting a Christian Cemetery in Jaffa, and spray-painted “Price Tag”, and “Revenge” on tombstones.

File - Defaced Graveyard

Israeli Ynet News has reported that more Price Tag graffiti were discovered on a residential building close to the cemetery, near the home of Khaled Kaboub, an Arab District Court Judge in Tel Aviv.

The Ynet added that the police initiated an investigation into the attack, and that, so far, no suspects have been apprehended.

Talking to the Ynet, attorney Ahmad Balha, stated that is a very dangerous act that shows hatred for the Arab residents of Jaffa, and strongly denounced continued attacks against sacred sites.

He added that a meeting will be held, on Thursday, to discuss measures against these serious attacks and violations.

Resident Mahmoud Eghbariyya said that this “criminal attack cannot be ignored”, and that the Israeli government and police are failing to act.

In related news, the Israeli Police revealed Wednesday [June 12 2013] that Israeli settlers carried out 165 Price Tag attacks against the Palestinians and their property, in the West Bank, and in the 1948 territories since the beginning of this year.

The attacks targeted Palestinian lands and orchards, cars, property, mosques, churches and several Islamic and Christian graveyards.

Reading Snowden of the Orient

Snowden, Hong Kong Extradition, and A Good Old Fashioned Ratfucking

by Peter Lee - China Matters

Further my speculation that Edward Snowden, as a CIA guy, may have chosen Hong Kong because the PRC would be less eager than most jurisdictions to assist the CIA in whatever derring-do it might try to practice on Snowden in Hong Kong, Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch seemed to call that idea into question by invoking the case of Sami al-Saadi, a leader of the anti-Gaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group:

"There's little doubt [reason] to believe that the Hong Kong authorities would not co-operate with the CIA in this case," said Peter Bouckaert, who after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi found faxes in Tripoli indicating that the Hong Kong authorities had co-operated with the CIA in rendering an anti-Gaddafi Islamist to Libya.

The details are quite interesting, especially since the UK recently  agreed to duck Saadi’s lawsuit and give him an EP 2.3 million out of court settlement, presumably so that additional interesting and embarrassing details would not be raised in court (in recent UK news coverage, Saadi, who is a big wheel in the new Libya, received the courtesy of being referred to as a  “dissent” rather than the perhaps more accurate “militant” or, for that matter, “terrorist”, which is what the Qaddafi government called him).

As the Guardian reported in 2011, the UK administered a good old-fashioned ratfucking to Saadi—who had lived in the UK under asylum for three years—when it came time to offer him up as a sacrifice to rapprochement with Muammar Qaddafi in 2004. Saadi says he was tricked by the British authorities into  travelling to Hong Kong. While in exile in China in March 2004 he approached British intelligence officers via an intermediary in the UK, he says, and was told that he would be permitted to return to London, where he
had lived for three years after seeking asylum in 1993. First, however, he would have to be interviewed at the British consulate in Hong Kong, and would be met by British diplomats on his arrival.

Saadi flew to Hong Kong with his wife, two sons aged 12 and nine, and two daughters aged 14 and six. They were not met by any British officials but were detained by Chinese border guards over alleged passport irregularities, held for a week and then despatched to Tripoli.

Saadi says he always assumed the British were behind his rendition, "working behind the curtain". Confirmation came when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a cache of papers in Moussa Koussa's abandoned office. 

Seven years later, the UK helped administer a similar ratfucking to Qaddafi, leading the “humanitarian intervention” pack baying for his blood. It is interesting to remember that Qaddafi had dismantled his WMD programs and paid out billions of dollars to the West to normalize relations; indeed, Qaddafi’s actions were touted as “the Libyan Model” for voluntary denuclearization.

I hope Kim Jung-un was taking notes (don’t worry; he was).

In the context of the Edward Snowden case, the most interesting question is: why was Saadi renditioned?

This was not a case of the US secretly snatching some friendless nobody from a cooperative jurisdiction for some extralegal prison and pummeling beyond the reach of habeas corpus.

The Saadi case was packaged as an Interpol “Red Notice” request from the relevant Libyan authorities to detain Saadi, who was allegedly travelling under a forged passport under an alias, for return to Libya for legal
proceedings.

The Hong Kong authorities duly detained Saadi—which is what they are supposed to do, as members of Interpol (Interpol Red Notices are only challenged by Interpol HQ if they are deemed blatantly political; certainly that wasn’t going to happen in this case, since Interpol is very much a US show), and the logical next step would have been a legal proceeding either to deport him, or arrange his extradition to the jurisdiction in which his crime was allegedly committed.

So why rendition? Was it because the Libyan government did not have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong? (haven’t been able to confirm this, by the way). Or was it because time was of the essence?

Saadi was delivered back to Libya (where he was not put on trial and was treated very badly in detention for over five years) at the time of Tony Blair’s trip to Libya a.k.a. the notorious “Deal in the Desert” that welcomed Libya back into the family of civilized nations.

Maybe Qaddafi had demanded the return of Saadi as a precondition for Blair’s trip.

A pretty safe assumption, as the Guardian reported in 2011:

The operation coincided exactly with Tony Blair's first visit to Libya. Two days after the fax [from the CIA re mechanics of the rendition] was sent, Blair arrived to shake hands with Gaddafi, and said the two nations wanted to make "common cause" in counter-terrorism operations. It was also announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a £550m gas exploration deal. Three days later Saadi and his family were put aboard a private Egyptian-registered jet and flown to Tripoli.

Associates of Saadi cannot understand why his capture and interrogation would hold any great intelligence value for the British authorities, and are speculating that he may have been a "gift" from the British to the Gaddafi regime. Incidentally another anti-Qaddafi Libyan—and another heavyweight in the post-Qaddafi regime, Abdul Hakim Belhaj—was renditioned to Libya at the same time.

Maybe the Brits, instead of waiting for the wheels of Hong Kong justice to grind (and maybe worried that a spirited legal defense of Saadi in open court--a guy who had actually received asylum and resided in England for three years as a respected guest—might fatally delay or even prevent his extradition), arranged for Saadi to be released from HK custody and bundled on a plane with his wife and children.

Since the Libyan security organs liaised with Hong Kong’s principle secretary for security (per the introduction of the CIA) on the matter of Saadi’s rendition, I assume the Chinese government knew about this, and acquiesced as a brother in arms in the War on Terror (and as an eager beneficiary of the lucrative business deals Qaddafi was showering on his foreign friends).

As for Edward Snowden…

I think “judicial rendition”, as the British courts politely characterized Saadi’s treatment, might work in the  case of the unreported detention of an anonymous Libyan detainee for the sake of a big geopolitical win; but I don’t think that the PRC would choose to taint Hong Kong’s legal reputation before the entire world in order to short circuit deportation or extradition due process in order to satisfy an Obama administration request for the early return of Edward Snowden unless the payoff was enormous.

As to whether the PRC’s Ministry of Public Security would offer the CIA counterintelligence operations in Hong Kong the courtesy of the trade with respect to Snowden—assistance in locating him, tracking his movements, intercepting his communications, identifying his contacts, hassling them ad infinitum, covertly entering his residence to search it, install a bug or a dead girl or a live boy, drop a eight ton safe on his head a la Wiley Coyote etc.—getting Chinese cooperation is going to be more difficult and costly than just picking up the phone and yanking MI5’s chain,especially since the US has spent the last year on an anti-Chinese espionage jihad.

But with ratfucking, you never know.

The nitty-gritty of Saadi’s case is quite interesting, especially the part where he is able to get a Chinese visa and hang out there for a few weeks. Have to think the Malaysians told the Chinese when they pitched him over the transom. But, if Saadi’s account is accurate, the PRC did not shop him to England; the wheels came off when his family in the UK told him to go Hong Kong.

