From mfoster at web.ca Sat Oct 1 10:36:39 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:36:39 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] (fw) Tuesday: Charkaoui challenges deportation of non-citizens to torture Message-ID: <00e101c5c6ae$eaffa9c0$7c2d54c7@CPQ18145226471> from: justiceforadil at riseup.net la version fran?aise suivra... CHARKAOUI CHALLENGES DEPORTATION TO TORTURE FOR IMMIGRANTS ***COURT SOLIDARITY WITH ADIL CHARKAOUI*** Federal Court, 30 McGill, Montreal 4 to 6 October, normally from 9:30 to noon and 1:30 to 4:30 each day Adil Charkaoui will be in court from Tuesday to Thursday to argue that the parts of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which allow the government to threaten him with deportation to torture violate the UN Convention against Torture and his Charter rights. The Immigration Act opens the door to rendition of non-citizens to torture by explicitly excluding people who have fallen under security suspicions from provisions designed to ensure that no one is sent to torture. Adil will argue that the government's actions in keeping him under this threat have been prejudicial to his psychological health and violate his Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person, to protection from cruel and unusual treatment, and to equal treatment under the law. The threat of being sent to torture, under which he and his family have been living for more than two years, is itself a very real form of psychological torture. At the same time, Adil will ask the Judge to recognise that the government's continued efforts to deport him are unconstitutional, in violation of the absolute international ban on deportation to torture. Me. Johanne Doyon, one of Adil's lawyers, will ask to have the security certificate against Adil thrown out. This is the first challenge to deportation to torture under the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act since the Supreme Court's Suresh decision. Please come out to court to show your support for Adil's just demands! Please spread the word and encourage others to come out to support this important step. BACKGROUND The government has been relying on security exceptions in the Immigration Act and citing the Supreme Court Suresh decision, in its efforts to deport Charkaoui and others to torture. In May 2005, the UN Committee against Torture called on Canada to respect article 3 of the Convention against Torture and to revise IRPA to close the torture loop-holes (see below). However, in defiance of the UN, the government has continued its efforts, basing its justification on uncontested, secret evidence gathered by the spy agency CSIS. CSIS has been caught up in fresh scandals over error, abuse and political interference in past weeks. Charkaoui and others remain under the incessant threat of rendition to torture. In the context of the "war on terror", the security certificate and the accompanying mass media attention have made deportation a life-threatening affair for Adil. This risk was recognised by Immigration Canada, who assessed on 21 August 2003 that "there is a probability of torture, of threat to life, and of being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment ..." if he is deported. The Immigration Canada risk assessment was actually hidden from Adil and his family from August 2003 until April 2004, as the government took steps to secure diplomatic assurances which would pave the way for authorities to send him to the torture their own experts had said he would face. In August 2004, the Minister's delegate issued a decision denying Adil protection from deportation, largely on the basis of flimsy assurances from his birth-country that they would not harm him. This decision was withdrawn in embarassment by the Canadian government in March 2005, in circumstances that raised further serious questions about CSIS activities. Adil's case has been in suspension ever since, waiting for the government to come out with a new decision on the protection issue before the court process can resume. Adil was released under severe, "preventive" conditions in February 2005, after almost two years in prison without charge. He is not allowed to leave home without his mother or father, must wear a GPS tracking bracelet at all times, must allow police 24-hour access to his home, cannot communicate directly or indirectly with anyone who has a criminal record, must respect a strict curfew, cannot leave the island of Montreal, and cannot use a computer, cell phone, fax machine, nor any telephone except the one in his home. These conditions and the stress of the continuing threat of rendition to torture have severely hampered his and his family's ability to resume a normal life. The conditions have been imposed on him despite the fact that the security certificate against him has not yet undergone any judicial review - not even the cursory review which passes as a trial in security certificate cases. The movement to abolish security certificates, led by the families of the detainees, is growing: from a week-long march from Montreal to Ottawa in June organised by the Solidarity across Borders network, to increasing numbers of organisations and individuals, in Quebec, Canada and internationally, to UN committees. People are questioning the fact that these cases are being heard under immigration law rather than criminal law. Are non-citizens somehow more dangerous than citizens? If there actually are cases against any of the five men now facing deportation under security certificates (Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, Hassan Almrei, Mohamed Harkat and Adil Charkaoui), why aren't they charged and tried under criminal law, as any citizen suspect would be? Why does anyone have any confidence in a process that relies on uncontested information gathered by CSIS, an agency that could hardly be more discredited? Is indefinite imprisonment for two, three, four, even five years - in the case of Mohammad Mahjoub - under threat of torture, without charge or trial, deprived of basic amenities (proper medical care, an hour a day outside solitary, and touch visits with your children) not itself a form of torture? What would drive someone to the point where they go on 73- or 79-day hunger-strikes to ask for very basic rights, as Hassan Almrei and Mohammad Mahjoub have just done? Security certificates are now being reviewed by a special Parliamentary committee - last week, Amnesty International, Canadian Council for Refugee, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, and the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee all appeared before this Committee to argue against further use of security certificates (their evidence is available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=128793). A constitutional challenge to the security certificate process, launched by Charkaoui, will also be heard by the Supreme Court within the year. Below: 1. Relevant Charter articles 2. Extracts from UN Committee against Torture review of Canada, May 2005 3. Finding of Charkaoui's Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (Immigration Canada) ****************** 1. CHARTER (extracts) ****************** 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. ****************************************************** 2. REPORT FROM UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE (extracts) ****************************************************** CAT/C/CO/34/CAN Committee against Torture 34th session CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture Canada 1. The Committee considered the fourth and fifth periodic reports of Canada (CAT/C/55/Add.8 and CAT/C/81/Add.3, respectively) at its 643rd and 646th meetings, held on 4 and 6 May 2005 (CAT/C/SR.643 and 646) and adopted, at its 658th meeting, the following conclusions and recommendations: ... 4. The Committee expresses its concern at: (a) the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to recognise, at the level of domestic law, the absolute nature of the protection of article 3 of the Convention that is subject to no exceptions whatsoever; ... (c) the blanket exclusion by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 (section 97) of the status of refugee or person in need of protection, for persons falling within the security exceptions set out in the Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocols; as a result, such persons' substantive claims are not considered by the Refugee Protection Division or reviewed by the Refugee Appeal Division; (d) the explicit exception of certain categories of persons posing security or criminal risks from the protection against refoulement provided by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 (section 115, subsection 2, of the Act); (e) the State party's apparent willingness, in the light of the low number of prosecutions for terrorism and torture offences, to resort in the first instance to immigration processes to remove or expel individuals from its territory, thus implicating issues of article 3 of the Convention more readily, rather than subject him or her to the criminal process; ... D. Recommendations 5. The Committee recommends that: (a) the State party should unconditionally undertake to respect the absolute nature of article 3 in all circumstances and fully to incorporate the provision of article 3 into the State party's domestic law; (b) the State party should remove the exclusions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 described in paragraphs (d) and (e) above, and thus extend to currently excluded persons entitlements of status as a protected person and protection against refoulement on account of a danger of torture; ********************************* 3. PRE-REMOVAL RISK ASSESSMENT ********************************* Immigration Canada 21 August 2004 ". there exists a probability of torture, of threat to life, and of being subject to cruel and unusual treatment or sentence if he returns to Morocco." - Pre-removal risk assessment agent, Immigration Canada (21 August 2003 but withheld from Charkaoui until April 2004 (translation)) ******************* MORE DOCUMENTATION: www.adilinfo.org TO JOIN OUR LISTSERV, SEND AN EMAIL TO justiceforadil-subscribe at lists.riseup.net TO REACH US: +1 514 859 9023 or justiceforadil at riseup.net From mfoster at web.ca Sun Oct 2 06:15:37 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:15:37 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] =?iso-8859-1?q?IRAQ=3A_CONF=C9RENCES_3=2C_4_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?et_6_octobre?= Message-ID: <003f01c5c753$8ae2a790$b42d54c7@CPQ18145226471> From: "Projet Solidarite Irak" Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 9:06 AM (English message follows French) S?rie de conf?rences ? Montr?al, les 3, 4 et 6 octobre: OCCUPATION ET ACTION POUR LA PAIX EN IRAK (en anglais, avec traduction vers le fran?ais) Greg Rollins parlera de son travail avec les ?quipes chr?tiennes d'action pour la paix (?CAP) en Irak. ?CAP est une des rares organisations occidentales pour une paix non-violente encore en Irak. Greg d?crira la situation pr?sente sur le terrain en Irak, son travail et les r?centes alliances qu'?CAP a faites en s'entra?nant et en travaillant avec les ?quipes musulmanes d'action pour la paix.. Avec une pr?sentation de diapositives et un temps d'?change. Lundi le 3 octobre, 18h30 -21h Centre communautaire des femmes sud-asiatiques 1035 Rachel Est - 3? ?tage (Christophe Colomb et Rachel, m?tro Sherbrooke) Mardi le 4 octobre 18h30 -21h Paroisse Notre-Dame-de-Gr?ces 5333 avenue Notre-Dame-de-Gr?ces M?tro Villa Maria (marcher sur D?carie vers le sud, puis tourner ? gauche sur Notre-Dame-de-Gr?ces) Jeudi le 6 octobre, 19h30 8789 Berri (? deux pas du m?tro Cr?mazie, sortie nord) Greg Rollins, 32 ans, de Surrey, Colombie Britannique, a ?t? volontaire ? temps plein avec les ?quipes chr?tiennes d'action pour la paix (?CAP) pendant 4 ans. La derni?re ann?e et demie, il a travaill? avec ?CAP ? Bagdad en enqu?tant sur les effets de l'occupation sur le peuple irakien, en escortant les Irakiens et les Irakiennes cherchant des membres de leurs familles qui ont ?t? arr?t?s par les forces de s?curit?s ou qui sont "disparus" et en travaillant avec les ?quipes musulmanes d'action pour la paix. nouvellement form?es. En Irak, Greg est all? ? Falloujah, Nadjaf, Kerbala et Sadr City. Comme membre de l'?quipe ?CAP en Cisjordanie, il a accompagn? des ?coliers et des fermiers palestiniens et il a travaill? avec des groupes de paix isra?liens et palestiniens. Il a ?t? arr?t? par les militaires isra?liens en mai 2003 'pour s'?tre trouv? du c?t? palestinien d'H?bron'. En mars 2004, le gouvernement isra?lien l'a banni d?finitivement d'Isra?l (et de la Palestine occup?e). Les ?quipes chr?tiennes d'action pour la paix (?CAP) est un programme ocum?nique international de r?duction de la violence, qui place des ?quipes entra?n?es ? la non violence dans des r?gions de conflits arm?s. ?CAP a pr?sentement des ?quipes actives en Palestine, en Colombie et en Irak. En Am?rique du Nord, ?CAP a des projets dans le d?sert d'Arizona o? des centaines de travailleurs migrants meurent en tentant de traverser la fronti?re ?-U?Mexique, et ? K?nora, Ontario o? les r?sidents Anishinaabe et les visiteurs font face ? des traitements racistes. Organis? par : Objection de conscience (OCVC), Pasto Sociale Ahuntsic, R?seau de Grand Montr?al pour la paix, Voix des femmes (Qu?bec), Centre de ressources sur la non-violence. Pour plus d'INFORMATION ? www.cpt.org ===================== ENGLISH BEGINS HERE > =================Series of talks in Montreal, > > October 3, 4, and 6 : > > OCCUPATION AND ACTION FOR PEACE IN IRAQ > > Greg Rollins will talk about his work with Christian Peacemaker Teams > (CPT) in Iraq. CPT is one of the few Western non-violent peace > organizations remaining in Iraq. Greg will describe the present situation > on the ground in Iraq, his work and the recent alliances CPT has made in > training and working with Muslim Peacemaker Teams. With a slide > presentation and time for questions and answers. > > Monday October 3, 6:30 -9 p.m. > South Asian Women's Centre > 1035 Rachel St. East - 3rd floor (Sherbrooke Metro, Christophe Colomb > and Rachel) > > Tuesday October 4, 6:30 - 9 p.m. > Paroisse Notre-dame de Grace > 5333 avenue Notre-Dame-de-Grace > Villa Maria Metro ( walk one block south on Decarie then left on > Notre-Dame-de-Grace (parking available) > Thursday October 6, 7:30 p.m. 8789 Berri (Close to Cr?mazie metro, exit north) > Greg Rollins, 32 from Surrey, B.C., has been a full-time volunteer with > Christian Peacemakers Teams (CPT) for four years. . For the last year and > a half he has worked on the CPT team in Baghdad documenting the effects of > the occupation on the Iraqi people, escorting Iraqis looking for family > members who have been arrested by security forces or have "disappeared" , > and working with the newly formed Muslim Peacemaker Teams. Greg's travels > in Iraq include Falluja, Najaf, Karbala and Sadr City. > As a member of the CPT team in the West Bank, he accompanied Palestinian > school children and farmers, and worked with Israeli and Palestinian peace > groups. He was arrested by the Israeli military in May of 2003 "for being > in the Palestinian side of Hebron." In March 2004 the Israeli government > banned him from returning to Israel (and occupied Palestine). > > Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) is an ecumenical and international > violence reduction program that places teams trained in nonviolence in > regions of lethal conflict. CPT currently has teams active in Palestine, > Colombia and Iraq. In North America, CPT has projects in the Arizona > desert where hundreds of migrant workers are dying in the attempt to cross > the US-Mexico border, and in Kenora, Ontario where Anishinaabe residents > and visitors encounter racist treatment. > > Organised by: Voices of Conscience, Peace Network of Greater Montreal, > Voice of Women (Quebec), Centre de ressources sur la non-violence > > For more INFORMATION ? www.cpt.org From mfoster at web.ca Sun Oct 2 14:34:07 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:34:07 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] "US forces 'out of control', says Reuters chief" By Julia Day, The Guardian, September 28, 2005 Message-ID: <022601c5c7a0$e24e8a60$b42d54c7@CPQ18145226471> > Article from The Guardian on American troops being "out of control" in Iraq. > > Ed Corrigan > > *US forces 'out of control', says Reuters chief* > > *Julia Day > Wednesday September 28, 2005* > > Reuters has told the US government that American forces' conduct towards > journalists in Iraq is "spiralling out of control" and preventing full > coverage of the war reaching the public. > > The detention and accidental shootings of journalists is limiting how > journalists can operate, wrote