First, Saadi’s recollections, as recorded in the HRW report:

They went to Malaysia, where he hoped to get asylum. He visited a UN office and was given an appointment for a month later. Before then, he was arrested by the Malaysian authorities, who detained him and his family for about 10 days. Saadi asked to be released to go to his UN appointment. The Malaysian authorities said they would, but if he went back to the UN, he would find US officials waiting for him. So he asked to be sent to China, where he had already obtained a visa. “The Chinese visa was so easy for us,” he said. “The Chinese were receiving people from everywhere at the time.” The Malaysians then sent him to China.

From China he attempted to get back to the United Kingdom. Saadi’s friends and family in the UK told him that if he went to the UK embassy in Hong Kong, someone there would be able to help him.[331] When he arrived in Hong Kong, a man he assumed was a UK diplomat was waiting for him when he got off the plane. Instead, he was arrested for purported passport or immigration violations and detained, most of the time with his family. The room was monitored with cameras. During this period he said he overheard two police women arguing: “They were talking in their own language and I didn’t understand everything, but I did hear ‘CIA’ about four or five times, so I expected that something not good was about to happen.” After 13 days of detention, the Hong Kong authorities told him he would be sent back to China.

On or about March 28, 2004, Saadi said he was handcuffed, his legs zip-tied, and he was taken along with his wife and four children onto an empty plane with an Egyptian crew [and renditioned to Libya].

Second, the tale of the documents discovered in an abandoned government building after the fall of Qaddafi:

Saadi’s return appears to have been initiated by the MI6, but once the CIA discovered it was underway, they stepped in to do everything they could to assist. A March 23, 2004 fax from the CIA to Libyan  intelligence, found in the folder marked “USA,” states that the CIA has “become aware” that Saadi and his
family were being held in detention in Hong Kong and that the Libyans have been working with the British to “effect [his] removal to Tripoli” on a Libyan plane that was in the Maldives.[334] In the fax, the CIA said that it was aware that the Hong Kong special wing had denied permission for the Libyan airplane to land. It went on to explain, “However, we believe that the reason for the refusal was based on international concerns over having a Libyan-registered aircraft land in Hong Kong. Accordingly, if your government were to charter a foreign aircraft from a third country, the Hong Kong government may be able to coordinate with you to render Abu Munthir [Saadi] and his family into your custody.”[335] The CIA even offered to pay for the non-Libyan-registered charter aircraft. “If payment of a charter aircraft is an issue, our service would be  willing to assist financially to help underwrite those costs.”[336]

The CIA requested perfunctory diplomatic assurances that Saadi and his family would not be harmed if they provided assistance: “Please be advised if we pursue that option [providing assistance], we must have  assurances from your government that Abu Munthir [Saadi] and his family will be treated humanely and that his human rights will be respected.” [337]

In the same fax, the CIA also provided suggestions as to how the Libyans might expedite the process and convince the Hong Kong authorities to cooperate.[338] “[W]e believe that you will need to provide  significant detail on Abu Munthir (e.g. his terrorist/criminal acts, why he is wanted, perhaps proof of  citizenship)…. Specifically, the Hong Kong government must have a stipulation … that he will not be subject to the death penalty.”[339]

The next day, on March 24, 2004, the Libyan authorities sent a 32-page fax to Hong Kong authorities containing, among other things, a birth certificate, information on why Saadi was wanted, and details on the “crimes and the terrorist activities that [Saadi] committed.” They also promised that the “maximum penalty” for what he had done was “life imprisonment.”[340] (Though later, after being in Libyan custody for five  years without charge, Saadi was sentenced to death). The United States also provided the name and telephone numbers for Hong Kong’s principal secretary for security.[341]

After the Hong Kong authorities received this information, it appears they agreed to allow the non-Libyan registered charter aircraft to land. Also in the Tripoli Documents, in the folder marked “USA,” a fax sent just two days before Saadi arrived in Libya contains a cover page marked “Hong Kong Landing Requirements” and two pages stamped “confidential.” It states that in order for the “Non-Scheduled Flight to land in Hong Kong,” the Libyan government has to comply with “certain regulations” so that a “Permission to Land” can be issued.[342] It also confirms, “[i]t is agreed that the subject person will be moved together with his whole family (a total of six persons) on board of the same flight” and recommends a “local Aircraft Handling Agent” for the transaction who needs to be paid in “cash (in US dollars).”[343] Saadi was transferred around  March 28, 2004, just a few days after Tony Blair’s historic first visit to Libya on March 25. [344]

TransCanada Caught Training Police

TransCanada Caught Training Police to Treat Peaceful Anti-Keystone XL Activists as 'Terrorists'

by Tar Sands Blockade

HOUSTON - In the midst of recent national controversy surrounding government surveillance of the public, a recent Freedom of Information Act request to the Nebraska State Patrol has exposed evidence that TransCanada provided trainings to federal agents and local Nebraska police to suppress nonviolent activists protesting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline by arresting them on “anti-terrorism statutes.” The presentation slides, obtained by grassroots landowner advocacy group Bold Nebraska, target Tar Sands Blockade activists by name.

“This is clear evidence of the collusion between TransCanada and the federal government assisting local police to unlawfully monitor and harass political protestors,” said Lauren Regan, legal coordinator for Tar Sands Blockade and executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center. “These documents expose the truth that the government is giving the nod to unlawful corporate spying. By slinging false allegations against peaceful activists in this presentation, TransCanada puts them at risk of unwarranted prosecution.”

Although TransCanada’s presentation to authorities contains information about property destruction, sabotage, and booby traps, police in Texas and Oklahoma have never alleged, accused, or charged Tar Sands Blockade activists of any such behaviors. Since August 2012, Tar Sands Blockade has carried out dozens of successful nonviolent direct actions to physically halt construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in Texas and Oklahoma. All of these acts, as well as every pipeline protest in Nebraska, have maintained strict commitments to nonviolence.

“Try as TransCanada might to slander Tar Sands Blockade and our growing grassroots movement, we know who the real criminals are.” said Ron Seifert, a spokesperson with Tar Sands Blockade who was pictured in the slideshow. “The real criminals are those profiting from this deadly tar sands pipeline by endangering families living along the route and pumping illegal levels of air toxins into fence-line communities.”

“If anything, this shows the effectiveness of campaigns to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and fossil fuel extraction as a whole,” said Scott Parkin, an organizer with Rising Tide North America and a non-violence trainer also pictured in the slideshow. “We’ve been fighting coal, oil and natural gas for a long time using these time-honored tactics and strategies. We’ll continue to use them precisely because they have been so effective in making change throughout American history.”

Grassroots resistance to Keystone XL is growing in Texas and Oklahoma where TransCanada is currently digging up freshly laid sections of the pipeline that failed integrity inspections. The East Texas Observer reports that at least 70 “anomalies,” including dents and shoddy welds in the pipe, were identified in a 60 mile span, and in some areas these imperfections occur at a rate of three per mile.

“A discovery like this presentation reveals that TransCanada has no problem lying to authorities and intentionally misleading the public in pursuit of its own private gain,” says Seifert. “If TransCanada officials cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the peaceful nature of Keystone XL protestors, why should we believe they’ve told the truth about the integrity of their pipeline and the real threats it poses to the hundreds of rivers and creeks that it crosses?”

Tar Sands Blockade is a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and organizers using nonviolent direct action to physically stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2013
2:42 PM


CONTACT: Tar Sands Blockade

kxlblockade@gmail.com

Every Day 'Ocean Day' for Landless Rebel Watson

Captain Watson’s World Ocean Day Report

by Paul Watson - SSCS

Someone asked me today why I had not posted anything about World Ocean Day. Most likely because everyday is an ocean day for me. But okay, why not. My posting for World Ocean Day.