David Schlesinger, the Reuters global > managing editor, in a letter to Senator John Warner, head of the armed > services committee. > > The Reuters news service chief referred to "a long parade of disturbing > incidents whereby professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully > detained, and/or illegally abused by US forces in Iraq". > > Mr Schlesinger urged the senator to raise the concerns with Defence > Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is due to testify to the committee this > Thursday. > > He asked Mr Warner to demand that Mr Rumsfeld resolve these issues "in a > way that best balances the legitimate security interests of the US > forces in Iraq and the equally legitimate rights of journalists in > conflict zones under international law". > > At least 66 journalists and media workers, most of them Iraqis, have > been killed in the country since March 2003. > > US forces admitted killing three Reuters journalists, most recently > soundman Waleed Khaled, who was shot by American soldiers on August 28 > while on assignment in Baghdad. But the military said the soldiers were > justified in opening fire. Reuters believes a fourth journalist working > for the agency, who died in Ramadi last year, was killed by a US sniper. > > *'A serious chilling effect on the media'* > > "The worsening situation for professional journalists in Iraq directly > limits journalists' abilities to do their jobs and, more importantly, > creates a serious chilling effect on the media overall," Mr Schlesinger > wrote. > > "By limiting the ability of the media to fully and independently cover > the events in Iraq, the US forces are unduly preventing US citizens from > receiving information ... and undermining the very freedoms the US says > it is seeking to foster every day that it commits US lives and US dollars." > > Mr Schlesinger said the US military had refused to conduct independent > and transparent investigations into the deaths of the Reuters > journalists, relying instead on inquiries by officers from the units > responsible, who had exonerated their soldiers. > > He noted that the US military had failed to implement recommendations by > its own inquiry into the death of award-winning Palestinian cameraman > Mazen Dana, who was shot dead while filming outside Abu Ghraib prison in > August 2003. > > He said that Reuters and other reputable international news > organisations were concerned by the "sizeable and rapidly increasing > number of journalists detained by US forces". > > He said detentions were prompted by legitimate journalistic activity > such as possessing photographs and video of insurgents, which US > soldiers assumed showed sympathy with the insurgency. > > Earlier this week Reuters demanded the release of a freelance Iraqi > cameraman after a secret tribunal ordered that he be detained indefinitely. > > Samir Mohammed Noor, a freelance cameraman working for Reuters, was > arrested by Iraqi troops at his home in the northern town of Tal Afar > four months ago. > > A US military spokesman has told the agency that a secret hearing held > last week had found him to be "an imperative threat to the coalition > forces and the security of Iraq". > > The news agency has demanded that he be released or given a chance to > defend himself in open court. > > The US network CBS has raised concerns over the arrest of its cameraman, > Abdul Amir Younes, who was arrested in hospital in April after he was > shot by US troops. > > CBS said it is concerned that he had no legal representation at the > hearing and has had no chance to see the evidence against him. > > *?* To contact the MediaGuardian newsdesk email > editor at mediaguardian.co.uk or phone > 020 7239 9857 > > *?* If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly > "for publication". From jaggi at resist.ca Mon Oct 3 01:55:10 2005 From: jaggi at resist.ca (Jaggi Singh) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Saturday: Montreal Against the Wall! Oppose the Israeli Apartheid Wall (October 8, 1-3pm) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:20:58 -0700 (PDT) From: ISM Montreal [Please post and forward widely.] MONTREAL AGAINST THE WALL! -> OPPOSE THE ISRAELI APARTHEID WALL -> SOLIDARITY WITH THE ?FENCE INTIFADA? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Awareness-raising picket in Montreal SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2005 1pm-3pm Corner of McGill College and Ste-Catherine (metro McGill) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Picket will include flyers, speeches, and a replica of the Israeli Apartheid Wall. Join us! Organized and endorsed by The International Solidarity Movement (ISM)-Montreal, The Coalition for Justice and Peace in Palestine (CJPP), Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR)-Concordia, SPHR-McGill, The Canadian Palestine Foundation of Quebec, Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU) and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. Montreal-area residents will continue their campaign against Israel's Apartheid Wall this Saturday with an awareness picket in the heart of downtown Montreal. The picket will include a replica of the Apartheid Wall. Montreal's action is in solidarity with the ongoing resistance to the construction of the Apartheid Wall in the towns and villages of Palestine itself in what has been dubbed the "fence intifada". Members of Montreal's International Solidarity Movement (ISM) have participated in actions against the Wall, and for the free movement of Palestinians, since 2002, with Montreal delegates witnessing actions in cities like Nablus and Qalqilya, as well as villages such as Biddu, Jayyous and Bil'in. While the recent removal of illegal Jewish-only settlements in Gaza captured international headlines, the Israeli government continues to illegally confiscate land in the West Bank, including around Jerusalem, with the building of the Apartheid Wall. The international attention on the long-overdue removal of Gaza's illegal settlements has allowed the Israeli authorities to entrench their settlements on the West Bank, as well as to draw attention away from the daily popular resistance by Palestinians to the Wall. In May of this year, Uday Mofeed, 14, and Jamal Jaber, 15, were shot dead while protesting against the Wall in the village of Beit Liqya (see http://stopthewall.org/latestnews/913.shtml). This August 12, 500 villagers protested against the Apartheid Wall in Azzoun, where 9 youth were shot with rubber-coated bullets by Israeli soldiers (see http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2005/08/13/azzoun-burns-2/). Since construction of the Wall began in the summer of 2002, Palestinians have consistently resisted their further dispossession. If completed, the entire Apartheid Wall network, including the Jordan Valley, will de facto annex some 47% of the West Bank. The Wall isolates Palestinian communities into bantustans, enclaves and military prisons, while cutting off villagers from their fields and groves. The Apartheid Wall is part of a strategy of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Israeli state. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled the Apartheid Wall illegal on July 9, 2004, and demanded its dismantlement. However, the Canadian government showed its complicity with the policies of the Israeli government by abstaining at a UN vote to condemn the illegal Apartheid Wall (150 nations voted to oppose the Wall). Saturday's picket will be in solidarity with ongoing Palestinian resistance to the Apartheid Wall, and will also endorse the four demands of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign: 1) The immediate cessation of the building of the Wall; 2) The dismantling of all parts of the Wall and its related zones already built; 3) The return of lands confiscated for the path of the Wall; 4) The compensation of damages and lost income due to the destruction of land and property in addition to the restitution of land. According to the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign: "These calls are firmly grounded in the context of the struggle against Israeli Colonization, Apartheid and Occupation, and for Palestinian rights and self-determination." We further call on the Canadian government to adhere to the July 9, 2004 ICJ ruling to dismantle the Wall by actively opposing the Apartheid Wall and demanding compensation to those harmed by it. --> For more information about the Montreal action against the Wall, please contact 514-848-7583 or e-mail ism-montreal at resist.ca --> For more information about the Apartheid Wall and Palestinian resistance to it, consult: http://www.stopthewall.org http://www.palsolidarity.org http://www.thewallmustfall.ca -> The MONTREAL AGAINST THE WALL pickets will continue this fall and winter. Pickets will also take place on November 12 (as part of the International Week Against the Apartheid Wall) and December 10 (International Human Rights Day). --- ISM-MONTREAL 514-848-7583 ism-montreal at resist.ca http://www.ismcanada.org From jaggi at resist.ca Mon Oct 3 01:55:22 2005 From: jaggi at resist.ca (Jaggi Singh) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Samedi: Montreal contre le Mur! Piquetage contre le Mur de l'apartheid israelien (le 8 octobre, 13h) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:21:08 -0700 (PDT) From: ISM Montreal [SVP diffusez partout dans vos r?seaux] MONTR?AL CONTRE LE MUR ! -> NON AU MUR DE L?APARTHEID ISRA?LIEN -> SOLIDARIT? AVEC ? L?INTIFADA DE LA CLOTURE ? :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Piquetage & sensibilisation ? Montr?al SAMEDI LE 8 OCTOBRE 2005 De 13 heures ? 15 heures Au coin des rues McGill College et Sainte-Catherine (m?tro McGill) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Le piquetage incluera la distribution de tracts, des discours et une maquette du Mur de l'apartheid isra?lien. L'action est organis?e et endoss?e par le Mouvement de Solidarit? internationale (MSI), la Coalition pour la Justice et la Paix en Palestine (CJPP), Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR-Concordia, SPHR-McGill), la Fondation canado-palestinienne du Qu?bec (FCPQ), Unit? palestinienne et juive (PAJU) et Canadiens pour la Justice et la Paix au Moyen-Orient. Des citoyens montr?alais continueront leur campagne contre le Mur de l'apartheid isra?lien en organisant une ligne de piquetage et de sensibilisation au coeur du centre-ville. La ligne de piquetage, qui incluera aussi une r?plique du Mur de l'apartheid, se veut un geste de solidarit? avec la r?sistance face ? la construction de ce mur dans les villes et villages au coeur de la Palestine m?me: une r?sistance qui persiste, maintenant devenue ? intifada de la cl?ture ?. Depuis 2002, des membres du Mouvement de solidarit? internationale (MSI) de Montr?al ont particip? ? de telles actions, et luttent pour la libert? de mouvement des PalestinienNEs en g?n?ral; des d?l?gu?Es montr?alais ont ?t? les t?moins de ces actions dans des villes telles que Qalqilya et Naplouse, ainsi que dans des villages tels que Biddu, Jayyous et Bil'in. Tandis que le d?mant?lement de colonies ill?gales et exclusivement juives ont capt? l'attention des m?dias ? travers le monde, le gouvernement isra?lien poursuit ses politiques de confiscation de terres palestiennes en Cisjordanie, notamment dans la r?gion de J?rusalem, par la construction du Mur. Toute cette attention internationale sur le retrait fort retard? des colonies ill?gales de la bande de Gaza a permis aux autorit?s isra?liennes de renforcer d'une part les colonies de la Cisjordanie et, d'autre part, de faire oublier la r?sistance populaire et quotidienne des PalestinienNEs face au Mur. Au mois de mai dernier, Uday Mofeed, 14 ans, et Jamal Jaber, 15 ans, ont ?t? abattus alors qu'ils manifestaient contre le Mur dans le village de Beit Liqya (voir http://stopthewall.org/latestnews/913.shtml). Le 12 ao?t 2005, alors que 500 villageoisEs manifestaient contre le Mur de l'apartheid ? Azzoun, 9 jeunes ont ?t? atteints par des balles enrob?es de caoutchouc tir?es par l'arm?e isra?lienne (voir http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2005/08/13/azzoun-burns-2/). Depuis le d?but de la construction du Mur, en 2002, les PalestienNEs ont constamment r?sist? ? cette poursuite de leur d?possession. Si compl?t?, le r?seau entier du Mur de l'apartheid, incluant la vall?e du Jourdain, aurait pour effet d'annexer de facto 47% de la Cisjordanie. Le Mur isole les PalestinienNEs, contraint les communaut?s ? vivre dans des esp?ces de bantoustans, enclaves ou prisons militaires, tout en coupant les villages de leurs champs et plantations. Le Mur de l'apartheid fait partie prenante de la strat?gie de nettoyage ethnique des PalestinienNEs par l'?tat isra?lien. La Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) a d?clar? le Mur de l'apartheid ill?gal lors d'un jugement rendu le 9 juillet 2004. Malgr? cela, le gouvernement canadien a plut?t montr? sa complicit? avec les politiques du gouvernement isra?lien en choisissant de s'abstenir lors d'un vote ? l'ONU pour condamner le Mur (150 pays se sont oppos?s au Mur). L'action de samedi se veut une action en solidarit? avec la r?sistance continue des PalestinienNEs face au Mur, et appuie les quatre demandes de la Campagne populaire contre le Mur de l'apartheid, soit : 1) Cessation imm?diate de la construction du Mur ; 2) D?mant?lement de toutes les portions d?j? construites, et de leurs zones d?pendantes ; 3) Retour des terres confisqu?es pour permettre le trac? du Mur; 4) Compensation pour les dommages caus?s et la perte de revenus due ? la destruction des terres et de la propri?t?, en plus du retour de ces terres. Selon la Campagne : ? Ces demandes sont solidement ancr?es dans le contexte de la lutte contre la colonisation isra?lienne, contre l'Apartheid et l'Occupation, et pour les droits et l'auto-d?termination des PalestinienNEs. ? Nous demandons de plus au gouvernement canadien d'adh?rer au jugement de la CIJ du 9 juillet 2004, de s'opposer activement au Mur de l'apartheid isra?lien et d'exiger une compensation pour ceux et celles que ce Mur a l?s?. --> Pour plus d'information sur le Mur de l'apartheid en Israel et sur la r?sistance palestinienne face ? ce projet, consultez : http://www.stopthewall.org http://www.palsolidarity.org http://www.thewallmustfall.ca --> La CAMPAGNE MONTR?ALAISE CONTRE LE MUR continuera son piquetage en automne et en hiver. Des lignes auront aussi lieu le 12 novembre (dans le cadre de la Semaine internationale contre le Mur de l?Apartheid) et le 10 d?cembre. --- MSI-MONTR?AL 514-848-7583 ism-montreal at resist.ca http://www.ismcanada.org From mfoster at web.ca Wed Oct 5 05:22:42 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] (fw) An Open Letter to the Directors of Alternatives from a Former Alternatives Intern] Message-ID: <003801c5c9a7$8be6d750$df2d54c7@CPQ18145226471> ----- Original Message ----- From: > > > *Please Forward* > > An Open Letter to the Directors of Alternatives from a Former Alternatives > Intern > > As a former intern who has participated in two internships with > Alternatives in Senegal I am writing to express my outrage at the current > position being propagated by Alternatives regarding events in Haiti. While > I have always been aware that Alternatives is not without its faults, I > have supported the organization nonetheless for its solid work providing > Quebecers with what I consider to be badly-needed information and analysis > about issues of political and economic injustices around the world. > However, recent events have caused me to question this assessment to the > extent to which I feel obliged to speak out. This is not simply to 'sling > the mud', but rather is being done in the hopes that Alternatives will > consider changing its dubious and incomprehensible position on Haiti. > > Several weeks ago I received an email containing an article by Haiti > Action Montreal activist Nikolas Barry-Shaw (copied below) entitled "Why > is Alternatives in the same boat as Noriega on Haiti? Mr. Contra and > Montreal-based NGO share same analysis." The article was a critique of an > article by Fran?ois L'Ecuyer entitled "The Militarization of Peace in > Haiti" which Alternatives ran on the front page of their insert in le > Devoir. Barry-Shaw criticized L'Ecuyer and Alternatives for characterizing > the violence currently taking place in Haiti as being the sole product of > deposed elected leader Jean-Bertand Aristide and his supporters in the > Fanmi Lavalas party. In so doing, wrote Barry-Shaw, Alternatives was > repeating the same false characterization of events in Haiti being offered > by those involved in supporting the coup d'?tat against Aristide and the > post-coup regime: the Bush administration; the Canadian and French > governments; the Haitian elite. > > Having followed events in Haiti