Yes today is World Ocean Day and I’m somewhere on the sea at the moment hundreds of miles from land. This really is the freest place on this planet, a planet called Earth that should actually be called the planet Ocean.

In fact I have been at sea now since the end of July last year. Across the Atlantic, the Pacific, down to the Southern Ocean and across the Indian Ocean. Each morning gives me a spectacular sunrise and every evening an incredible sunset, well except for on the days of an occasional storm. My year has been one of rainbows, icebergs, stormy seas, tropical breezes, freezing temperatures, the southern lights, and star studded nights. Every once in a well I get a glimpse of land, some forlorn shoreline or surf crashing on a reef. I have become in every sense of the word, a citizen of the sea, a place without passports, taxes, politicians, cars, airplanes, pollution and all the other negative aspects of living on land. I have not seen a Wal-mart, a MacDonald’s, a Starbucks, or a KFC for nearly a year. Nor have I seen a traffic light, a traffic jam or drug trafficking on the streets.

Here between the awesome vastness of the sea and the extreme vastness of space, under the panoramic shroud of the Milky Way, I am finding a real peace and a contentment within myself.

But of course, it is not all peace and contentment. We still have to deal with invasions from land by illegal fishing boats, shark killers, whalers, and other assorted eco-terrorists. We still have to deal with the lethal plastic invasion.

But out here we can do something about it.

In recognition of World Ocean Day I am pleased to present this report of what Sea Shepherd has been involved with over the last few weeks.

First the return of the Japanese whaling fleet from the North Pacific with a record low catch of whales showing just how inefficient the illegal Japanese whaling industry has become because of their loss of profits. The Japanese are complaining that our undermining of their profits is making them unable to do their “research”.

Secondly, the legal victory this last week by Sea Shepherd in LaReunion (Indian Ocean) where the Mayor of St. Leu was ordered to shut down his plans to kill sharks in the LaReunion Marine Reserve and ordered to pay Sea Shepherd and two other French organizations 1500 Euros each.

And yesterday we had the decision by the Netherlands to ban Icelandic whale meat from being transshipped from Europe onto Japan where the Japanese want to process endangered Icelandic Fin whales into dog food.

In the Galapagos, a German National named Dirk Bender was sentenced to prison recently in Ecuador for attempting to smuggle four Galapagos Land Iguanas out of the Galapagos National Park. He has already served over a year and is not expected to be released until the end of 2013. This marks the first incarceration in the Galapagos for wildlife smuggling and Sea Shepherd was instrumental in providing evidence and support towards securing this conviction and sends a strong message to others thinking of smuggling wildlife.

Sea Shepherd Brazil has reported a legal victory for whales against irresponsible whale watching operators in the state of Santa Catarina.

Santa Cantarina State’s southern tip is a Southern Right's whale nursery. Whales come to protected bays, around the cities of Garopaba, Laguna and Imbituba, to raise their new born calves. The presence of whales close to shore brings many people willing to profit from their presence, and anyone with a boat has could take tourists to have a close look at the whales.

In October 2012 Sea Shepherd Brazil received the information that Southern Right Whales were being harassed during whale watching operations in the area.Whale watching operators were taking boats right on top of the whales, some times colliding with whales. This was happening in a protected area called Área de Proteção Ambiental da Baleia Franca (Southern Right's Environmentally Protected Area).

Under Brazilian law, it is prohibited to harrass whales, it is prohibited for any vessel to come closer than 100 meters of any whale with engines on, it is prohibited to chase whales and it is prohibited to interfere with their route.

Sea Shepherd denounced the situation to the Environmental Agency Instituto Chico Mendes in October 2012. On the absence of an answer from the public authorities, Sea Shepherd Brazil entered a Public Civil Action against Instituto Chico Mendes, requiring the public authorities to uphold the legislation about the protection of cetaceans and to create regulations about whale watching activities.

In May 2013 the Federal Justice decided to cease whale-watching activities on boats until an environment impact study is made and regulations for whale watching operations are created.

"Sea Shepherd Brazil is not against whale watching activities", said Wendel Estol, Sea Shepherd Brazil director. "We are against people breaking the law for profit, we are against this unregulated operation inside an environmentally protected area, and specially against harassing mother whales with their new born calves."" 

More good news this week with a report that dolphins have returned to San Francisco Bay for the first time in sixty years.

Other good news is that Sea Shepherd Australia is preparing the Sea Shepherd ships in Williamstown, Australia for Operation Relentless. The vessels have been repaired from the damage caused by the intentional ramming by the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru and the International Paint Company has
donated all the paint we needed to repaint all our ships. The Sam Simon has been given it’s own unique razzle dazzle camo design.

Sea Shepherd will be having an official opening of the Williamstown base on July 6th. At present the Steve Irwin, Bob Barker and Sam Simon are berthed at Williamstown. This will be Sea Shepherd’s international base for ship operations.

Since I founded Sea Shepherd in 1977, we have grown to become a global entity with independent Sea Shepherd national groups operating worldwide.

I am not a big advocate of World Ocean Day only because I believe everyday should be a day we think about the ocean for what it is, the life support system for the entire planet.

If the oceans die, we die and unless we stop the escalating rape of bio-diversity in the seas the ocean will indeed die.

This is not just a movement to defend whales and sharks, seals and fish, it is a movement to defend humanity and all other species on this planet Ocean.

Fear and Loathing of Iran

Why Washington Fears Iran

by Sharmine Narwani -  Sandbox

“Tehran has developed technical expertise in a number of areas – including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles – from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons,” reads Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper’s April 2013 report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Then comes the statement usually ignored by mass media: “We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

The fact that Iran is not producing a nuclear bomb – nay, hasn’t even decided if it wants to – has not deterred the US government from slapping the Islamic Republic with the most punishing unilateral sanctions in history.

While the Iranian economy struggles to adjust to periodic US sanctions “upgrades,” a significantly devalued currency and restrictions in global financial transactions have suddenly challenged even Iran’s famed adaptability to these kinds of externally-imposed pressures.

But something is awry. There is no implosion in Iran. How is that possible with off-the-chart hikes in the price of basic goods, unaffordable housing in congested urban areas, increased youth unemployment? Instead, Iranians who love nothing better than to complain about government and economy, have grumpily rallied against these foreign efforts to pit population against state.

According to results of a Gallup poll in February, 85 percent of Iranians claim sanctions have hurt their livelihood either “a great deal” or “somewhat.” But 70 percent of those polled blame external parties (the US, western European countries, Israel, and the UN) for this suffering; remarkably, only 10 percent blame their government and their leaders. Instead of sanctions forcing a change in Iran’s calculation about pursuing nuclear enrichment – which is a stated US goal – 65 percent of Iranians favor a continuation of the country’s nuclear power capabilities.

As former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed El Baradei astutely observed before leaving his 11-year post: “The line was, ‘Iran will buckle under pressure.’ But this issue has become so ingrained in the Iranian soul as a matter of national pride. They talk about their nuclear program as if they had gone to the moon.”

Instead of changing tack and identifying novel ways to gain favor with Iran’s population while pressuring their leaders, the US administration went off the rails last week and upped the sanctions ante – targeting for the first time Iran’s rial currency and its auto industry, a large source of domestic jobs.

No – there can no longer be any mistake about what that means. Washington isn’t trying to change Iran’s “calculations” about “its nuclear program.” It is trying to break Iran’s back.

“Let Them Try”

“US power and reach is in decline,” says Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads the Majlis’ (parliament) foreign affairs and national security committees, and cheerily expects to out-maneuver, out-last, and out-smart the Americans.