during and after the coup in a number of > respected independent media sources such as Democracy Now and ZNet, I was > immediately perplexed that Alternatives would be taking such a position. I > forwarded Barry-Shaw's article to the other Alternatives interns I was in > Senegal with to see if any of them knew something about this problematic > and uncharacteristic position being taken by Alternatives. One of the > friends who received this email wrote to Francois L'Ecuyer directly to ask > him what was up. Rather than addressing any of the points raised by > Barry-Shaw's article L'Ecuyer responded rather paternalistically that my > friend "should not believe everything he reads" and that for clarification > he should attend a panel discussion on Haiti being held as part of > Alternatives' Joun?es d'Etudes. I therefore decided to withhold any > judgment until I had heard what the panel had to say. > > Having witnessed this panel discussion I am more convinced than ever that > Alternatives' analysis of the situation in Haiti is extremely problematic > and in direct contradiction with its ostensible mission "to promote > justice and equality amongst individuals and communities located in the > North and the South." > > The first problem was that the panel spent a good part of the evening > demonizing Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristide was characterized as a > recognized enemy of Haiti's social movements with no legitimate base of > popular support. At one point a panelist compared his government to the > former Duvalier dictatorship suggesting that both Aristide and Duvalier > represented exactly the same interests: namely Haiti's corrupt elite. > Despite the fact that Montreal's Haitian community is extremely divided on > the question of Aristide, not a single pro-Aristide perspective was > present on the panel. This in itself is somewhat alarming given that > Aristide was the country's first and only democratically elected leader > and that polls have consistently shown him to have the support of the > majority of Haitians, notably in Haiti's poorest districts. As an > organization ostensibly committed to "international solidarity" it seems > somewhat contradictory to be advocating solidarity with the Haitian people > in an abstract sense while simultaneously opposing their most basic > democratic demands. > > Part of this demonization of Aristide was to cast him as a neoliberal > ideologue, without any reference to the pressures and conditions that had > been imposed on his government by the United States and the IMF. While it > is undeniable that Aristide's government enacted a number of neoliberal > policies, it is also a fact that he was constantly criticized by both the > US and the IMF for not implementing them with enough vigour. It is also a > fact that prior to the 2004 coup Haiti was under an IMF-imposed aid > embargo largely because Aristide's government had decided to devote > resources to training badly-needed doctors rather than paying off Haiti's > illegitimate foreign debt. These are hardly the actions of a neoliberal > ideologue. It is particularly ironic hearing such an analysis at an > Alternatives event. Over the years Alternatives has been such an outspoken > critic of the IMF that when discussing neoliberalism in Africa, for > example, heads of state are rarely even mentioned. All of the > responsibility for these policies is directed towards the IMF. Yet at this > panel discussion the IMF wasn't even mentioned. Aristide was presented as > the sole perpetrator of neoliberalism in Haiti. > > But for me the worst aspect of this panel discussion was the near total > silence with respect to the violence and injustice being perpetrated by > Haiti's current US-installed regime. There was no mention of the well > documented massacres which have been committed by Haitian police, nor was > there any mention of the growing number of political prisoners that have > been documented by Amnesty International amongst others. When Haiti Action > Montreal activist Yves Engler rose during the question period and began > reciting a long list of such documented atrocities and injustices, he was > hastily interrupted by the moderator, Monique Simard, and encouraged to > keep his comments brief. When the panelists eventually responded they > essentially ignored the issues raised by both Engler and Nikolas > Barry-Shaw, instead attempting to smear them both as partisan apologists > for Aristide. Considering the one-sided nature of the panel's composition, > the characterizations of Aristide which lacked any sense of balance or > nuance, and most importantly the complete silence regarding the well > documented violence that has been unleashed by the current regime, I was > left wondering who the real partisan apologists were. > > But more importantly I was left wondering why Alternatives was taking such > a position. As one of Canada's most active proponents of the World Social > Forum (WSF), why would Alternatives take a position that is in direct > contradiction to the WSF 2005 declaration on Haiti? This declaration > warrants some discussion here as it illustrates just how far Alternatives > has strayed from its usual progressive stance. The first demand of this > declaration is to "Return President Aristide and the democratic process to > Haiti..." It seems hard for me to imagine the WSF making such a plea on > behalf of the violent neoliberal ideologue which the Alternatives panel > characterized Aristide to be. The third demand is that "UN 'stabilization > forces' must cease all illegal arrests, indiscriminate raids on poor > neighborhoods and support for illegal activities by the puppet regime's > police force and members of the former army." > > After listing the various atrocities that were utterly ignored by the > panel, Yves Engler asked if Alternatives' position was due to the fact > that Canada is playing a key role in the very "stabilization forces" > mentioned in the WSF declaration, and that Alternatives receives a large > portion of its funding from the Canadian government via the Canadian > International Development Agency (CIDA). Without addressing the issue of > CIDA money at all, moderator Monique Simard responded by stating that > "Alternatives is a completely independent organization." While this may be > true, it by no means precludes the possibility of Alternatives > 'independently' choosing to bow to the pressure of one of its primary > sponsors. By providing no public response to the serious issues raised by > Barry-Shaw and Engler, Alternatives is leaving people such as myself with > no other plausible explanation for their position. > > If CIDA funding is creating such pressures within the organization, this > is an extremely disappointing development indeed, and one which I hope > will provoke other previous and present supporters of Alternatives to > speak out. Perhaps what is needed here is some grassroots pressure to > counterbalance whatever pressure CIDA dollars might be placing on the > organization. If this is not the case then Alternatives needs to make a > clear and public response to the concerns that have been raised by > Barry-Shaw, Engler, and myself in this letter. Thus far these concerns > have not been addressed, leaving CIDA funding as the only plausible > explanation for Alternatives' bizarre and uncharacteristic position on > Haiti. If Alternatives wants its supporters to take seriously its > assertion to be an independent organization it must either attempt to > justify, or preferably retract its current indefensible position on Haiti. > > > In Solidarity, > > Rob Green > Alternatives intern 2002 and 2003 > > Former Alternatives interns who support this letter: > Christopher Scott - 2003 (Senegal) et 2004 (Armenia) > Alexandre St.Germain-Lapointe - 2003 (Senegal) et 2004 (Chile) > Vicky Potvin - 2003 (Senegal) > Dawn Paley - 2003/2004 (South Africa) > > > Why is Alternatives in the same boat as Noriega on Haiti? > Mr. Contra and Montreal-based NGO share same analysis > > By Nikolas Barry-Shaw > > It is a strange day indeed when a progressive NGO finds itself on the same > side of an issue as Roger Noriega, the U.S. diplomat notorious for his > role in organizing the Contra army that terrorized Nicaragua throughout > the 1980s. Yet this is precisely the case with Alternatives, a > Quebec-based "non-governmental international solidarity organization" > dedicated to promoting "democracy" and "socio-economic justice and > equality". Its mandate and prominent contributors, including Naomi Klein > and Judy Rebick, would normally put such a group at odds with Noriega. > Not so, reveals the July edition of the Alternatives newspaper, a > publication inserted in Montreal's daily Le Devoir with the express > purpose of "creating a window of alternative information on our world". > > Fran?ois L'Ecuyer's front-page article titled "The Militarization of Peace > in Haiti" is a shameful parody of journalism: unsubstantiated assertions, > illogical arguments, anonymous sources and anecdotes masquerade as hard > evidence throughout the article. Chief among these transgressions is > L'Ecuyer's claim that "Chim?res, gangs loyal to and armed by President > Aristide," have launched a campaign to destabilize the country called > "Operation Baghdad" in an effort to derail elections planned for October > and November 2005. Deposed Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide is > said to be profiting politically from the violence afflicting Haiti, while > other sectors benefit from the chaos financially. > > L'Ecuyer's analysis of the situation in Haiti bears a disturbing > resemblance to the propaganda disseminated by high-level U.S. and Canadian > government officials. A week before L'Ecuyer's article appeared, Roger > Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, gave > a similar account: "Aristide and his camp are singularly responsible for > most of the violence and for the concerted nature of the violence," (Miami > Herald, June 24, 2005). Like L'Ecuyer, Noriega argues that while some > "opportunistic criminal organizations" are engaged in kidnappings and > other crimes, "Aristide and his gangs are playing a central role in > generating violence, and trying to sow insecurity," in a desperate "last > stand to terrorize the Haitian people and deny them good government." > > L'Ecuyer uncritically repeats the "Operation Baghdad" fiction spun by the > Haitian elite to justify increased repression of the poor. Notably, the > label "Operation Baghdad" was concocted by Jean-Claude Bajeux, a member of > an anti-Aristide political party, and repeated incessantly by the interim > government and the international press. Fanmi Lavalas spokespersons > immediately denounced the violence of September 30 - the day that > supposedly heralded the start of the destabilization effort - claiming > that "Operation Baghdad" was "a calculated attempt to manipulate the media > and U.S. public opinion". Lavalas' base also rejected the label: on > December 16, 2004, in Cap-Haitien, ten thousand > Lavalas supporters marched behind a banner reading "Operation Baghdad is a > plot by Group 184 to put an end to Lavalas. They will fail!" One is left > to wonder what groups L'Ecuyer has in mind whose "admitted purpose" is the > destabilization campaign called "Operation Baghdad", given the distancing > of Lavalas and their supporters from the title. > > On September 30, 2004 masked policemen killed several unarmed protestors > commemorating Aristide's first overthrow. Installed Prime Minister Gerard > Latortue, in a radio interview on October 1, was unrepentant: "We fired on > them. Some died, others were wounded, and others fled." Police and > government officials subsequently claimed protestors attacked police, > killing and decapitating three officers. The government declined to > release the identity of the police officers or allow journalists and human > rights investigators to view the bodies. No photos of the bodies were > provided either. CARLI (Comit? des Avocats pour le Respect des Libert?s > Individuelles), a severe critic of > Aristide during his time in office, investigated "Operation Baghdad" and > concluded that no such operation had been launched by Lavalas supporters. > CARLI found that two > officers, Ancelme Milfrane and Jean Janvier, had been decapitated, but > they were killed on September 29 by former soldiers. It was not until > after the massive demonstration on September 30 that the government and > elite-owned media began to blame Lavalas for the killings. Beheading, > incidentally, was (and is) a common practice of the hated and feared > former Haitian military (FAd'H). > > L'Ecuyer also bizarrely announces that "it's not a secret anymore" that > MINUSTAH > (the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti) has a pro-Lavalas bias, yet can > only muster one rather vague incident in as evidence: "In February 2005, > demonstrations of Aristide's armed partisans unrolled under the heightened > protection of UN forces, who took great care in keeping police aside. Then > Minister of Justice [and former USAID employee], Bernard Gousse, even > argued that among the demonstrators, there were escaped prisoners." > Without giving a specific date, we can only presume which demonstrations > L'Ecuyer is referring to; perhaps the February 8 demonstration by > thousands of peaceful Lavalas supporters that, according to Agence Haitien > Presse, "was interrupted by a police patrol accompanied by individuals in > civilian dress, known as attach?s, who reportedly began shooting at the > demonstrators, injuring several of them," before UN troops intervened. Or > maybe L'Ecuyer had in mind the February 28 demo, where MINUSTAH troops > stood by as police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing five and > wounding dozens. A serious case of pro-Chim?re bias indeed. > > This last incident proved to be such an embarrassment to the UN that it > felt compelled to provide a modicum of protection to demonstrators and > even began cracking down on the reconstituted FAd'H in the countryside. > Under the heightened protection of the UN, numbers swelled at peaceful > demonstrations calling for the return of President Aristide and the > release of hundreds of political prisoners. MINUSTAH, however, soon > returned to its habit of letting the HNP terrorize peaceful protestors. > On March 24, police opened fire on a demonstration in Cite Soleil, killing > 3 to 5 demonstrators and on April 27, nine more protestors from Bel-Air > were killed despite UN supervision. The UN's quick reversal was largely > due to the badgering by the interim government and elite-owned Haitian > media accusing the UN of defending Lavalas "gangsters". > > L'Ecuyer's hazy accusations are flatly contradicted by a detailed Harvard > Law School human rights report studying the performance of the UN in > Haiti. The Harvard report, conducted in October 2004 and January 2005, > found that "MINUSTAH has effectively provided cover for the police to wage > a campaign of terror in Port-au-Prince's slums. Even more distressing > than MINUSTAH's complicity in HNP abuses are credible allegations of human > rights abuses perpetrated by MINUSTAH itself." On July 6, Reuters > reported, "about 400 U.N. troops with 41 armored vehicles and helicopters, > and several dozen Haitian police officers, conducted a raid in Cite > Soleil, Haiti's largest slum." While the UN claimed only 5 "criminals" > had been killed, "[r]esidents said the number of people killed ... ranged > from 25 to 40." The Reuters article also quoted Ali Besnaci, head of the > Medecins Sans Frontiers mission in Haiti: "We received 27 people wounded > by gunshots on July 6. Three quarters were children and women." > > By thoughtlessly regurgitating claims of the U.N's pro-Lavalas bias, > L'Ecuyer is not only obscuring serious human rights abuses being committed > by the UN in Haiti, but also aiding the elite's push for more repressive > UN actions against the poor, such as the July 6 massacre. > > L'Ecuyer's solution to the problem of insecurity in Haiti's capital (given > the allegedly compromised nature of MINUSTAH) is to provide more arms and > support to the HNP. The Bush administration complied with another > shipment of weapons to the installed government in early August, despite a > long-standing arms embargo. According to numerous human rights reports, > however, the HNP are the leading cause of Haiti's escalating violence: a > recent International Crisis Group report notes that the HNP "have taken > over old FAd'H practices, including military-style operations in the > capital's poor neighbourhoods with little regard for collateral damage to > civilians." Hardly a surprise, considering more than 500 ex-soldiers have > been integrated into the HNP, with the top ranks of the HNP now staffed > almost