As with all decision makers in Iran, any discussion of US sanctions gets you a slow smile and a political lesson.

“The new realities in Iran don’t seem to be apparent to the US after 33 years. They’re still focused on regime change, sanctions, cyber war, military operations. The result of this strategy has been to the US detriment (financially draining) and to our advantage,” explains Boroujerdi.

In this period, “Iran gained incredible technology. The US didn’t want us to have nuclear capability – and we have done so from the basics to where we are now in a peaceful nuclear program. They tried to restrict our knowledge and our development. In these three decades we obtained advanced technologies ourselves – building and launching satellites, developing nanotechnology from scratch, developing a domestic arsenal of weapons,” he continued.

“We used Iranian brainpower, our youth; we have attained the unattainable – we changed the process. How many other countries could have done this?”

That’s the crux of it. David vs Goliath. The nimble, determined developing nation upstart facing down the global bully and a crumbling Empire. That image can inspire passion here in Iran – which may explain some of those earlier Gallup numbers and the upward tick in polling data for presidential candidates who talk tough on negotiations with the US.

In short, many Iranians feel the US and other Western nations want to stunt their independence, development, and scientific progress – keeping the country “backward and needy;” a dumping ground for stale Western products and services in exchange for the petrodollars of a one-commodity economy.

“Nuclear” Saves Lives in Iran

I visit a University of Tehran campus that houses the first nuclear medicine center in the country. This is the teaching nexus from which most of the nation’s nuclear medicine specialists graduate. It is a relatively new specialty – a few decades old – but already there are 130 nuclear medicine centers around Iran and an equal number of specialized doctors.

“Nuclear medicine is a real peaceful use of nuclear energy,” explains Dr. Mohsen Saghari who heads the center and is also the president of the Iranian Society of Nuclear Medicine. “We basically use radioactive materials for diagnostics and therapeutic purposes – we do all the treatments and scans (bone, heart, liver, spleen, renal, breast, thyroid, lungs) at this facility.”

As I quickly learned, nuclear medicine is several things: For the purpose of diagnostics, when administered into the body these radiopharmaceuticals can “image” disease at the cellular level, thereby detecting illness earlier than via x-ray, CT-Scans or MRIs, for instance, which rely on the visible manifestation of disease for detection to be possible.

It is like radiology from the inside – instead of the external radiation passing through your body to capture an image from an x-ray, in nuclear medicine, external cameras capture images from the radiation emitted by a radiopharmaceutical administered into a patient.

Nuclear medicine is also used for the purpose of therapeutic treatment. These are specialized drugs that emit short distances of radiation thereby reducing undesirable side effects.

At the center that day, I saw maybe 20 patients and family members in a seating area awaiting a scan or outpatient treatment, mostly for thyroid cancers and hyperthyroidism, according to the medical professional who took me on a tour.

“Most of the procedures we do here are complementary, but in a few cases, they are the only procedures and nothing else can substitute them,” says Saghari. “But because of sanctions we have problems. If we want radioactive materials or equipment, they won’t sell them to us.”

So Iran decided to make its own.

Most of his center’s radioactive materials are produced by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, which fuels up those nuclear reactors that make people in Washington and Tel Aviv all wobbly-kneed and shrill.

Saghari showed me a sealed vial – or “cold kit” – that contained a few pinches of a powdered substance. Iran makes that part of the drug too because the newer US (unilateral) sanctions have made it hard for Iranians to trade in Western currencies and transact through most banks. The vial remains sealed until radioactive material is injected into it – which then makes it an active radiopharmaceutical used in diagnostics and treatment.

As my notes recall, 90 percent of these diagnostic procedures require a synthetically-produced chemical element called Technetium, which is produced at Iran’s nuclear plants via a process using 20 percent enriched uranium and then extracted from the nuclear rod fuels to create the necessary medical isotopes.

Says Saghari, “Even in the black market, the importation of chemotherapies and high-tech medications have largely stopped with the latest rounds of sanctions.”

So Iran relies on its own nuclear power plants to fill in – and eventually altogether replace – imports. “Sometimes we get shortages, at the present time they can produce.”

Not a lot of countries produce radiopharmeceuticals. Saghari named just Canada, the US, England, France, Russia and China. Like others leading the charge toward self-sufficiency in Iran, he anticipates that one day Iran will be producing competitive, lower-cost radiopharmeceuticals for export.

“Each week we see 20 to 24 new thyroid cancer patients – last month I had 94 inpatients, 876 diagnostic scans performed and 700 outpatients for thyroid illnesses,” he says, flicking through some administrative papers to try to give me an accurate count. “Every year in Iran about one million people get referred for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.”

“So of course we are going to make it ourselves,” insists Saghari.

Baa, Baa, Cloned Sheep

A 2010 Canadian report on the "geo-political shift in knowledge creation" claims scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the global average – faster than in any other country in the world. I recall reading this tidbit three years ago and wondering how that could be right. In previous trips to Iran, I couldn’t say that I ever noted visible signs of ‘unusual progress.’

I don’t think most Iranians think much about this either. Discussing my interviews with friends and acquaintances during my visit, most seemed surprised, even shocked that this much development was going on under their noses. The Iranian government, good or bad, suffers acutely from an inability to communicate its value propositions to the wider population. Which really, quite frankly, cripples it when faced with the well-oiled spin-machines of hostile Western and Arab states seeking to vilify the Islamic Republic.

Every Iranian has an opinion on the country’s nuclear energy program for the simple reason that this is the one ‘development project’ they all know about...so rarely is it out of the international headlines.

This kind of hyper-scientific growth is essential, says Dr. Hamid Gourabi, president of the Royan Institute, a leader in stem cell and reproductive biomedicine in Iran: “Scientific progress can make countries independent – and apply pressure on others.”

If you think his message has political undertones, you are right. It is something I hear in all my meetings. “After the revolution, we decided instead of being dependent on oil, we should diversify into sciences and other areas.”

Royan, a quasi-governmental institute, was established to solve a basic problem: young Iranian couples with fertility problems were having to travel outside the country and spend large sums of money to conceive. The organization started with very basic fertility treatments in 1991 and two years later the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) child was born in Tehran. With a 40 percent success rate, the institute now does more than 4,000 cycles every year – in Europe there are less than ten clinics that perform more than 1,000.

Royan was playing catch-up with some of its early endeavors. In 2006 it cloned its first sheep, followed by two transgenic kid goats called Shangool and Mangool (named after popular children’s characters in Iran), and then by calves – each using slightly different biotechnologies.

Gourabi’s institute is not ultimately interested in replicating other’s successes though – it wants to forge its own way. He tells me about some important thinking that went on in Iran during the presidency of Mohammad Khatami from 1997-2005: “We wanted to expand in sciences, technologies – Khatami didn’t think Iran could advance ‘car-making’ for example – we wanted to go into areas where Iran can bring leadership.” But, he says, ultimately, “the scientific community is the main impetus behind this – they push the government.” Then he adds with a twinkle that Iran’s Supreme Leader “Khamenei has a huge interest in science.”

Since then Royan has branched out in all sorts of directions. Stem cell research is today the most advanced part of what the group does, and Iran, according to Gourabi, is now only the 8th nation in the world to produce scientific output on stem cells.

He also confirms that “sanctions have been a key motivator” for the rush to development. “One of the products we need cost us a million dollars to import. Now we produce it ourselves, it costs us very little. Iran sells biotech to other countries – we offer a lower cost than most companies.”

Gourabi, whose institute has been denied laser technology-based products by the US’ restrictive sanctions regime, says with some confidence: “We will end up producing these drugs for ourselves, so pirating and patent-busting becomes prolific. And they (the West) lose a good market for their products.”