exclusively with former FAd'H officers, while another 500-1000 are > in the process of being trained. In addition to their wanton attacks on > the poor, according to the ICG report and other sources, the new HNP are > engaged in kidnapping and drug running, an old habit of the FAd'H. > Astonishingly, in an article about the sources of instability and > "militarization" in Haiti, L'Ecuyer does not make any mention of the > former military, rebranded first as "rebels" while they helped overthrow > Aristide and now as "police" as they repress the poor neighbourhoods. > > Correcting L'Ecuyer's erroneous views on "Operation Baghdad" and MINUSTAH > leads to an inversion of the article's main arguments. The cries of UN > bias or "softness" towards pro-Lavalas gangs are no longer justified > complaints but rather attempts to bully MINUSTAH into even greater > repression of the poor majority. Sadly, the increased frequency of brutal > "anti-gang" raids into neighborhoods like Bel-Air and Cite Soleil appears > to indicate that the UN forces are heeding these calls. Likewise, > "Operation Baghdad" no longer appears as a violent political tool of > Lavalas, but as a major disinformation effort serving to justify > intensified anti-Lavalas attacks. L'Ecuyer joins this effort when he > accuses, without a shred of evidence, prominent Bel-Air activist Samba > Boukman and human rights worker Ronald St. Jean of being "notorious > criminals." In an environment where the victims of police operations are > routinely labelled "bandits" and "criminals" post-humously, this is > exceedingly dangerous. > > Alternatives' website gives an indication of the forces behind their > reprehensible position on Haiti: over 50% of the organization's funding > comes from the Canadian government, with the bulk received from CIDA > (Canadian International Development Agency). Moreover, in a recent > interview, Fran?ois L'Ecuyer admitted that all 15 groups Alternatives > works with in Haiti (many of whom are themselves funded by CIDA) are > anti-Lavalas. Not coincidentally, L'Ecuyer and Alternatives have said > little about the widespread human rights abuses being committed by Haiti's > interim government, a regime strongly supported by Canada. This severely > undermines Alternatives credibility as an organization committed to social > justice. While Alternatives would no doubt object to being called a tool > of Canadian imperialism, L'Ecuyer's article may lead many to such a > conclusion. > > Please forward this article to Fran?ois L'Ecuyer and Alternatives and > demand that Alternatives print in full the World Social Forum's January > 2005 Declaration on Haiti (available at > http://haitiaction.net/News/FL/1_30_5.html) in their newspaper's next issue. > > Fran?ois L'Ecuyer > Africa Project Director > francois at alternatives.ca > > Alternatives > alternatives at alternatives.ca > > Fran?ois L'Ecuyer's original article (in French) can be found here: > http://www.alternatives.ca/article1913.html > > An English translation of L'Ecuyer's article is available at > www.canadahaitiaction.ca > > For an introduction to Canada's role in Haiti: www.outofhaiti.ca > For in depth and up-to-date news and analysis: www.canadahaitiaction.ca > > > > > > > > > > -- > rgreen at freeshell.org > rgreen at sdf.lonestar.org > (They're both the same account. I switched to the 'freeshell' one cause > it's easier to remember. You can send mail to either and I'll get it.) > ********** > MOBMTL LISTSERV: > -Mobilisation Montr?alais pour les manifestations contre George W. Bush ? l'occasion de sa premi?re 'visite d'?tat' ? Ottawa (30 nov. - 1 dec. 2004) > > -Montreal mobilization for protests against George W. Bush's on the occasion of his 'state visit' to Ottawa (Nov. 30 - Dec 1 2004). > ********** > To subscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to: mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net > To unsubscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to: mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > > Pour abonner ? mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide ?: mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net > Pour d?sabonner ? mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide ?: mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > From mfoster at web.ca Wed Oct 5 05:23:05 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:23:05 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] (fw) Lettre ouverte aux dirigeants de l'organisme Alternatives de la part d'un ancien stagiaire] Message-ID: <003901c5c9a7$8c3656e0$df2d54c7@CPQ18145226471> From: > > > *pour diffusion massive* > > Lettre ouverte aux dirigeants de l'organisme Alternatives de la part d'un > ancien stagiaire > (Traduit par Christopher Scott et Marina Douceraine) > > > En tant qu'ancien stagiaire de l'organisme Alternatives ayant particip? ? > deux stages au S?n?gal, je prends la plume pour exprimer mon indignation > quant ? la pr?sente position assum?e par Alternatives sur les ?v?nements > en Ha?ti. Bien qu'ayant toujours ?t? conscient des imperfections > d'Alternatives, j'ai toujours support? l'organisation dans louable effort > d'offrir aux Qu?becois information et analyse - dont le besoin se faisait > cruellement sentir - sur des enjeux d'injustice politique et ?conomique ? > travers le monde. Toutefois de r?cents ?v?nements m'ont forc? ? remettre > en question ce jugement, au point qu'il est de mon devoir de parler. Il ne > s'agit pas ici de ? remuer de la boue ?, mais plut?t d'?crire dans > l'espoir qu'Alternatives envisage de r?viser sa douteuse et > incompr?hensible position sur les ?v?nements en Ha?ti. > > Il y a quelques semaines, j'ai re?u par courriel un article de l'activiste > Nikolas Barry-Shaw, de Haiti-Action-Montreal. Avec pour titre ? Why is > Alternatives in the same boat as Noriega en Haiti? Mr. Contra and > Montreal-based NGO share same analysis. ?, cet article est reproduit plus > bas. Il s'agit d'une critique d'un article de Fran?ois L'?cuyer ? La > militarisation de la paix en Ha?ti ?, qu'Alternatives publia en premi?re > page de leur cahier dans le Devoir. Barry-Shaw y reprochait ? L'?cuyer et > ? Alternative de d?crire la violence actuelle en Ha?ti comme ?tant la > seule oeuvre de l'ancien dirigeant ?lu Jean-Bertrand Aristide et ses > appuis dans le parti Fanmi Lavalas. Ce faisant, ?crivit Barry-Shaw, > Alternatives r?p?tait la m?me fausse vision des ?v?nements en Ha?ti que > celle offerte par les partisans du coup d'?tat contre Aristide and du > r?gime qui s'ensuivit: l'administration Bush, les gouvernements Canadiens > et Fran?ais ainsi que l'?lite Ha?tienne. > > > Ayant suivi l'actualit? ha?tienne durant et apr?s le coup d'?tat par > l'interm?diaire de diff?rents organes de m?dia ind?pendants reconnus (ex. > Democracy Now ; Zmag.org.) j'ai ?t? imm?diatement surpris de voir > Alternatives adopter une telle position. J'ai fait suivre l'article de > Barry-Shaw ? mes co-stagiaires de QSF S?n?gal afin de voir si quelques-uns > parmi eux en savaient plus sur cette position ? la fois probl?matique et > peu courante d'Alternatives. Un de ces derniers a ?crit directement ? > Fran?ois L'Ecuyer pour lui demander ce qu'il en ?tait. Plut?t que de > r?pondre ? quelques-uns des points que l'article de Barry-Shaw soulevait, > M. L'Ecuyer a r?pondu sur un ton assez paternaliste que mon ami ? ne > devrait pas croire tout ce qu'il lisait ?. Il lui a par ailleurs > recommand? d'assister ? un atelier de discussion sur Ha?ti qui se > tiendrait dans le cadre des prochaines Journ?es d'Etudes d'Alternatives. > J'ai donc d?cid? de suspendre mon jugement tant que je n'aurais pas > entendu personnellement ce que la conf?rence avait ? dire. > > Apr?s avoir assist? ? ladite conf?rence, je suis plus convaincu que jamais > que l'analyse d'Alternatives sur la situation ha?tienne est extr?mement > probl?matique et que celle-ci entre en contradiction directe avec sa > mission avou?e de ? promouvoir justice et ?galit? entre les individus et > les communaut?s situ?s dans le nord et dans le sud ?. > > Le premier probl?me concerne le fait que les conf?renciers ont pass? une > bonne partie de la soir?e ? diaboliser le personnage de Jean-Bertrand > Aristide. Aristide a ?t? d?sign? comme un ennemi reconnu des mouvements > sociaux sans aucune base l?gitime d'appui populaire en Ha?ti. Un > conf?rencier s'est m?me permis de comparer son gouvernement ? la dictature > d?chue de Duvalier en insinuant qu'Aristide et Duvalier repr?sentaient > exactement les m?mes int?r?ts, ? savoir une ?lite ha?tienne corrompue. > Alors que la communaut? ha?tienne de Montr?al demeure tr?s divis?e au > sujet d'Aristide, aucune perspective pro-Aristide n'a ?t? pr?sent?e par > les conf?renciers. Ceci est en soi quelque peu pr?occupant, ?tant donn? > qu'Aristide a ?t? le premier et unique chef d'?tat de son pays ? se faire > ?lire d?mocratiquement : de multiples sondages lui accordent d'ailleurs > l'appui d'une majorit? d'ha?tiens, tout particuli?rement dans les > quartiers pauvres du pays. En tant qu'organisme qui se d?die pr?sum?ment ? > la ? solidarit? internationale ?, il para?t assez contradictoire > qu'Alternatives pr?che le concept de solidarit? avec le peuple ha?tien en > th?orie, alors qu'en pratique Alternatives s'oppose aux exigences > d?mocratiques les plus ?l?mentaires de ce m?me peuple. > > Une des approches de ceux qui diabolisaient Aristide ?tait de le pr?senter > en tant qu'id?ologue n?olib?ral, et ce, sans tenir compte des multiples > pressions et conditions que les Etats-Unis et le FMI avaient impos?es ? > son gouvernement. S'il est ind?niable que le gouvernement d'Aristide a > appliqu? un certain nombre de mesures n?olib?rales, il est ?galement vrai > que celui-ci a fait l'objet de nombreuses critiques de la part des > ?tats-Unis et du FMI pour ne pas avoir appliqu? ces mesures avec assez de > z?le. De plus, avant le coup d'?tat de 2004, Ha?ti souffrait de l'embargo > sur l'aide que lui imposait le FMI, dont une des causes principales avait > ?t? la d?cision du gouvernement de consacrer des ressources ? la formation > de m?decins - qui faisaient cruellement d?faut - plut?t qu'au > remboursement d'une dette ?trang?re ill?gitime. Cela ne caract?rise gu?re > l'attitude d'un n?olib?ral obstin?. L'ironie est ? son comble lorsqu'une > telle analyse est v?hicul?e au cours d'une conf?rence d'Alternatives. > Depuis bien des ann?es Alternatives critique le FMI ? un tel point que > lorsqu'il est question, par example, du n?olib?ralisme en Afrique, on ne > nomme que rarement, et bien accessoirement, les chefs d'?tat: toute la > responsabilit? de ces politiques ?tant attribu?e au FMI. Toutefois, lors > de cette derni?re conf?rence le FMI ne fut m?me pas ?voqu?, et Aristide a > ?t? pr?sent? comme ?tant l'unique instigateur du n?olib?ralisme en Ha?ti. > > Mais ? mon sens le pire aspect de cette conf?rence a ?t? son silence > presque total au sujet de la violence et de l'injustice qui sont > perp?tr?es par le nouveau r?gime ha?tien proche des Etats-Unis. Aucune > r?f?rence n'a ?t? faite aux massacres commis par la police ha?tienne, > alors que ceux-ci sont bien document?s. Il n'y a eu aucune mention non > plus du nombre croissant de prisonniers politiques qu'Amnistie > Internationale, entre autres, a document?. Lorsque le militant Yves > Engler, d'Ha?ti Action Montr?al, s'est lev? pendant la p?riode de > questions pour ?num?rer une longue liste de tels abus, il s'est vite fait > couper la parole par l'animatrice Monique Simard, qui l'a enjoint de > rester bref. Quand les conf?renciers ont fini par r?pondre, ils sont pass? > compl?tement ? c?t? des questions soulev?es par Mm. Engler et Barry-Shaw, > et ont pr?f?r? tenter de les caricaturer comme ?tant des apologistes > partisans d'Aristide. Etant donn? le peu de vari?t? dans le choix des > conf?renciers, les caract?risations sans perspective ou nuance de la > personne d'Aristide et le silence total en ce qui a trait ? la violence > bien document?e du r?gime actuel, j'ai fini par me demander quels ?taient > les vrais ? apologistes partisans ?... > > Plus encore, je me suis demand? pourquoi Alternatives adoptait une telle > position. Si Alternatives se trouve ? ?tre un des promoteurs les plus > assidus du Forum Social Mondial (FSM), pourquoi Alternatives prendrait-il > une position qui contredit directement la d?claration de cette ann?e du > FSM sur Ha?ti ? Si cette d?claration m?rite discussion, c'est parce > qu'elle illustre ? quel point Alternatives s'est ?loign? de ses positions > habituellement progressistes. La d?claration r?clame en premi?re instance > ? le retour de Pr?sident Aristide et la reprise du processus d?mocratique > en Haiti... ?. Je vois difficilement le FSM avancer un tel plaidoyer en > faveur de l'id?ologue n?olib?ral que serait Aristide d'apr?s > Alternatives. La troisi?me demande du FSM est que ? Les forces de > stabilisation des Nations Unies doivent cesser les arrestations ill?gales, > les interventions militaires ciblant les quartiers pauvres et le support > aux op?rations ill?gales de la Police Nationale et des membres de > l?ancienne arm?e. ? > > Apr?s avoir dress? toute une liste d'atrocit?s, liste ? laquelle les > conf?renciers ne daign?rent pas r?pondre, Yves Engler a demand? si le > positionnement d'Alternatives ne serait pas attribuable au fait que le > Canada joue un r?le clef dans lesdites 'forces de stabilisation', et > qu'Alternatives est financ? largement par le gouvernement canadien par > l'entremise de l'Agence Canadienne pour le D?veloppement International > (ACDI). Sans vraiment toucher ? la question du financement de l'ACDI, > l'animatrice Monique Simard a r?pondu en affirmant ? qu'Alternatives est > un organisme enti?rement ind?pendant. ?. Si ceci peut ?tre vrai, il reste > n?anmoins possible qu'Alternatives choisisse ? ind?pendamment ? de c?der > aux pressions d'un de ses principaux commanditaires. Tant qu'Alternatives > n'aura pas r?pondu publiquement aux tr?s s?rieuses questions soulev?es par > Mm. Engler et Barry-Shaw, la pression de l'ACDI restera le seul facteur > que bien des gens et moi-m?me trouverons plausible pour expliquer sa > position. > > Si le financement de l'ACDI exerce r?ellement une telle pression, alors > c'est un ph?nom?ne extr?mement regrettable, et il est ? souhaiter que bien > d'autres amis d'Alternatives prendront d'ici peu la parole pour d?noncer > la situation. Peut-?tre serait-il n?cessaire d'?tablir une d?mocratie > interne pour faire un contrepoids aux pressions que les dollars de l'ACDI > peuvent exercer sur l'organisme. Si ce n'est point le cas, alors > Alternatives doit r?pondre clairement et publiquement aux pr?occupations > qui ont ?t? abord?es par Mm. Barry-Shaw et Engler, ainsi que par moi-m?me > dans cette lettre. Jusqu'? date, ces pr?occupations sont rest?es sans > r?ponse, les dollars de l'ACDI demeurent donc le seul facteur susceptible > d'expliquer la position bizarre et peu courante d'Alternatives dans le > dossier ha?tien. Si Alternatives d?sire que ses alli?s prennent au s?rieux > son titre d'organisme ind?pendant, alors Alternatives se doit de > justifier, ou esp?rons-le, de revoir, sa position ind?fendable sur Ha?ti. > > Solidairement, > > Rob Green > > Stagiaire d'Alternatives, 2002 et 2003 (S?negal) > > Anciennes/Anciens stagiaires d'Alternatives qui appuient le contenu de > cette lettre : > Christopher Scott - 2003 (S?n?gal) et 2004 (Arm?nie) > Alexandre St.Germain-Lapointe - 2003 (S?n?gal) et 2004 (Chili) > Vicky Potvin - 2003 (S?n?gal) > Dawn Paley - 2003/2004 (Afrique du Sud) > > > By: Nikolas Barry-Shaw Aug-25-2005 > > Traduit par Berenger Enselme > > (L'article auquel r?pond ce document est disponible en fran?ais ? > http://www.alternatives.ca/article1913.html ) > > Ce sont vraiment des jours ?tranges lorsqu'une ONG progressiste se > retrouve du m?me c?t? de la barri?re que Roger Noriega, le diplomate > ?tats-unien connu pour avoir organis? l'arm?e Contra qui a terroris? le > Nicaragua tout au long des ann?es 80. Pourtant, c'est exactement le cas > d'Alternatives, une ? organisation non gouvernementale de solidarit? ? du > Qu?bec dont le but est de promouvoir la ? d?mocratie ? et ? la justice > socio-?conomique et l'?galit? ?. Son mandat et ses contributeurs > principaux, comme Naomi Klein et Judy Rebick, devraient normalement placer > un tel groupe ? l'oppos? de Noriega. Il n'en est rien, comme le r?v?le > l'?dition de juillet du ? Journal Alternatives ?, une publication qui > accompagne une fois par mois le quotidien ? Le Devoir ? dans le but de > cr?er ? une fen?tre d'information alternative sur notre monde ?. > > L'article de premi?re page de Fran?ois L'Ecuyer intitul? ? La > militarisation de la paix en Ha?ti ? est une honteuse parodie de > journalisme : des affirmations sans substance, des arguments sans logique, > des sources anonymes et des anecdotes pr?sent?es comme des preuves > formelles tout au long de l'article. La principale de ces transgressions > est l'affirmation de L'Ecuyer selon laquelle ? Les Chim?res, gangs fid?les > au pr?sident Aristide et arm?s par lui? ont lanc? une campagne pour > d?stabiliser le pays, appel?e ? Op?ration Bagdad ?, dans le but de faire > ?chouer les ?lections planifi?es pour octobre et novembre 2005. On lit que > le pr?sident destitu? d'Ha?ti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, profite > politiquement de la violence dont souffre Ha?ti, tandis que d'autres > secteurs b?n?ficient financi?rement du chaos. > > L'analyse de L'?cuyer sur la situation en Ha?ti ressemble ?trangement ? la > propagande diss?min?e par les hauts fonctionnaires des gouvernements des > ?tats-unis et du Canada. Une semaine avant la parution de l'article de > L'?cuyer, Roger Noriega, Assistant au Secr?taire d'?tat pour les affaires > de l'h?misph?re occidental, avait donn? un compte-rendu similaire : ? > Aristide et son camp sont singuli?rement responsables de la plupart de la > violence et de la nature concert?e de la violence, ? (Miami Herald, 24 > juin 2005). Comme L'?cuyer, Noriega argumente que, tandis que ? des > organisations criminelles opportunistes ? sont impliqu?es dans les > enl?vements et autres crimes, ? Aristide et ses gangs jouent un r?le > central dans la g?n?ration de la violence, et essaient d'instaurer un > climat d'ins?curit? ?, en une derni?re ? tentative d?sesp?r?e de > terroriser le peuple Ha?tien et de les priver d'une bonne gouvernance.? > > L'?cuyer r?p?te sans critique aucune la fiction de l' ? Op?ration Bagdad ? > r?pandue par l'?lite Ha?tienne pour justifier la r?pression grandissante > dont les pauvres sont victimes. Notamment, l'?tiquette ? Op?ration Bagdad > ? a ?t? concoct?e par Jean-Claude Bajeux, un membre d'un parti politique > anti-Aristide, et a ?t? r?p?t?e sans cesse par le gouvernement transitoire > et la presse internationale. Des porte-parole de Fanmi Lavalas ont > imm?diatement d?nonc? la violence du 30 septembre - le jour qui > suppos?ment devait marquer le d?but des tentatives de d?stabilisation - > d?clarant que l' ? Op?ration Bagdad ? ?tait une ? tentative calcul?e de > manipuler les m?dias et le public ?tats-uniens. ? La base de Lavalas a > ?galement rejet? l'?tiquette : le 16 d?cembre 2004, ? Cap-Ha?tien, 10000 > sympathisants de Lavalas ont march? derri?re une banderole sur laquelle on > pouvait lire ? L'Op?ration Bagdad est une conspiration du groupe des 184 > pour mettre fin ? Lavalas. Ils ?choueront ! ? Alors on se demande qui > L'Ecuyer a en t?te lorsqu'il parle de groupes dont le ? but avou? ? est la > campagne de d?stabilisation appel?e ? Op?ration Bagdad ?, ?tant donn? que > Lavalas et ses sympathisants se sont distanci?s de ce titre. > > Le 30 septembre 2004, des policiers masqu?s ont tu? plusieurs manifestants > non arm?s qui comm?moraient le premier renversement d'Aristide. Le Premier > Ministre G?rard Latortue, dans une entrevue radiophonique du 1er octobre, > ne s'en repentit pas : ? Nous avons tir? sur eux. Certains sont morts, > certains ont ?t? bless?s et les autres ont fui. ? La police et les > officiels du gouvernement ont par la suite affirm? que les manifestants > avaient attaqu? la police, tuant et d?capitant trois officiers. Le > gouvernement refusa de d?cliner l'identit? des policiers ou d'autoriser > journalistes et enqu?teurs en droits humains de voir les corps. Aucune > photo des corps n'a ?t? fournie non plus. Le Comit? des Avocats pour le > Respect des Libert?s Individuelles (CARLI), un critique s?v?re d'Aristide > lorsqu'il ?tait au pouvoir, a enqu?t? sur l'? Op?ration Bagdad ? et en est > arriv? ? la conclusion qu'aucune op?ration de ce type n'avait ?t? lanc?e > par les sympathisants de Lavalas. CARLI a d?couvert que deux officiers, > Ancelme Milfrane et Jean Janvier, avaient ?t? d?capit?s, mais ils avaient > ?t? tu?s le 29 septembre par d'anciens soldats. Ce n'est qu'apr?s la > manifestation massive du 30 septembre que les m?dias du gouvernement et de > l'?lite ont commenc? ? accuser Lavalas pour ces assassinats. Il se trouve > que la d?capitation ?tait (et est) une pratique courante de la d?test?e et > redout?e ex-Arm?e Ha?tienne (FAd'H). > > L'Ecuyer annonce aussi bizarrement que ? le mot se r?pand ? que la > MINUSTAH (la force de maintien de la paix de l'ONU en Ha?ti) a un penchant > pro-Lavalas, mais n'a pourtant trouv? qu'une incident plut?t vague comme > preuve : ?En f?vrier 2005, les manifestations des partisans arm?s > d'Aristide se d?roulaient sous la haute protection des forces onusiennes, > qui avaient pris soin de tenir la police ? l'?cart. Le ministre de la > justice d'alors, Bernard Gousse, avait m?me soutenu que parmi les > manifestants, il y avait des ? ?vad?s de prison ? ?. Puisqu'il ne donne > pas de date, on ne peut que deviner ? quelles manifestations L'Ecuyer se > r?f?re ; peut-?tre la manifestation du 8 f?vrier ? laquelle ont particip? > des milliers de sympathisants pacifiques de Lavalas, qui selon Agence > Ha?tien Presse, ? a ?t? interrompue par une patrouille de police > accompagn?e d'individus en civil, qu'on appelle ? attach?s ? qui auraient > commenc? a tirer sur les manifestants, en blessant plusieurs ?, avant que > les troupes de l'ONU n'interviennent. Ou peut-?tre L'Ecuyer a-t-il en t?te > la manifestation du 28 f?vrier, ? c?t? de laquelle des troupes de la > MINUSTAH se tenaient tandis que la police ouvrait le feu sur des > manifestants non arm?s, tuant cinq d'entre eux et en blessant des > dizaines. Un s?rieux penchant pro-Lavalas, en effet. > > Ce dernier incident s'est montr? un tel embarras pour l'ONU qu'elle a ?t? > oblig?e de fournir un minimum de protection aux manifestants et a m?me > commenc? ? s?vir contre les FAd'H reconstitu?es dans la campagne. Sous la > protection accrue de l'ONU, les manifestations appelant au retour du > pr?sident Aristide et la lib?ration des prisonniers politiques ont alors > pris de l'ampleur. Malgr? tout, la MINUSTAH est vite revenue ? ses > habitudes de laisser la Police Nationale d'Ha?ti (PNH) terroriser les > protestataires pacifiques. Le 24 mars, la police a ouvert le feu sur une > manifestation ? Cit? Soleil, tuant 3 ? 5 manifestants et le 27 avril, 9 > manifestants suppl?mentaires ont ?t? tu?s ? Bel-Air malgr? la supervision > de l'ONU. Le retournement de l'ONU a ?t? largement d? au harc?lement du > gouvernement transitoire et des m?dias ha?tiens l'accusant de prot?ger les > ? bandits ? de Lavalas. > > Les accusations vagues de L'Ecuyer sont cat?goriquement contredites par un > rapport d?taill? de la Harvard Law School ?tudiant la performance de l'ONU > en Ha?ti. Le rapport d'Harvard, ?tabli en octobre 2004 et janvier 2005, a > d?couvert que ? la MINUSTAH a effectivement fourni une couverture ? la > police pour qu'elle m?ne une campagne de terreur dans les bidonvilles de > Port-Au-Prince. Plus p?nibles encore que la complicit? de la MINUSTAH aux > abus de la PNH sont les all?gations cr?dibles d'entorses aux droits > humains perp?tr?es par la MINUSTAH elle-m?me. ? Le 6 juillet, Reuters > rapportait que ? ? peu pr?s 400 troupes et 41 v?hicules blind?s et > h?licopt?res, ainsi que plusieurs dizaines d'agents de police Ha?tiens, > ont men? un raid ? Cit? Soleil, le plus grand bidonville d'Ha?ti. ? Tandis > que l'ONU d?clarait que seulement 5 ? criminels ? avaient ?t? tu?s, ? les > r?sidents disaient que le nombre de tu?s ?tait entre 25 et 40. ? L'article > de Reuters citait ?galement Ali Bescnaci, directeur de la mission de > M?decins sans fronti?res en Ha?ti : ? Nous avons re?u 27 personnes > bless?es par balle le 6 juillet. Les trois quarts ?taient des enfants et > des femmes. ? > > En r?p?tant inconsid?r?ment les affirmations de la tendance pro-Lavalas de > l'ONU, L'Ecuyer non seulement obscurcit les graves atteintes aux droits > humains qui sont commises par l'ONU en Ha?ti, mais aide ?galement les > ?lites poussant l'ONU vers des actions plus r?pressives envers les > pauvres, telles le massacre du 6 juillet. > > La solution de L'Ecuyer au probl?me d'ins?curit? dans la capitale d'Ha?ti > (?tant donn?e la soi-disant nature compromise de la MINUSTAH) est de > fournir plus d'armes et de soutien ? la PNH. L'administration Bush a > autoris? la livraison d'une nouvelle cargaison d'armes au gouvernement > transitoire d?but ao?t, malgr? un embargo sur les armes depuis longtemps > en place. Pourtant, selon de nombreux rapports sur les droit humains, la > PNH est la principale responsable de l'escalade de la violence en Ha?ti : > un rapport r?cent de l'International Crisis Group remarque que la PNH a ? > pris le relais des anciennes pratique des FAd'H, y compris des op?rations > de style militaire dans les quartiers pauvres de la capitale avec peu de > consid?ration pour les dommages collat?raux inflig?s aux civils. ? Pas > vraiment une surprise, quand on sait que plus de 500 ex-soldats ont ?t? > int?gr?s ? la PNH, et que les hauts rangs de la PNH sont presque tous > occup?s par des ex-officiers des FAd'H, tandis que 500 ? 1000 autres sont > en train d'?tre entra?n?s. En plus de leurs attaques d?lib?r?es contre les > pauvres, selon les rapports de l'ICG et d'autres sources, la nouvelle PNH > est impliqu?e dans des enl?vements et des trafics de drogues, une vieille > habitude des FAd'H. Chose ?tonnante, dans un article sur les raisons de > l'instabilit? et la ? militarisation ? d'Ha?ti, L'Ecuyer ne fait aucune > mention des anciens militaires, recat?goris?s tout d'abord comme ? > rebelles ? quand ils aidaient au renversement d'Aristide et maintenant > comme ? police ? tandis qu'ils r?priment les quartiers pauvres. > > La correction des vues erron?es de L'Ecuyer sur l' ? Op?ration Bagdad ? > aboutit ? une inversion des principaux arguments de l'article. Les > accusations concernant la tendance pro-Lavalas de l'ONU ne sont plus alors > que des tentatives de contraindre la MINUSTAH ? une r?pression encore plus > grande de la majorit? pauvre. Malheureusement, la fr?quence accrue des > raids ? anti-gangs ? dans des quartiers comme Bel-Air ou Cit? Soleil > semble indiquer que les forces onusiennes tiennent compte de ces conseils. > De la m?me fa?on, l' ? Op?ration Bagdad ? n'appara?t plus alors comme un > outil politique violent de Lavalas, mais bien comme une campagne majeure > de d?sinformation utilis?e pour justifier les attaques anti-Lavalas. > L'Ecuyer se joint ? cette tentative lorsqu'il accuse, sans une trace de > preuve, l'activiste Samba Boukman de Bel-Air et le travailleur en droits > humains Ronald St-Jean d'?tre des ? criminels notoires. ? Dans un contexte > o? les victimes d'op?rations polici?res sont couramment ?tiquet?s comme ? > bandits ? ou ? criminels ? de fa?on posthume, ceci est extr?mement > dangereux. > > Le site web d'Alternatives donne une indication des forces derri?re la > position r?pr?hensible qu'ils ont sur Ha?ti : plus de 50% des fonds de > l'organisme provient du gouvernement Canadien, la majorit? ?tant re?ue du > Agence canadienne de d?veloppement international (ACDI). De plus, dans une > r?cente entrevue, L'Ecuyer admettait que la totalit? des 15 groupes avec > lesquels Alternatives travaille en Ha?ti (la plupart desquels sont > subventionn?s par le ACDI) sont anti-Lavalas. Ce n'est donc pas un hasard > si L'Ecuyer et Alternatives n'ont presque rien dit sur les nombreuses > violations des droits humains commises par le gouvernement int?rimaire > d'Ha?ti, un r?gime fortement soutenu par le Canada. Tout cela sape la > cr?dibilit? d'Alternatives en tant qu'organisation promouvant la justice > sociale. Quoi qu'Alternatives objecterait sans doute ? ?tre appel?e un > outil de l'imp?rialisme Canadien, l'article de L'Ecuyer pourrait bien > mener ? une telle conclusion. > > S'il vous plait, envoyez cet article ? Fran?ois L'Ecuyer et Alternatives > et demandez qu'Alternatives imprime au complet la d?claration sur Ha?ti du > Forum Social Mondial 2005 (disponible ? > http://haitiaction.net/News/FL/1_30_5.html) dans le prochain num?ro de > leur journal. > > Fran?ois L'Ecuyer, Directeur du projet Afrique - francois at alternatives.ca > > Alternatives - alternatives at alternatives.ca > > > > > > > > > > > -- > rgreen at freeshell.org > rgreen at sdf.lonestar.org > (They're both the same account. I switched to the 'freeshell' one cause > it's easier to remember. You can send mail to either and I'll get it.) > ********** > MOBMTL LISTSERV: > -Mobilisation Montr?alais pour les manifestations contre George W. Bush ? l'occasion de sa premi?re 'visite d'?tat' ? Ottawa (30 nov. - 1 dec. 2004) > > -Montreal mobilization for protests against George W. Bush's on the occasion of his 'state visit' to Ottawa (Nov. 30 - Dec 1 2004). > ********** > To subscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to: mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net > To unsubscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to: mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > > Pour abonner ? mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide ?: mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net > Pour d?sabonner ? mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide ?: mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net > From mfoster at web.ca Tue Oct 11 20:01:15 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 23:01:15 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Spies, bureaucracy and torture Message-ID: <056301c5ced9$3f24f960$842d54c7@CPQ18145226471> Spies, bureaucracy and torture Two days in court with CSIS and Charkaoui "I think they probably see me as the enemy," said Barbara Campion, media spokesperson for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Campion was standing feet away from Latifa and Hind, mother and sister of Adil Charkaoui, and had been asked if she would like to come over to meet them. She didn't think that would be appropriate. When pressed, she admitted that there weren't any rules in place that prevented her from greeting the family, but well, it didn't feel appropriate. Campion and the Charkaouis were in the hallway outside another hearing in the case of Adil Charkaoui, a father of two who has lived in Montreal since 1995. Arrested in May 2003 under a national security certificate, Charkaoui has been labelled "terrorist suspect" and faces deportation under secret evidence he is not allowed to fight in a fair trial. After two years in prison without charge, he was released in February 2005 under very strict conditions. His certificate has still never been reviewed by a judge, not even in the very limited sense provided by the security certificate process. In other words, his loss of liberty is essentially the result of a decision made by two cabinet ministers. It demonstrates a concentration of executive power that has concerned many. Last week Charkaoui launched a motion to argue that keeping him under threat of deportation to torture is a violation of his Charter rights and of the UN Convention Against Torture. For the first time, Charkaoui was challenging the part of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) which says that people who have been labelled security threats should be excluded from protections against torture. These sections act hand-in-hand with security certificates to open the door to rendition to torture for non-citizens. This is the threat under which the Charkaoui family is living. It has added to the stress of arbitrary detention, ceaseless media slander, the necessity of endless court hearings and campaigning, and release conditions which humiliate and choke the freedom of the entire family. It was Campion's first appearance at one of the security certificate hearings. She had also put in a silent appearance at the Parliamentary sub-committee hearings on security certificates two weeks earlier, on 21 September. Campion's emergence perhaps signals a change in CSIS's media strategy. After Maher Arar, Al Maati, Elmalki and Liddar, not to mention the Air India investigation, CSIS hasn't been looking too pretty. But if you can't reform, you can at least pay a PR person to spin. Campion confided that it wasn't easy being the media spokesperson for CSIS on security certificates. When asked, she clarified that, no, this wasn't because it (arbitrary and indefinite detention, presumption of guilt, secret trials, deportation to torture and racial profiling) is a difficult position to defend. It is because journalists are frustrated by the fact that she can't tell them much - CSIS has to remain tight-lipped about its secrets. Such as the secret that their secrets are too flimsy to actually charge Adil or the other security certificate detainees under criminal law? (This has already come out in the case of security certificate detainee Hassan Almrei, imprisonned without charge since October 2001 in Toronto. A confidential government memo obtained during the Arar inquiry states that "the evidence against [him] does not meet the threshold for criminal charges to be laid against him in Canada.") Like the secret that they don't actually have a case, but only secret suspicions gathered under intimidation, bribery, blackmail, torture and a secret policy of racial profiling? I didn't ask her. The two days were long and technical. On one side, Adil and his lawyers (two women). On the other side, the lawyers for the Minister of Immigration and for the Minister of Public Security (three men). In front, Judge Noel. In the front row of the audience, directly opposite and facing the Judge, Latifa and Hind. Behind and beside them, journalists and observers, including Campion, miscellaneous members of the Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui, students, academics and friends. What was at stake was whether Canadian authorities would or would not knowingly send people, specifically Latifa's son Adil, to torture. The genius of the legal system is that it was able to dissect that struggle over a man's body into a series of rational arguments which lost all signs of vitality. It was a very dull time, alleviated by two or three guffuffles. Guffuffle one was the fact that Adil arrived half an hour after the hearing was to have begun. His father having just begun work, his mother having an unavoidable offical appointment which ran over-time, and Adil's conditions forbidding him to leave home without his parents, one of his lawyers, Dominique Larochelle, had to fetch him at the last moment. Charkaoui's other lawyer, Johanne Doyon, then began to make what seemed, to non-lawyers at least, the fairly straight-forward case that holding Adil under prolonged and serious threat of torture violates his charter rights to life, liberty and security of person, to not be subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, and to equality (only non-citizens are subject to such treatment). Following a line of reasoning equally self-evident to the uninitiated, she argued that the part of the Immigration law that says that protection against torture does not apply to everyone, contradicts the part of international law that says that everyone must be protected against torture. Apparently the arguments are not as straightforward as they appear to the untrained mind. They required a good day and a half from Doyon, punctuated by questions from the Judge, before Mr. Latulippe, the lawyer for the Immigration Minister, had a chance to stand up for torture. Guffuffle two was a sudden impatience on the part of the Judge during Doyon's description of the stress under which Charkaoui was living, and its negative impact on his psychological health. Why, the judge asked, if Charkaoui claims to be under so much stress, doesn't he just go through with the review of the certificate? We could simply throw out the certificate and the situation would be over! Where was the problem? Judge Noel was referring to the fact that the review of Charkaoui's certificate has been suspended since March 2005, when the Minister of Immigration was forced to withdraw an August 2004 decision to deny Charkaoui protection against deportation to torture. That decision had been largely based on diplomatic assurances from Morocco, which were rather spectacularly exposed on Radio Canada TV as worthless by the Moroccan Minister of Justice. Charkaoui requested that the review of the certificate be suspended until the government came out with a new decision on protection; Judge Noel agreed. Was Noel now asking Charkaoui to put his trust in judicial assurances? Day two began with quite a heated guffuffle of its own. Charkaoui's lawyers wanted evidence that the Minister really had read the secret "evidence" against Charkaoui before signing the certificate against him. (In an aside, Dominique Larochelle clarified that, as a criminal lawyer, she couldn't really accept this material as evidence. She might have continued as K. in The Trial, "I recognize them as such, for the moment, out of compassion, so to speak.") The judge responded, basically, that he couldn't imagine a situation in which they would have signed without reading the secrets. Doyon agreed that it would be astonishing, but added that she had been astonished to learn that something of the kind had happened in the case of Mahjoub. (Mahjoub had been denied protection against deportation to torture basically on the grounds that the secret evidence indicated that he might be too dangerous to remain in Canada, but the Minister's delegate who wrote the decision had not in fact even read the secret evidence.) Astonishing things seem to happen in these cases. In the end, neither the judge nor the government lawyers could provide evidence that the Ministers had read the secrets presented about Adil. But they believed it to be unimaginable that the Ministers hadn't done so, the Judge noting that it didn't make sense to read the summary without its secret annexes. This is a fact Adil and his lawyers know only too well, because they are only allowed to read the summary. But their experience allows them to very clearly imagine a scenario where the secret evidence was not read before the certificates were signed. Finally, Mr. Latulippe, a large man with a deep voice, rose to the defense of torture. Such is the banality of evil in a bureaucracy and such the impressive resonance of his voice, that it wasn't immediately apparent that that was what he was doing. Latulippe defended refoulement to torture by selectively citing the Supreme Court's Suresh decision - Canadian policy that there are "exceptional circumstances" in which refoulement is permissible. The exceptional stress under which the Charkaouis are living and the abuses they have suffered didn't really impress Latulippe from a legal point of view. He said he believed this approach to be reasonable: threats, national security, Al Qaeda, sleeper cells, terrorism, terrorists. The logic was elliptic, and its applicability to the immediate situation unspecified, but his authoritative voice carried him through. He replied to Doyon's argument that Canadian policy violated international law's absolute prohibition to deportation on torture by making refined, academically interesting arguments about the applicability of international law to the domestic context. Although Latulippe was simply defending Canadian government policy and a section of Canadian law, it was deeply unsettling to hear the position argued in person, all the more so for the air of professional competence, witticisms and all, with which it was delivered. The judge will take final submissions and begin deliberations in two weeks. The motion argued by Doyon is posted at www.adilinfo.org/themes/motion.htm. (informal report by mary foster) TO JOIN LISTSERV FOR COALITION FOR JUSTICE FOR ADIL CHARKAOUI, SEND EMAIL TO justiceforadil-subscribe at lists.riseup.net. From mfoster at web.ca Wed Oct 12 05:21:02 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (mfoster at web.ca) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Party de solidarit =?iso-8859-1?q?=E9_avec_Haiti_-_Haiti_solidari?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ty_party_?= (le 21 octobre - october 21st) Message-ID: <3037.199.84.45.211.1129119662.squirrel@flymail.web.ca> From: aaron at resist.ca (english below) SVP DIFFUSEZ Party de solidarit? avec le peule haitien! "Paul Martin, crisse ton camps d?Haiti!!" ====================================================== vendredi, le 21 octobre Coop Griffintown, 242 rue Young (juste au sud de Peel et Notre Dame, metro Bonaventure) 21h00 entr?e par contribution volontaire ====================================================== ? l?affiche: Andy Williams 1-Speed Bike le collectif Venus (les ?toiles de CKUT) plus bi?re, boissons, projections, agitations, et perturbations! Cette soir?e est une benefice pour envoyer des militantEs et journalistEs independentEs de Montr?al en Haiti pour documenter le role du Canada apr?s le coup d??tat de 2004. Infos ? 931-6344 --------------- Solidarity with Haiti party! "Martin, get the hell out of Haiti!" ====================================================== Friday, October 21st Griffintown Coop, 242 Young (just south of Peel and Notre Dame, near metro Bonaventure) 9pm Entry is pay what you can ====================================================== Featuring: Andy Williams 1-Speed Bike the Venus collective (of CKUT fame) plus cheap beer, drinks, projections, disruptions, and agitationsH! This is a benefit event to send activists and independent journalists from Montreal to Haiti to document Canada?s role in the Coup d?Etat of 2004. Info ? 931-6344 _______________________________________________ Blem-org mailing list Blem-org at lists.resist.ca https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/blem-org From mfoster at web.ca Sat Oct 15 07:58:57 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] (reminder) Monday: Charkaoui speaking at Concordia Message-ID: <00a801c5d198$fc80c9a0$f32d54c7@CPQ18145226471> Measuring Security Measures - Film & Panel A close look at immigration, media and law in a secure Canada Monday, October 17, 7pm Room H 110 @ Concordia University (1455 De Maisonneuve) PANELISTS: *Adil Charkaoui, detained for 21 months on a security certificate before being granted bail last February. Living under severe conditions, and still facing deportation to torture. *Julius Grey, a renowned Montreal lawyer and McGill University professor of law, promoter of tolerance. *Yasmin Jiwani - professor in the Communications Department of Concordia University who has done extensive work on immigrant women and girls. FILMS: The five short films featured in the tour are directed by independent and emerging filmmakers whose works probe the delicate balance between public security and civil liberties. They are: Security Consciousness: Detained in Guelph, by Reel Alternative Productions; Sophie, directed and produced by Alexandre Roy; Whose Rights Anyway?, by Anice Wong; Threadbare, a work in progress, produced and directed by Arshad Khan; Take Back the Days: Step by Step to Ottawa, produced and directed by Eylem Kaftan. free and open to all. IMMIGRATION | MEDIA | LAW . Are recent security laws and policies in Canada undermining civil liberties? . Has mainstream media in Canada adequately framed and analyzed this issue? >From Halifax to Vancouver, CitizenShift and ?berculture with the participation of refugee and immigrant advocacy groups have organized two exciting weeks of film screenings and panel discussions in over ten Canadian cities. These symposiums will be held from October 17-30, 2005, and are meant to provide an open and accessible forum for debate on the issues of immigration, media, law and national security in our country. These three intersecting components of Measuring Security Measures provide a framework for discussion with audience and panellists. Changes in Canadian laws and policies since September 11, 2001 and the consequences of these laws for many immigrants and refugees will be examined, analyzed and discussed through new short films and panels. The media's role in framing and covering such debate will also be discussed. Following one hour of film screenings, audiences will hear from the panellists, then be invited to join in a discussion. (**NOTE: In Montreal, Charkaoui will speak first, due to his curfew.) For more information on dates, times, venues and panellists, please consult the following Web site: http://www.citizen.nfb.ca/msm. About CitizenShift Launched in October 2004, CitizenShift is an interactive Web magazine where filmmaking and social activism meet. CitizenShift, which is celebrating its first anniversary, integrates video, audio, photos, text and other media contributed by Canadian individuals, communities and filmmakers. This unique online platform provides a space where citizens can share knowledge, be entertained and, most importantly, debate social issues. About ?berculture ?berculture is a grassroots, non-profit collective committed to the reclamation of culture. Concerned with the loss of cultural diversity, ?berculture does extensive research and creative action, exposing and resisting the commodification of society. About the NFB Founded in 1939, the National Film Board of Canada has produced more than 11,000 films and other audiovisual works and won more than 4,500 awards - including 11 Oscars?. As Canada's public film producer, the NFB produces and distributes distinctive, culturally diverse, challenging and relevant audiovisual works that provide Canada and the world with a unique Canadian perspective. To purchase NFB releases or for more information, visit http://www.nfb.ca or call 1-800-267-7710. From mfoster at web.ca Tue Oct 18 13:29:45 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:29:45 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] All Out! - Protest Condi Rice visit, 24 October, noon Message-ID: <032201c5d422$afcef640$14bc13cc@CPQ18145226471> From: "Jo Wood" > [le fran?ais suid l'anglais] > Please distribute widely. > ==================================================== > U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE WILL > VISIT OTTAWA FROM OCTOBER 24 TO 25, 2005. > > Rally Monday, 24 October, 12 Noon > Location TBA (when we know more about her schedule.) > > CONDI, GO HOME!!! > WAR RESISTERS WELCOME! WAR CRIMINALS NOT! > > Let the Canadian Government know how much we > disagree with Pierre Pettigrew when he says, "No > two countries in the world share a more > close-knit partnership than Canada and the U.S. > Our two countries work side by side every hour of > every day in areas vital to both our > interests. However, it is face-to-face > engagements that allow us to consolidate that > work, and to represent our respective nations on > a more personal level. I am very pleased to welcome Secretary Rice." > > Bring your placards and noise makers. > Let the Canadian government know that we oppose > all the Bush government stands for! > Stay tuned for the location. > > www.nowar-paix.ca > info at nowar-paix.ca > > ======================================================================== > LA S?CRETAIRE D'?TAT DES ?TAS-UNIS CONDOLEEZA > RICE VA VISITER OTTAWA LES 24 ET 25 OCTOBRE, 2005. > > Rassemblement lundi, le 24 octobre, ? midi > Lieu ? venir (quand on en saura plus sur son horaire.) > > > CONDI, RETOURNE CHEZ TOI! > LES OBJECTEURS DE CONSCIENCE SONT BIENVENUS, MAIS PAS LES CRIMINELS DE GUERRE! > > > Laissez le gouvernement canadienne savoir ? quel > point nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec Pierre Pettigrew quand il dit, > > ? Il n'y a pas deux pays au monde qui > entretiennent des relations plus ?troites que le > Canada et les ?tats-Unis. Nos deux pays > travaillent c?te ? c?te ? toute heure du jour > dans des domaines vitaux pour nos int?r?ts > respectifs. Toutefois, ce sont des entretiens > comme celui-ci qui nous permettent de consolider > ce travail et de repr?senter nos nations sur un > plan plus personnel. Je suis vraiment tr?s > heureux d'accueillir la secr?taire d'?tat Rice. ? > > > Apportez vos pancartes et des trucs pour faire du bruit. > Faites savoir au gouvernment canaiden que nous > nous opposons ? tous ce que le gouvernment de Bush repr?sente! > (Restez ? l'?coute pour conna?tre le lieu.) > > www.nowar-paix.ca > info at nowar-paix.ca > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nowar mailing list > Nowar at list.nowar-paix.ca > http://list.nowar-paix.ca/mailman/listinfo/nowar From mfoster at web.ca Sat Oct 22 07:58:57 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:58:57 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] (Ottawa) Condi go home Message-ID: <00de01c5d71c$6c1c0940$912d54c7@CPQ18145226471> (The Next General Planning meeting is this Sunday, October 23, at 5 PM at > 123 Simard Hall, U of O OTTAWA) > > Please forward Widely!!! > ------------------------------------- > > CONDI GO HOME! > Mass Demonstration for peace and justice > 24 Sussex Drive, Prime Minister's Residence, 6 PM, Monday October 24th > (Catch the #3 Bus on OC TRANSPO) > Organized by the Student Coalition Against War (SCAW) > > Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State of the United States, will be > coming to Ottawa on Monday, October 24th to meet with Prime Minister Paul > Martin. Condi Rice was among the key architects behind the Iraq war and has > emerged as the most prominent spokesperson for U.S. aggression. It is clear > that part of the reason for Rice's visit is to ensure Canada's ongoing and > potentially extended involvement in the U.S. led global "war on terror." > The Student Coalition Against War (SCAW) calls for all students, youth > and communities to mobilize for Rice's visit and challenge her message of > war and occupation. It is time once again that Canadians stand up and > reject the racist "war on terror" and demand that social services such as > education be give priority over military spending. This coming Monday the > 24th, Rice is scheduled to have dinner with Martin at the Prime Minister's > residence. Join the rally to interrupt Rice's dinner and deliver a powerful > message of peace and justice! Be there at 24 Sussex Drive at 6 PM, on > Monday, October 24!. > For further information, contact scaw at yahoogroups.ca > > WAR RESISTERS WELCOME, WAR CRIMINALS NOT! > NO TO WAR, OCCUPATION AND CANADIAN MILITARISM! > YES TO HEALTH AND EDUCATION! From noii-montreal at resist.ca Sat Oct 22 13:25:12 2005 From: noii-montreal at resist.ca (No One is Illegal Montreal) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Charging Bush for War Crimes ... Message-ID: [From the Georgia Straight in Vancouver. -- Jaggi.] Bush publication ban lifted http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=13646 By matthew burrows Publish Date: 20-Oct-2005 A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to prosecute U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code. Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called Lawyers Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting of a publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president. "It's great news, but really they had no choice," Davidson told the Georgia Straight. The Kitsilano lawyer got the ball rolling against Bush as soon as he set foot on Canadian soil for his November 30, 2004, visit. As a private citizen, she charged him with seven counts of counselling, aiding, and abetting torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay naval base. She had her charges accepted by a justice of the peace in Vancouver Provincial Court. Bush faces prison time if the case goes to trial and he is found guilty. On December 6, 2004, Davidson was at Provincial Court to fix a date for the process hearing. However, Provincial Court Judge William Kitchen promptly ordered a Straight reporter and other observers from the courtroom and cancelled the charges, declaring them a "nullity". The meeting was deemed to be "in-camera" and Kitchen concluded immediately that Bush had diplomatic immunity during his two-day visit to Canada because he was a head of state. Davidson subsequently appealed Kitchen's decision and B.C. Supreme Court Justice Deborah Satanove directed the Crown to produce submissions on the publication bans by October 14. The Crown consented to the termination of Judge Kitchen's Provincial Court ban and an interim ban made by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Patrick Dohm. "We are next in [B.C. Supreme] court at 10 a.m. on November 25 for the Crown to argue that the case is moot and that the court not hear any argument on the substantive issue as to whether George Bush is protected from prosecution under the laws of Canada by what Judge Kitchen called a "concept of diplomatic immunity,"" Davidson wrote in an October 18 e-mail to the Straight. In an earlier interview with the Straight, Davidson said "nullity" means the charges never legally existed, even though they were approved by a justice of the peace on November 30, 2004. Crown counsel spokesperson Stan Lowe told the Straight that the upcoming November 25 court proceedings - he erroneously referred to the case as "Regina versus Bush" - will focus on two issues. "First of all, the court has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to hear the matter," Lowe said. "It's a review, an application by Gail Davidson arising out of a Provincial Court decision. Secondly, part of the issue is whether they [LAW] can proceed in their application without the permission of the Attorney General of Canada." Canadian Attorney General Irwin Cotler must give his consent within eight days of laying charges for the case to continue. The Crown is now raising a preliminary objection that B.C. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on Davidson's appeal because the issues raised are no longer moot. "It's great," Davidson said. "Now the Crown's argument is moving from mute to moot." As a result of the lifting of the publication ban, the Straight has obtained a copy of the Provincial Court transcript from December 6, 2004. It sheds new light on some of the finer details of why Davidson and LAW laid the charges. "It's not a frivolously filed application," Davidson said last year in court. "The application was filed on the 30th [of November] because Mr. Bush was in Canada, thereby giving Canada the jurisdiction to prosecute under 269(1) [of the Criminal Code of Canada], the torture section." Deputy regional Crown counsel Marion Paruk stated the Bush couldn't be charged because he is a head of state: "This immunity flows from both the common law, international common law, Canadian common law, as well as by Canadian statute." In her response - outlining why immunity does not apply to Bush - Davidson was hurried up by Kitchen. "I can give you a few minutes, not too many. It seems to be a slam dunk to me. I'm not going to get into a long argument about it. It seems to be trite criminal law." Davidson pointed out that Canada signed the 1987 Convention Against Torture. As a result, she said, "amendments to the Criminal Code were made to allow Canada to expand its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of torture." Addressing directly the Crown's question of immunity, Davidson referred to the Rome Statute, defining torture as a war crime and barring immunity for torture and other war crimes. "Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with you," Kitchen said. From mfoster at web.ca Sun Oct 23 19:44:50 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:44:50 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] Charging Bush for War Crimes ... Message-ID: <01c001c5d844$ed7f0ef0$6e2d54c7@CPQ18145226471> > [From the Georgia Straight in Vancouver ...] > > Bush publication ban lifted > > http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=13646 > > By matthew burrows > Publish Date: 20-Oct-2005 > > A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to prosecute > U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code. > > Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called Lawyers > Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting of a > publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president. > > "It's great news, but really they had no choice," Davidson told the Georgia > Straight. > > The Kitsilano lawyer got the ball rolling against Bush as soon as he set foot > on Canadian soil for his November 30, 2004, visit. As a private citizen, she > charged him with seven counts of counselling, aiding, and abetting torture at > Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay naval base. She had her > charges accepted by a justice of the peace in Vancouver Provincial Court. > > Bush faces prison time if the case goes to trial and he is found guilty. > > On December 6, 2004, Davidson was at Provincial Court to fix a date for the > process hearing. However, Provincial Court Judge William Kitchen promptly > ordered a Straight reporter and other observers from the courtroom and > cancelled the charges, declaring them a "nullity". The meeting was deemed to be > "in-camera" and Kitchen concluded immediately that Bush had diplomatic immunity > during his two-day visit to Canada because he was a head of state. > > Davidson subsequently appealed Kitchen's decision and B.C. Supreme Court > Justice Deborah Satanove directed the Crown to produce submissions on the > publication bans by October 14. The Crown consented to the termination of Judge > Kitchen's Provincial Court ban and an interim ban made by B.C. Supreme Court > Justice Patrick Dohm. > > "We are next in [B.C. Supreme] court at 10 a.m. on November 25 for the Crown to > argue that the case is moot and that the court not hear any argument on the > substantive issue as to whether George Bush is protected from prosecution under > the laws of Canada by what Judge Kitchen called a "concept of diplomatic > immunity,"" Davidson wrote in an October 18 e-mail to the Straight. > > In an earlier interview with the Straight, Davidson said "nullity" means the > charges never legally existed, even though they were approved by a justice of > the peace on November 30, 2004. Crown counsel spokesperson Stan Lowe told the > Straight that the upcoming November 25 court proceedings - he erroneously > referred to the case as "Regina versus Bush" - will focus on two issues. > > "First of all, the court has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in the > Supreme Court to hear the matter," Lowe said. "It's a review, an application by > Gail Davidson arising out of a Provincial Court decision. Secondly, part of the > issue is whether they [LAW] can proceed in their application without the > permission of the Attorney General of Canada." > > Canadian Attorney General Irwin Cotler must give his consent within eight days > of laying charges for the case to continue. The Crown is now raising a > preliminary objection that B.C. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to > adjudicate on Davidson's appeal because the issues raised are no longer moot. > "It's great," Davidson said. "Now the Crown's argument is moving from mute to > moot." > > As a result of the lifting of the publication ban, the Straight has obtained a > copy of the Provincial Court transcript from December 6, 2004. It sheds new > light on some of the finer details of why Davidson and LAW laid the charges. > > "It's not a frivolously filed application," Davidson said last year in court. > "The application was filed on the 30th [of November] because Mr. Bush was in > Canada, thereby giving Canada the jurisdiction to prosecute under 269(1) [of > the Criminal Code of Canada], the torture section." > > Deputy regional Crown counsel Marion Paruk stated the Bush couldn't be charged > because he is a head of state: "This immunity flows from both the common law, > international common law, Canadian common law, as well as by Canadian statute." > > In her response - outlining why immunity does not apply to Bush - Davidson was > hurried up by Kitchen. > > "I can give you a few minutes, not too many. It seems to be a slam dunk to me. > I'm not going to get into a long argument about it. It seems to be trite > criminal law." > > Davidson pointed out that Canada signed the 1987 Convention Against Torture. As > a result, she said, "amendments to the Criminal Code were made to allow Canada > to expand its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of torture." > > Addressing directly the Crown's question of immunity, Davidson referred to the > Rome Statute, defining torture as a war crime and barring immunity for torture > and other war crimes. > > "Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with you," Kitchen said. From mfoster at web.ca Mon Oct 24 07:35:49 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Bloquez l'empire) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:35:49 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] =?iso-8859-1?q?MARDI=2C_1_nov=3A_CONF=C9RENC?= =?iso-8859-1?q?E_sur_la_guerre_en_IRAK_//_TUESDAY=2C_Nov=2E_1=3A_P?= =?iso-8859-1?q?UBLIC_TALK_on_the_war_in_IRAQ?= Message-ID: <00bf01c5d8a8$421b7c10$d82d54c7@CPQ18145226471> From: "?chec ? la guerre" (English info follows French) Cette conf?rence est organis?e par le Collectif ?chec ? la guerre SVP faites circuler largement au sein de vos r?seaux. Merci ! ============================================= LE POINT DE VUE D'UN JOURNALISTE IND?PENDANT CONCERNANT LA GUERRE EN IRAK ============================================= Mardi, 1 novembre, 19h Centre St-Pierre, salle 100 1212 Panet (m?tro Beaudry) En anglais avec traduction simultan?e vers le fran?ais Entr?e libre Las de l'incapacit? g?n?ralis?e des m?dias ?tasuniens de rendre compte correctement des r?alit?s de la guerre en Irak pour le peuple irakien et les soldats ?tasuniens, Dahr Jamail s'est rendu en Irak pour faire ses propres reportages sur la guerre. Ses d?p?ches ont rapidement ?t? reconnues comme une ressource importante pour les m?dias. Il ?crit maintenant pour Inter Press Service, The Asia Times et plusieurs autres diffuseurs. Ses reportages ont ?galement ?t? publi?s dans The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, et the Guardian pour ne nommer que ceux-l?. Les d?p?ches et les articles de fond de Dahr Jamail ont ?t? traduits en fran?ais, en polonais, en allemand, en espagnol, en japonais, en portugais, en chinois, en arabe et en turc. ? la radio, Dahr Jamail est le correspondant sp?cial de Flashpoints et il fait des reportages pour la BBC, Democracy Now!, et plusieurs autres stations dans le monde. Un des seuls journalistes ind?pendants des ?tats-Unis en Irak, Dahr Jamail a s?journ? un total de 8 mois dans ce pays. Dahr utilise le site www.DahrJamailIraq.com et sa populaire liste d'envoi ?lectronique pour diffuser ses d?p?ches. Dahr a t?moign? ? la session de Rome duTribunal mondial sur l'Irak, au sujet de la complicit? des m?dias dans la guerre, de m?me qu'? la session finale ? Istanbul, en Turquie, l'?t? dernier. "Pendant que le gouvernement de Bush continue d'ignorer les appels ? un calendrier de retrait des troupes ?tasuniennes, les Irakiens continuent de mourir et de souffrir avec tr?s peu d'espoir pour l'avenir. De jour en jour, la catastrophe en Irak ressemble de plus en plus ? la d?bacle des ?tats-Unis au Vietnam." T?moignage ? la session finale du Tribunal mondial pour l'Irak, Istanboul, Turquie, 25 juin 2005. "Un de mes bons amis ? Bagdad m'a ?crit juste avant le soi-disant vote constitutionnel de samedi dans l'Irak occup?: "J'aimerais souligner qu'? trois jours du r?f?rendum de tr?s larges secteurs de la population irakienne n'ont pas pu recevoir une partie des cinq millions de copies [de la constitution] de la part de l'ONU, c'est-?-dire qu'ils et elles ne sauront pas ce que la constitution contient. Par cons?quent, leur vote se fera selon leur milieu ou leurs pr?f?rences religieuses ou politiques. Plusieurs personnes qui voteront oui ne savent pas pourquoi elles voteront oui... quelle sorte de vote est-ce l??" extrait de "?lections" et autres tromperies en Irak, 18 octobre, 2005. ======================= ENGLISH BEGINS HERE ======================= This speaking event is organized by Collectif Echec a la guerre PLEASE circulate broadly within your networks. Thanks! ================================== AN INDEPENDENT REPORTER'S VIEW OF THE WAR IN IRAQ ================================== Tuesday, November 1, 7 pm Centre St-Pierre, Room 100 1212 Panet (Beaudry metro) In Engish with simultaneous translation towards French Free admission Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself. His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, and the Guardian to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On the radio, Dahr is a special correspondent for Flashpoints and reports for the BBC, Democracy Now!, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country. Dahr uses the www.DahrJamailIraq.com website and his popular mailing list to disseminate his dispatches. Dahr has provided testimony in the Rome World Tribunal on Iraq covering Media Complicity in the war, as well as the culminating session this last summer in Istanbul, Turkey. "While the Bush Administration continues to disregard calls for a timetable for withdrawal, Iraqis continue to suffer and die with little hope for their future. With each passing day, the catastrophe in Iraq resembles the US debacle in Vietnam more and more." From World Tribunal for Iraq, Culminating Session Testimony, Istanbul, Turkey, 25 June 2005. "Just before Saturday's so-called constitutional referendum vote in occupied Iraq, one of my close friends in Baghdad wrote me, "I would like to point out that we are three days away from the referendum, yet very large sectors of Iraqi people couldn't receive part of the five million copies [of the constitution] from the UN, ie- they will not know what the constitution contains. Subsequently, they will vote according to their backgrounds or religious or political preferences. Many people who will vote yes do not know why they will vote yes...what kind of vote is this?" from "Elections" and other Deceptions in Iraq, October 18, 2005. From mfoster at web.ca Fri Oct 28 21:43:41 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] 19 Nov.: Kafka takes on security certificates Message-ID: <300001c5dc43$591fe830$762d54c7@CPQ18145226471> (please circulate) Teesri Dunya Theatre, in collaboration with the Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui, is proud to present TRIAL a reading of selections from Kafka's The Trial, interwoven with the stories of five men trapped in Canada's security certificate process Saturday, 19 November at 8pm / doors at 7pm F.C. Smith Auditorium (7141 Sherbrooke St. W) (Take bus 105 from Vendome metro) "Someone must have