He’s not worried about isolation either: “Sanctions do affect our work – time is important in science and sanctions cause delays – but we are contributing in a big way to the global scientific community now, and this collaboration helps us.”

Nanotechnology 101

A decade ago, Iranian decision makers and scientists were trying to solve a large problem: “In less than 100 years, we will run out of all these oil resources. How do we have an economy then?”

The prevalent thinking was that Iran needed to develop sectors that would help it create a “knowledge-based economy” where it could establish itself as a global leader. The country had underperformed on IT and biotech, so it took its time in studying the potential of nanotechnology. Three years later it decided to plunge in.

“Our mission was to be among the top 15 countries in the world in all rings of the ‘value chain’ – all the way from developing the human resources to commercialization and wealth creation,” say Dr. Seyed Mehdi Rezayat and Dr. Ali Beitollahi, senior officials at The Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council (INIC).

“Today, more than 14,000 are engaged in Iran’s nanotech industry – a decade ago you couldn’t count the number of people on two hands who understood what it meant,” laughs Beitollahi.

The data starts flowing. In the past five years, Iran has registered 95 patents for nanotechnology products and processes. Dozens of Iranian universities have been corralled into creating graduate and doctoral programs in advanced nanotech. Because of sanctions and embargos, Iranians are making sophisticated machinery that they otherwise would have bought. Twenty five Iranian companies have now commercialized nano equipment because nobody would sell it to them.

In a short time, the Islamic Republic has become one of only six nations involved in nanotech standardization – all others are Western countries (US, UK, Canada, Germany) with the exception of Japan.

The applications in nanotech are broad. From eco-efficiencies like coating glass that keeps heat out, to strengthening building materials in earthquake prone areas, to creating cancer drugs to water filtration and desalinization.

“In high-tech you can get much more advanced benefit than from commercial technologies,” says Rezaiat. “Every kilogram of cement is just a few cents. The main cost of things is knowledge and technology, so why should a country like Iran stick to cement?”

“We learned a lot of lessons from our previous lack of achievement,” he reflects, adding, “We used to buy turnkey projects and we didn’t even know what was inside.” Now, says Rezaiat, “Nano has become a model for the country. We started from scratch – we will look, learn about everything.”

Why Washington Fears Iran?

A rigorous report published last week on Iran sanctions by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says the following:

“There is a growing body of opinion and Iranian assertions that indicates that Iran, through actions of the government and the private sector, is mitigating the economic effect of sanctions. Some argue that Iran might even benefit from sanctions over the long term by being compelled to diversify its economy and reduce dependence on oil revenues. Iran’s 2013-2014 budget relies far less on oil exports than have previous budgets, and its exports of minerals, cement, urea fertilizer, and other agricultural and basic industrial goods are increasing substantially.”

A year ago I wrote an article titled “How Iran Changed the World.” In it I warn that continued economic pressures on Iran will produce the unintended consequence of undermining Western hegemony very decisively.

The US, after all, is aggressively challenging the Islamic Republic at a time when the entire Western financial and economic order is teetering on the brink of collapse, with no apparent safety net in sight.

Iran is an extremely resourceful country of 78 million people, a huge export market for many nation keen to bolster its treasuries, and has major strategically valuable commodities – oil and gas – that people are keen to buy.

The tighter the sanctions, the more likely that Iran and its trading partners will seek innovative ways around them. In effect, by putting the screws on this important country (Iran is today the head of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement and increasingly protected by the emerging BRICS economies), the US is encouraging the development of alternative financial and economic practices that will fundamentally undermine – perhaps even destroy – its own global order.

Every global power throughout history has ended its reign at the hands of an adversary, whether on the battlefield or in a grand power play that goes wrong. What Washington rightfully fears is that its three-decade-long tussle with the Islamic Republic is unwinnable – which is nothing short of defeat for the world's last superpower.

Unable to get off its current trajectory of escalation, the US continues to seek new, illogical, increasingly indefensible ways to squeeze Iran’s population. But the fact is that sanctions simply don’t work: Iran is not going to stop its nuclear enrichment. Iranians aren’t going to eject their government.

This will not end well for the US. Iran...I’m not so worried about.

This is the second in a two-part series on my 2012 research trips to Iran to discover what makes the Islamic Republic so resilient in the face of Western economic and political pressures. You can read Part 1, “Why Arabs Need Iran” here.

 

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.

Pretenses of Sovereignty and Democracy: Liberals and NDP Unite to Throw BC's Lot in with the Globalists

What the Heck Are John Horgan and the NDP Thinking?!

by Rafe Mair - The Canadian.org

Ok, John Horgan (BC NDP Energy critic), now I’m pissed off. You were quoted in the Vancouver Sun this week as saying you’re unhappy that the NDP lost, etc, weep, sob.

Here it is in plain, unadorned English: I TOLD YOU SO! In fact, my advice to you and your party has been constant and goes back to Bob Skelly’s day. The fact is that politics is a blood sport – not just in BC but everywhere and in politics as in baseball. Lou Durocher was right – “nice guys finish last”. Who the hell made the decision to ignore the Liberals' appalling record? Defeated candidate Harry Lali, when I spoke to him weeks before the election, agreed with me that the election policy of the NDP was calculated to lose.

Who ran this show? Moe Sihota? Was perpetual loser Gerry Scott back? Or was it former Liberal communications director/Enbidge lobbyist/bottom pincher Ken Boessenkool?

Yes, I’m going to be a bit self-centred today, but I’m entitled. Who established the nice guy, new petty policy-a-day technique? I called it, with indelicacy but truth, a fart a day. Meanwhile, your opponent stuck to one simple, effective narrative.

Now, Mr. Horgan, to the meat of the matter. Those British Columbians uncommitted to either party were, like me and the Common Sense Canadian, not pulling for you because we love the NDP. For the most part, we didn’t give a rat’s ass for any of the parties. We wanted to save our province from the ravages of large industry, bound and determined to ignore out environment.

Where were you – yes, John, you especially? Where were you on fish farms? Where were you on pipelines? Oil tankers? What of private power?

Let’s deal with the latter for a moment. You know what has happened and continues to happen to our rivers as Independent Power Producers (IPPs) dam them, dry them up as fish try to spawn, then sell their electricity to BC Hydro at double or more the market price. You knew better than most that BC Hydro is technically bankrupt, only alive because it can raise our rates.

Ponder that Mr. Horgan – the jewel in BC’s tiara tossed away, and you and your party virtually leave the issue alone!

Coming out against Kinder Morgan didn’t kill you – it was the timing and manner of Mr. Dix’s announcement that did the damage.

Your position on “fracking” and creation therefrom of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) was bewildering to say the least. The environmental movement around the world and most scientists in this field are urging, “Go slow! Let’s get answers to some very serious concerns before we hurtle ourselves into this free-for-all”.

On the economic side of LNG, where is the market going to be? China, which has enough natural gas to last 500 years? The US that’s awash with the stuff? What about our competion - Australia, Poland, Russia, which has the biggest gas reserves in the world?

According to the Premier, the $8 BILLION+ going into Site “C” would be used to supply the LNG industry. And you support that?

In fact, what you and the opposition did, by inference at least, is support Premier Clark’s absurd notion that by 2017 LNG will have us debt free, with $100 Billion or so in a "Prosperity Fund".

The real point is the NDP spat out issues as if they were of equal importance. As I say, sir, a fart a day.

What you did was let down British Columbians who couldn’t care less about political parties but looked to you to save us from the corporate bulldozer.

In fact, the NDP abandoned the position that oppositions traditionally occupy in a democracy. “The duty”, said Lord Randolph Churchill, “of the opposition is to oppose”. This is the only way full knowledge of issues can be attained. Part of that job is to be a government in waiting – in fact you weren’t even an opposition in waiting.

If it weren’t for this terrible “first past the post” system we have, the alternative government would be the Green Party. They alone of the opposition parties hit the issues.

You owe the people of British Columbia, of all political stripes, a huge apology for a gutless election where the government got a free ride.


Rafe Mair was a B.C. MLA 1975 to 1981, Minister of Environment from late 1978 through 1979. Since 1981 he has been a radio talk show host, and is recognized as one of B.C.'s pre-eminent journalists.
Website: rafeonline.com/

The Tricoteuse Take Their Places: Off with Their Heads!

Off with Their Heads

by Luke Hiken - Progressive Avenues

The French were right: the best way to deal with the rich is to behead them - at least figuratively, if not physically. Opposing capital punishment does not mean that the ruling class, i.e. the rich, should be exempt from punishment or consequences for their crimes against the poor – it only means that unnecessary killing is unwarranted. By disenfranchising the rich, distributing their money to the people they have stolen it from, and ensuring that they will be powerless to commit similar crimes in the future, the guillotine can remain a bloody remnant of history, instead of a portent for the future.

In this day and age, it is the rich, and not the poor, who use weapons of mass destruction, drones, special operations forces, military coups, and other vehicles of violence to dominate and protect their interests. The rest of the dispossessed people of the world are and will continue to be pawns and victims of ruling class oppression until the balance of wealth and power is unalterably shifted.

For some ungodly reason, we in America adore the rich. They fill the social columns of our newspapers, dominate the nightly news, and enthrall us with their wealth and power. The sycophants and media propagandists endlessly inundate us with the latest news about Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Warren Buffet, the Koch Brothers, Goldman Sachs, or the other pigs of the moment. When the glorification and deification of the rich is completed, the news switches to subjects more appropriate for the poor and the rest of us: crime, sexual deviance, gang warfare, or the other failures of "our" class.

The poet, Roger Bly, in his work 'Anger Against Children,' describes the contradiction eloquently:

Our children live with a fear at school and in the house.

The mother and father do not protect the younger child from the savagery

of the others.

Parents don't want to face the children's rage,

Because the parents are also in rage.

This is the rage that shouts at children.

This is the rage than cannot be satisfied.

….

So the rage goes inward at last,

It ends in doubt, in self-doubt, dyeing the hair, and love of celebrities.

The rage comes to rest at last in the talk show late at night,

When the celebrities without anger or grief tell us that only the famous are

good, only they live well.

Instead of demonizing the rich, and recognizing the devastating impact they have on the community, on nations throughout the world, on working people, on our environment, and on every aspect of human life as we know it, we treat them as “lucky” or “skilful” or “deserving” because they work “so hard” or effectively. We praise them, and seek to emulate their successes and “importance to business” and the community. What nonsense and garbage! These are murdering bastards, who should be prevented immediately, from preying further upon people everywhere. The “1%,” as they are referred to by the Occupy Movement, are poisoning the entire community.

It is obvious that you can’t control the rich by “taxing” them. They own the Congress, and write the tax codes to protect their wealth, and protect them from having to share their wealth with the public. You can’t “regulate” their corporate profits or abuses, because they define the regulations, and immunize themselves from liability or responsibility for their misbehavior. You can’t vote them out of office, because they own the electoral process, and buy the candidates for both of the so-called political parties – institutions that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the rich. The very concept of “democracy” is a charade and a farce in this country, and nobody but media whores even pretend that the people of this country have any control whatsoever over their livelihoods or future.

Challenging the authority of the rich to control every aspect of our lives results in unending criminal prosecutions, which is why we have the largest prison population in the history of the world. Torture, murder, and “deportation” are the consequences of opposing the rich, and attempts to limit their abuses are met with the most draconian penalties known to society. The fascist judges appointed by decades of Republicans and bought-off Democrats obey every command issued by the rich. No country in the history of the world has had more police, military personnel or mercenaries than the U.S.A. We have become the essence of the police state we fought against in World War II.

What those who glorify the rich don’t realize is how much damage they cause to the rest of the world. As beneficiaries of worldwide imperialism, the citizens of the U.S. are the last to understand the implications of our international carnage. It would be impossible to count the number of democratically elected regimes that the U.S. has overthrown internationally. For the last 80 years, we have financed, supported, and carried out coups against any nation that would not do the bidding of U.S. capital. We have done to the world what we did to the Native Americans of this country: annihilated any and all opposition.

The impact that our imperialism has had on the rest of the world is unimaginable: rather than allowing the rest of the world’s people to live in peace and democracy, we have subjected them to same form of ruling class ownership that we have allowed here at home. And the fools who watch Fox News can’t figure out “why they hate us.”

But recently, in the very heart of America, poor people are feeling the whips of ruling class greed and brutality: homelessness, unemployment, lack of adequate health care, the disappearance of public education are all on the rise. Poverty abounds, while the rich bask in their obscene wealth. The majority of Americans understand that power must be challenged in this country, it is just that nobody knows how to do it. The rich are so murderous and violent that any and all opposition is crushed instantaneously, and mercilessly. As revolutionaries throughout history have learned, though, at some point the only way to survive is to fight back.

The fact is that allowing the rich to hoard the wealth and power in this country results in the impoverishment of everyone else. It is criminal, violent, and unjustified. That is so regardless of what the American media says. No individual, however sick or insane, could cause the level of devastation and anguish caused by the Pentagon, our national police state, or our local police forces. If we don’t get control over what the rich are doing to the world, and us, there won’t be an earth left to protect, let alone a democracy.

The rich don’t “create jobs,” they don’t “build the economy,” and they don’t “protect the nation.” They steal from the poor, destroy the economy of the nation, and wage war against all those who don’t give them everything they want and need. That isn’t citizenship, that is treason! Terrorists are small potatoes when compared to the harm caused by the billionaires of the world.

It is time for people to recognize their real enemies, and wage the sort of “permanent war” against them that the rich wage against the rest of us.


Luke Hiken is an attorney who has engaged in the practice of criminal, military, immigration, and appellate law.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 12, 2013
Progressive Avenues
Contact: Marti Hiken
martihiken@comcast.net

Rush's Drive-Time Mouth Shooting and Freedom of Speech

Limbaugh Mocks Freedom of Speech

by Joel S. Hirschhorn - Delusional Democracy

By now most people know that though it is perfectly fine to shout fire in a packed theater if there really is a fire, even constitutionally protected freedom of speech does not allow such behavior if there is no fire. It is now clear that Rush Limbaugh is doing exactly the same as shouting fire when none is present during most of his radio rants. He feels no obligation whatsoever to have a factual basis for spewing forth the most inflammatory statements imaginable. Single-handedly, he is one of the most powerful forces destroying the American political system and, indeed, our democracy. It is nonsense to shrug him off as merely an entertainer.

During my daily car ride to run errands I listened to the Rush Limbaugh radio show the other day and was truly stunned by the declaration that right now there is a coup d’etat by the Obama administration. Limbaugh is the master of public idiocy. But this assertion is beyond all previous nutty, totally wrong and intentionally provocative Limbaugh statements. Why make it? The only obvious answer is that he wants to infuriate his large audience of right wing nuts, to feed their fear, paranoia and hatred.

By any definition of coup d’etat on any dictionary website or Wikipedia there is absolutely no objective, correct information that the Obama administration is right now pursuing a rebellion, revolution, uprising or overthrow of the legally and constitutionally defined structure of the US government. Nor, as is usually the interpretation, is there any sign whatsoever of violence being used to take over the US government. Does Limbaugh totally ignore the ongoing power of the Congress and Supreme Court and the entire federal judicial system? Or even the massive military establishment?

Is there any way to give credibility to the Limbaugh assertion that right now there is a coup d’etat going on? I challenge others to come to the aid of Limbaugh.

Yes, there are a series of media hyped scandals going on. But not one of them rises to the level of a violent coup d’etat by some small but powerful group of political insiders wrenching control of the entire federal government. If you think that Limbaugh is correct, then you are either insane or an idiot, or perhaps just one of the information-poor citizens that Limbaugh constantly talks about. If anything, Limbaugh has single-handedly helped create a mass of information-poor Americans.

As if this coup d’etat nonsense was not enough, within minutes Limbaugh was also blithely asserting that the Obama presidential campaign could have used the many databases that are currently in the news because of activities of the National Security Agency. That’s right, Limbaugh publicly accuses the Obama campaign for data mining that made use of these highly debated secret databases with information on phone calls, Internet use and credit card use. Supposedly explaining why Obama won the presidency. What a wonderful idea to inject like a powerful narcotic directly into the dilapidated minds of the millions of Limbaugh fans.

Limbaugh does not just extrapolate from some facts to an extreme, far right fantasy. He uses the public airways to shout obscenities, sheer crazy assertions that are totally disconnected from reality. I would be so pleased to learn that Limbaugh has a major brain tumor. Preferably inoperable. Otherwise, the logical interpretation is that he is just evil.



Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through:
http://delusionaldemocracy.com

Canada's Contribution to Palestine's Ongoing Nakba

Al Nakba and Canada

by Mazin al Nahawi - Dissident Voice

It is a shame that John Baird and his boss Stephen Harper haven’t learned yet from Canada’s colonial past.

For over a century, the Palestine question has been described as the most complex political issue of our modern time. A very “complicated” equation that after a half of a century of Zionist colonization to set up and establish a colonial “Jewish state” in Palestine, a mathematician, none other than Einstein himself, had something to say about the crimes committed in his name as a Jew, and in the name of Judaism.

In a letter by Einstein to the Zionist, Shepard Rifkin, executive director for “American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, dated April 10, 1948 (the date is very important, it’s only a month before the illegal creation of the Zionist state in Palestine), he wrote:

Mr. Shepard Rifkin
Dear Sir:

When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the Terrorist organizations build up from our own ranks.

I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.

Sincerely yours,
(Signed, ‘A. Einstein’)

It didn’t require more than three lines to solve this “complex” matter, and it seems that Einstein was very confident in naming the culprits for the “catastrophe in Palestine”, as he precisely described it. One month after that letter, the Palestinian Arabs began to call the day of the creation of the Israeli occupation state, which consisted of the robbery of their homeland and existence, as AL NAKBA (Cataclysm or Catastrophe). That was 65 years ago.

The fact that someone like Einstein could figure out such a complicated issue can not eliminate the complexity of the matter. Indeed, Palestinians are still waiting, because 65 years was not enough for most of the “civilized world” to understand the Palestinian struggle for liberation and justice and to acknowledge its root causes.

Unlike the Zionist sympathizers, apologists and propagandists nowadays, the Zionist leadership who committed genocide against the indigenous Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a “Jewish state” in a land that originally had less than 3.5 % Jewish population by 1880s1, were more frank about the colonial nature of their Zionist project, and from its beginning and early formation stages.

Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian, journalist and the father of the political Zionist movement, wrote in his diary:

We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.2

More sickening, and in order to accomplish his fantasy plan and “buy” Palestine from the Turks, Herzl was ready to exploit the Turkish crimes against the Armenians and “to influence the European press (in London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna) to handle the Armenian question in a spirit more friendly to the Turks.” 3 In his admission, he used his profession and betrayed his integrity as a journalist. A journalist must have principles, morals, integrity and honesty, and Herzl, at his best, was an excellent professional propagandist.

Russian colonialist Chaim Weizmann, the first president of the Zionist state, in an address to the English Zionist Federation on September 19, 1919:

By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American.4

Concerning the issue of Palestine’s native population, Weizmann, in his remarks about the 1917 Balfour declaration, on record with the Jewish Agency Executive, stated:

With regard to the Arab question – the British told me that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but that this matter has no significance. 5

The British colonialists were not less racist toward the Arab Palestinians. They had already sponsored and incorporated the Zionist colonization in their own imperial project to dominate the East Mediterranean strategic position and secure the on-going theft of its resources. Balfour, the author of the shameful Balfour Declaration, explained the British position toward the natives of Palestine:

For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right. 6

Of course, the natives who suddenly inhabited Balfour’s “ancient land“ and their whole existence are only a matter of “desire and prejudices” and for the sake of humanity they needed to be expelled to open the door for Britain’s new 20th Century Crusade and expand its imperial needs.

Another Russian colonialist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the icon of the Zionist right wing, explained the Zionist aims in Palestine in his article “The Iron Wall”. He wrote:

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in total, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts. 7

For Jabotinsky it was just another European settler colonization, like the United States, Canada or Australia. He was aware of Zionism as a colonial adventure with direct brutal assault against the indigenous natives. He stated:

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.” He added later: “Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”. 8

Moshe Dayan, a Zionist war criminal who helped form the Haganah gangs, and participated in organizing the terror and massacres against the Palestinians to expel them from their ancestors’ land, in a rare confession said:

Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before [the Palestinians'] very eyes we are possessing the land and villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived … We are the generation of colonizers, and without the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home. 9

Finally, David Ben Gurion, the main director of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, in a letter to his son in 1937, stated:

We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places ­ then we have force at our disposal.10

The conscience of that Polish colonist surprisingly developed later when he told Nahum Goldman president of the World Jewish Congress:

“I don’t understand your optimism,” Ben-Gurion declared. “Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is NATURAL: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism: 11 the Nazis, 12 Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it’s simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out. 13

Ben Gurion was an atheist. Still, while admitting to the Zionist theft of Palestine, he managed to talk about an imaginary friend in the sky, God and his “promised land”! And based on a book Ben Gurion published in 1918 in New York, he believed that the Arab natives of Palestine were the “flesh and the blood of old Judeans”,14 yet later when the same natives rejected his “Jewish state” in their land, he did not object to expelling them and stealing their land. Actually, with regard to the Arabs expulsion, he told a meeting of the Jewish Agency:

I don’t see anything immoral in it. 15

Now if I should put all these damning statements and confessions in one sentence to explain why the Palestinians are resisting it would be:

It is the occupation, stupid!

In spite of all of the Zionist leadership literature, writings, documented minutes of cabinet meetings regarding colonization and the plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous Arabs (See Plan Dalet), still Canada has sustained all manner of support for the Zionist project and its racist establishment, including military, while promoting itself as a “fair and peace-loving state”.

Before the Zionists decided on Palestine as a homeland for Jews, in their first conference in Basel 1897, Canadian Evangelicals were already sending their religious colonial settlers and crusades to “prepare” the land for the “return” of the Jews to quicken the Apocalypse. Even before Herzl initiated his efforts to approach the Ottomans, who were themselves occupiers in Palestine, a Canadian Christian Zionist, Henry Wentworth Monk, was working to accomplish that exact goal, to “buy” Palestine from the Turks.

On the state level, Lester Pearson summarized Canadian foreign policy regarding Palestine. He was a devoted Christian Zionist whose memoirs refer to the Zionist state as “the land of my Sunday school lessons”. 16 The same Sunday religious “lessons” taught him the geography of his imaginary biblical holy land so he knew it “more than the geography of Ontario”. 17 If someone with these qualifications chaired the pivotal United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, there can be no surprise when later the Zionist state was carved out of historical Palestine. Pearson stated:

I have never waivered in my view that a solution to the problem was impossible without the recognition of a Jewish state in Palestine. To me this was always the core of the matter. 18

As if Palestine was a part of Pearson’s family property and the Arab “tenants” having no say. Gandhi, who luckily missed Pearson’s type of “school and lessons,” had the simple common sense which easily debunked the racist mentality of Pearson and his Zionist buddies. Gandhi wrote in September 1938:

The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews, partly or wholly as their national home. 19

It is important to note that Pearson upheld the racist Mackenzie Law which did not allow European Jews fleeing the Holocaust in Europe to enter Canada. His desire to “protect” Jews was not different from Ben Gurion’s who said:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel. 20

Talking of the imaginary history which many Zionists like Ben Gurion and Pearson have used to legitimize their crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Arab Palestinians, Tel Aviv University Professor of Archaeology Ze’ev Herzog summed up the major archaeological findings of 70 years of intensive excavations in Palestine with the following:

The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it.21

The core of the matter for colonialists like Pearson and his overseers in London and Washington is simply to allow greedy corporations, destructive oil and gas companies, to continue their theft of the resources and minerals underneath a “land without people.” “Balfour of Canada” or “Rabbi Pearson”, as many Zionists once called him, said: “Israel may assume an important role in Western defence as the southern pivot of current plans for the defence.” 22 Pearson’s devotion to Zionism did not add much to the nonsensical Zionist colonial narrative. Theodor Herzl already portrayed the prospective “Jewish state” as Europe’s “wall of defense against Asia” and an “outpost of civilisation against barbarism.”23

Let us remember Pearson’s true legacy: he “refused to call for Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, and had Canada deliver weapons to the French to put down the Algerian and Vietnamese independence movements.” 24 Many other atrocities are detailed in Yves Engler’s book, Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping – The Truth may Hurt.

Actually Noam Chomsky outlined what kind of war criminal Pearson was when he wrote in the foreword of Engler’s book:

Lester Pearson was a major criminal, really extreme. He didn’t have the power to be like an American president, but if he’d had it, he would have been the same. He tried. 25

So what John Baird did during his recent visit to Jerusalem, occupied Palestine is nothing but another example of the long bond and co-operation between the Canadian state and the Israeli occupation state.

Another obvious sign of the unconditional support, aid, and cover-up for the racist Israeli apartheid in Palestine, John Baird, still proud of the shameful ties, said:

Let me state at the outset, and for the record, that Israel has no greater friend in the world than Canada. I make that point around the world often. 26

The irony is that Canada refused entry to Jewish refugees who were trying to escape the European Holocaust and helped to block every escape route except Palestine. This same Canada is now claiming to be the greatest friend of the “Jewish state”. Herzl foresaw the help being offered by the anti-Jewish societies who do not accept Jews among themselves, but want them to “return to their ancient homeland”, Palestine. He predicted in his diary that:

The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies.27

The Canadian government has a history of supporting apartheid, along with other destructive policies from mining, to militarism, and backing up big corporations stealing from poor nations. Just ask Haitians about Canada’s part in dismantling and privatizing their country,28 but the Canadian corporate media does a good job of comforting and baby sitting the Canadian audiences.

In the past the Canadian government gave similar support and aid to the other European racist apartheid in South Africa. Nelson Mandela said clearly:

But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.29

Not so in the case of Canada which acts as if it still does not “know” about its continuing complicity with apartheid. Although it was exposed in South Africa, it is still patiently waiting to be exposed in Palestine.

John Baird needs to visit the indigenous “reservations”, the Canadian bantustans style in his “democratic state” and listen to their vocabulary. Words like “Colonization” and “Decolonization” are very common and repeated consistently among the threatened indigenous people inside Canada and outside. Both terms express reality and solution to their struggle. But these words are absent and will never be heard in any of the mainstream corporate media.

A colonialist promoter like Baird should know that he is not welcome in Jerusalem, occupied Palestine, nor in Canada State if it were up to the indigenous people.

But unlike Einstein’s brain, the Zionist brains of Pearson, Harper and Baird are the average abnormal brains in the Canadian government, never evolved from their colonial racist limited mentality.

In 1904 a Canadian Christian Zionist called Reverend Lucas, who had qualifications to be a Sunday school teacher anywhere in Canada, wrote a book called Canada and Canaan, and in it he made this amazing note:

Canada instead of Canaan! Moses would have danced with joy. 30

Indeed, Canada and the Israeli apartheid in Canaan/Palestine are nothing but twin colonial settler states built on racism, genocide, and dispossession.

The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and The Mandate (Ch 1, Table 1.4D) by Prof Justin McCarthy (Columbia University Press, 1990). [↩]
The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 1, p. 88. [↩]
The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.387. [↩]
Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, by Nur Masalha, p. 41. And The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann: August 1898-July 1931, by Chaïm Weizmann, p. 257. [↩]
Chaim Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, by Noam Chomsky, p481. Source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140]. [↩]
Crossroads to Israel 1917-1948, by Christopher Sykes, (1965, reprinted Indiana University Press, Bloomingtron, IN, 1973), p. 5. [↩]
The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs. 1923. [↩]
Ibid. [↩]
The Iron Wall, by Avi Shlaim, p. 101. [↩]
See the full English translation of Ben-Gurion’s letter. The original Hebrew (from the Ben-Gurion Archives) – Source: Journal of Palestine Studies. [↩]
The word “Semitic” is an adjective derived from “Shem”, one of the three sons of “Noah” in the Biblical mythology (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21). The term was first coined by a German “historian” theologist August Ludwig von Schlözer in Eichhorn’s “Repertorium”, vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Schlözer used the term to refer to the languages related to “Hebrew”, which is nothing but an appropriation of a square Aramaic (See: Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean, by Basem L. Ra’ad.) The term “antisemitism” was first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904), a German racist nationalist Journalist, who created it in 1879 to describe the anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe. Ironically the Zionists themselves carry on the same term. [↩]
See: The Zionist-Nazi Collaboration, by William James Martin. [↩]
The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldman, 1978, p. 99. [↩]
David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz Israel in the Past and in the Present, 1918. [↩]
Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris, p. 144. [↩]
Personal Policy Making: Canada’s Role in the Adoption of the Palestine Partition Resolution, by Eliezer Tauber, p. 84. [↩]
Ibid [↩]
The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by David Taras, p. 129. [↩]
The Jews In Palestine, by Mahatma Gandhi. Published in the Harijan 26-11-1938. [↩]
The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, by Tom Segev, Henry Holt and Co., New York, First Owl Books Edition 2000, p. 28. [↩]
Ha’aretz Magazine, Friday, October 29, 1999 . [↩]
Lester Pearson’s 1952 memo to cabinet. [↩]
One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, by Tom Segev, 2001, p. 150. [↩]
See Yves Engler’s post: “The truth about Lester Pearson”. [↩]
Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping – The Truth May Hurt, by Yves Engler. Publisher: RED Publishing (Mar 15 2012), p. 9. [↩]
Address by Minister Baird to the American Jewish Committee May 3, 2012 – Washington, D.C. [↩]
The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1, p. 84. [↩]
See this article: “Canada’s ‘Right Arm’: FOCAL’s Role in the Privatization of Haiti. And this one: A Very Canadian Coup d’état in Haiti: The Top 10 Ways that Canada’s Government Helped the 2004 Coup and its Reign of Terror. [↩]
From President Mandela’s speech at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, 04 December 1997, Pretoria. [↩]
Lucas, D.V., Canaan and Canada. Toronto: William Briggs, 1904, p. 33. [↩]

- See more at: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/05/al-nakba-and-canada/#sthash.cgvQTwPw.dpuf
]