slandered Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning." - Kafka in the 1920's "For seventeen months, I have shouted to the four winds, to all who would hear, that I am innocent of all the charges." - Adil Charkaoui in 2004 Based on an adaptation by writer and social justice advocate Matthew Behrens and playwright and theatre director Laurel Smith, "Trial" weaves the stories of five men trapped in the security certificate process into the rich fabric of Kafka's exploration of the nature of bureaucratic power. The result is an emotionally powerful critique of Canada's anti-terror legislation from the perspective of five immigrants, including Montrealer Adil Charkaoui, who woke one day to find himself in the Kafkaien world of the "war on terror". "My innocence doesn't simplify the matter," said K. "A number of subtle points are involved, in which the court loses its way. But then in the end it pulls out some profound guilt from somewhere where there was originally none at all." * WITH Playwright David Fennario, poet Paul Chamberland, writer Anita Rau Badami, actress Diana Fajrajsl, social justice activist Jaggi Singh, poet Ehab Lotayef, actress Marthe Turgeon, and ... Adil Charkaoui. * AND Iraqi Hip-Hop artist Yassin aka Narcy of Euphrates * Directed by Lib Spry Bilingual performance with translation in English and French Suggested price $20 (pay what you can) Tickets in advance: 514 859 9023 A benefit for the Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui ************ The Playwrights * Laurel Smith is a Toronto-based playwright, director and Artistic Producer of Burning Passions Theatre, a company dedicated to telling the stories of women and youth. Her most recent play, "The Crush of Beauty" is currently being developed by Burning Passions Theatre for a production next year. Another current project is an adaptation of the Kenneth Grahame story, "The Reluctant Dragon," being developed by the renowned theatre for young audiences company Carousel Players and inspired by the lives of one of the Secret Trial Five, Hassan Almrei. Laurel is a founding member of Homes not Bombs. * Matthew Behrens is a social justice advocate and writer from Toronto, and founder and organizer for The Campaign to Stop Secret Trials, Homes not Bombs and Toronto Action for Social Change. Matthew's writings on social justice issues, and most recently on the Secret Trial Five, have appeared in many publications and have been disseminated around the globe. He is in equal measures committed to non-violent resistance as well as incorporating the core truths of traditional country music into the progressive dialetic. The Director * Lib Spry has worked in theatre for over thirty years as a director, writer, teacher, performer, translator and popular theatre worker. She is a specialist in popular theatre, theatre for young audiences and physical theatre. Her work has taken her to England, France, Canada and the United States. She is presently the literary manager for Teesri Duniya Theatre. Featuring: * Anita Rau Badami is the author of two novels -- Tamarind Mem, and The Hero's Walk and a third novel, Indra's Net scheduled for release in 2006. Her novels have been published to critical acclaim in more than a dozen countries around the world and have won prizes including the Commonwealth Writers Prize (Canada & Caribbean), the Marian Engel Award, the Premio Berto award and the Premio citta di' Gaeti prize. * Paul Chamberland, with a background in philosophy and literature, has taught creative writing at various educational institutions, including the University of Qu?bec at Montreal (UQAM). Author of collections of poetry and essays, he has taken part in numerous poetry readings and university colloquia in Quebec and elsewhere. Among his published work: Terre Qu?bec (poetry, 1964), Au seuil d'une autre Terre (poetry, 2003) and Une politique de la douleur (essay, 2004). * Adil Charkaoui is a father and a student at the University of Montreal who emigrated to Canada in 1995 with his mother, father, and sister. Part of his "journey" to Canada from abroad has been two years in prison without charge, under the fear-inspiring label of "terror suspect". He and his family continue to live under the ever-present threat of his deportation to torture; their freedom severely curtailed by conditions that force him to wear a GPS tracking bracelet, impose a curfew, prevent him from leaving home without his mother or father, and permit 24-hour access to his home without permit. * Diana Fajrajsl is a peripatetic Montreal-based theatre director, actor, and teacher. Most recently, she directed the world premiere of Carolyn Guillet's 17 [Anonymous] Women for Infinitheatre here in Montreal. She has performed in theatres from Vancouver to Corner Brook, and taught at Mcgill, Concordia, and Bishop's Universities as well as the National Theatre School of Canada. * David Fennario Montreal playwright/performer/activist Member of the Union des Forces Progressiste and International Socialists Latest artistic action: A stage play"Condoville' at the Centaur about govt attacks on Co-op housing subsidies and the fightback against gentrification Latest Political action: A spokesperson and participate in a speakout/ demonstration against the plans to build a huge casino complex in the Pointe. "Theatre is more than just a mirror reflection of Life; it can be used to change the way we live "-Brecht * Jaggi Singh, despite having been prevented by court condition from using a megaphone and then from amplifying his voice by any means whatsoever, remains a strong voice for justice in Canada. Though banned at one point by court order from "being a leader", Singh has helped motivate, provide intellectual framework, and organise popular movements of resistance in Montreal. Most recently, he was involved in the week-long Solidarity Across Borders march from Montreal to Ottawa to demand rights for non-status and the abolition of security certificates. *Marthe Turgeon is a Quebec-based actress in film, television and theatre, from King Lear to the world premiere of Michel Tremblay's l'Etat des lieux. In 1989 she won the prize for best actress from the Association qu?b?coise des critiques de th??tre. With music and poetry by: * Yassin (AKA Narcy) Alsalman is a communications masters student currently writing his thesis on HIP-HOP and social resistance: Highly Intellectualized Persons Hovering Over Politics. Also known as Narcy, the frontman of Iraqi Trio Euphrates, Yassin is mostly known for his lyrics and performances around Montreal. The Euphrates Projects "Stereotypes Incorporated" and "A Bend in the River" both served as documentation of injustice and stereotypical representation of Arabs and Muslims in the media through the beats of SandHiLL and the lyrics of Narcy AKA Jamal Abdul Narcel. Currently touring the STEREOTYPES INCORPORATED LP, Narcy can be seen on stages from Montreal to Europe! Check out www.narcy.net, or www.iraqisthebomb.com for more information! * Ehab Lotayef is a poet, playwright and activist for social justice in Montreal. He has travelled to both Palestine and Iraq in past years, documenting his experiences to contribute to understanding and engagement in both situations. His radio play "Crossing Gibraltar" was produced by CBC radio and broadcast earlier this year. ************* Popular opposition to the security certificate process, spear-headed by the families of the detainees, has made the issue one that can no longer be ignored by the public, the media and Canadian authorities. The movement challenges the heart of the politics of fear which has been rapidly shifting the political terrain in North America towards a situation often compared to pre-war Germany or the McCarthy era. Victories in the past year include the inclusion of security certificates in a Parliamentary review, the release of Adil Charkaoui, condemnation of Canadian legislation by the UN Committee Against Torture, and agreement by the Supreme Court to hear a constitutional challenge to the security certificate process. At the same time, all five men and their entire families are still living under an active threat of deportation; four remain in the hell of indefinite detention. Two, Hassan Almrei and Mohammad Mahjoub, have just finished life-threatening hunger-strikes of 72 and 79 days, protesting their conditions of detention. Charkaoui, a father of two small children who came to Canada in 1995 with his mother, father and sister, lives under virtual house arrest, which humiliates and chokes the freedom of the entire family. Trial tells their stories against the backdrop of one of Germany's most brilliant works of art. ----------------- MORE INFO: 514 859 9023 Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui justiceforadil at riseup.net tel 514 859 9023 www.adilinfo.org Tessri Duniya Theatre tduniya at aei.ca tel 514 848 0238 www.teesriduniyatheatre.com sponsored by CKUT 90.3 FM From mfoster at web.ca Sat Oct 29 04:41:21 2005 From: mfoster at web.ca (Mary Foster) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:41:21 -0400 Subject: [Bloquez l'empire!] =?iso-8859-1?q?=28Montr=E9al=29_19_novembre_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A_Kafka_et_les_certificats_de_s=E9curit=E9?= Message-ID: <003701c5dc7d$cf56eb90$17bc13cc@CPQ18145226471> (svp diffuser) Le Teesri Dunya Theater, en collaboration avec la Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui, est fier de pr?senter PROC?S Lecture de l'oeuvre ? Le proc?s ? de Kafka, adapt?e pour raconter l'histoire de cinq hommes d?tenus actuellement au Canada en vertu de ? certificats de s?curit? ? samedi le 19 novembre ? 20h \ portes ? 19h Th??tre F.C.Smith (7141, Sherbrooke O.) (Autobus 105 de m?tro Vendome) Bas? sur une adaptation de l'?crivain et militant pour la justice sociale Matthew Behrens et de la dramaturge et metteure en sc?ne Laurel Smith, " Le Proc?s " tisse les histoires de cinq hommes pris au pi?ge des certificats de s?curit?, ? la riche ?toffe que constitue l'exploration de Kafka de la nature du pouvoir bureaucratique. Le r?sultat est une puissante et ?mouvante critique de la loi anti-terroriste du Canada, ? partir de la perspective de cinq immigrants, dont le Montr?alais Adil Charkaoui, qui s'est un jour retrouv? dans le monde kafkaesque de la guerre au terrorisme. * AVEC le dramaturge David Fennario, le po?te Paul Chamberland, l'?crivaine Anita Rau Badami, la com?dienne Diana Fajrajsl, le militant pour la justice sociale Jaggi Singh, la com?dienne Marthe Turgeon, le po?te Ehab Lotayef et ... Adil Charkaoui. * ET l'artiste irakien hip-hop Yassin alias Narcy du groupe Euphrates * Sous la direction de Lib Spry Bilingue avec traduction Prix sugg?r? de 20$ (contribution selon vos moyens) billets d'avance : t?l. 514 859 9023 Les b?n?fices seront vers?s ? la Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui ******* Les dramaturges * Laurel Smith est une dramaturge bas?e ? Toronto et est directrice et productrice artistique du Burning Passions Theater, une compagnie qui a pour mandat de raconter les histoires des femmes et des jeunes. Sa plus r?cente pi?ce, " The Crush of Beauty ", est actuellement en production au Burning Passions Theater en vue d'?tre pr?sent?e en 2006. Un autre de ses projets est une adaptation de la cr?attion de Kenneth Grahame, " The Reluctant Dragon ", sur laquelle travaille la troupe renomm?e de th??tre pour jeunes Caroussel Players, et inspir?e par la vie d'une des cinq victimes des certificats de s?curit?, Hassan Almrei. Laurel est membre fondatrice de Homes not Bombs. * Matthew Behrens est un militant pour la justice sociale et un ?crivain de Toronto, ainsi que l'un des fondateurs de la Campaign to Stop Secret Trials, de Homes not Bombs et de Toronto Action for Social Change. Les ?crits de Matthew sur les questions de justice sociale, et plus r?cemment sur les cinq victimes des certificats de s?curit?, sont parus dans diverses publications et sont diffus?s partout dans le monde. Son engagement se traduit ? la fois par la r?sistance non-violente et par l'introduction des racines de la musique traditionnelle country dans la dialectique progressiste. La directrice * Lib Spry travaille dans le milieu th??tral depuis plus de trente ans comme directrice, ?crivaine, professeur, artiste et traductrice. Elle se sp?cialise dans le th??tre populaire, le th??tre jeunesse et le th??tre physique. Son travail l'a amen? ? voyager en Angleterre, en France, au Canada et aux Etats-Unis. Elle agit actuellement comme directrice litt?raire du Teesri Duniya Theater. Interpr?t?e par : * Anita Rau Badami est l'auteure de deux romans : Tamarind Mem, et The Hero's Walk. Un troisi?me, Indra's Net, est pr?vu pour 2006. Ses romans ont ?t? publi?s et acclam?s par la critique dans plus d'une douzaine de pays autour du monde et se sont m?rit?s de nombreux prix, incluant le Commonwealth Writers Prize (Canada & Caribbean), le Marian Engel Award, le Premio Berto Award et le prix Premio citta di' Gaeti. * Paul Chamberland, apr?s des ?tudes en philosophie et en litt?rature, a enseign?, notamment la cr?ation litt?raire, dans des ?tablissements d'?tudes coll?giales et sup?rieures, dont l'Universit? du Qu?bec ? Montr?al. Auteur de recueils de po?mes et d'essais, il a r?guli?rement particip? ? des lectures de po?sie ou ? des colloques universitaires tant au Qu?bec qu'? l' ?tranger. Quelques titres : Terre Qu?bec, po?mes, 1964 ; Au seuil d'une autre Terre, po?mes, 2003 ; Une politique de la douleur, essai, 2004. * Adil Charkaoui, p?re de deux enfants et ?tudiant ? l'Universit? de Montr?al, est arriv? au Canada en 1995 avec sa m?re, son p?re et sa sour. Il a pass? deux ans de son " s?jour " au Canada en prison, sans accusation, sous l'?tiquette effrayante de " pr?sum? terroriste ". Lui et sa famille continuent de vivre sous la menace constante de sa d?portation vers la torture ; leur libert? est s?v?rement r?duite par des conditions qui le forcent ? porter un bracelet GPS, lui imposent un couvre-feu, ne lui permettent pas de quitter sa maison sans ?tre accompagn? de son p?re ou de sa m?re et permettent, en revanche, l'acc?s ? sa maison 24 heures sur 24 sans la pr?sentation d'un mandat. * Diana Fajrasl est une directrice de th??tre, com?dienne et enseignante ambulante bas?e ? Montr?al. Elle a r?cemment dirig?e la premi?re mondiale de la pi?ce de Carolyn Guillet, " 17 [Anonymous] Women ", pour le Infinitheatre ici ? Montr?al. Elle a jou? dans plusieurs th??tres de Vancouver ? Corner Brook, et a enseign? aux universit?s McGill, Concordia et Bishop, ainsi qu'? l'?cole nationale de th??tre du Canada. * David Fenario est un dramaturge, artiste et militant de Montr?al. Il est membre de l'Union des forces progressistes et de Socialisme International. Plus r?cente cr?ation th??trale: une pi?ce intitul?e " Condoville " jou? au Th??tre Centaur, qui traite des attaques du gouvernement contre les subventions aux coop?ratives d'habitation et des luttes contre la gentrification. Plus r?cente action politique : Porte-parole et participant ? une manifestation contre la construction d'un ?norme complexe touristique et d'un casino, dans le quartier Pointe St-Charles. " Le th??tre est plus qu 'une simple r?flexion de la vie dans un miroir, il peut ?tre utilis? pour changer notre fa?on de vivre " - Brecht * Jaggi Singh, malgr? des conditions impos?es par Cour lui interdisant d' utiliser un m?gaphone et d'amplifier sa voix de quelconque fa?on, demeure une voix puissante pour la justice au Canada. M?me s'il lui a un jour ?t? interdit par une d?cision de la Cour " d'?tre un leader ", Singh a aid? ? motiver, ? fournir une cadre intellectuel et ? organiser des mouvements populaire de r?sistance ? Montr?al. Plus r?cemment, il a particip? ? la marche d'une semaine de Solidarit? sans fronti?re de Montr?al ? Ottawa, afin d'exiger des droits pour les sans statut et de demander l'abolition des certificats de s?curit?. * Marthe Turgeon, com?dienne connu de film, television et th??tre, de La roi Lear au premi?re mondiale de l'Etat des lieux de Michel Tremblay. Prix de l'Association qu?b?coise des critiques de th??tre en 1989. Musique et po?sie de : * Yassin (alias Narcy) Alsalman est ?tudiant ? la ma?trise en communications et r?dige actuellement sa th?se sur le hip-hop et les luttes sociales : " Highly Intellectualized Persons Hovering Over Politics ". ?galement connu sous le pseudonyme de Narcy, du trio hip-hop irakien Euphrates, Yassin est plus connu pour ses paroles et performances un peu partout autour de Montr?al. Les deux projets de Euphrates " Stereotypes Incorporated " et " A Bend in the River " ont servi ? documenter - ? travers les rythmes de SandHiLL et les paroles de Narcy alias Jamal Abdul Narcel - les injustices et les repr?sentations st?r?otyp?es dont sont victimes Arabes et Musulmans dans les m?dias. En tourn?e pour l'album " Stereotypes Incorporated ", vous pouvez voir en Narcy en concert de Montr?al ? l'Europe ! * Ehab Lotayef est po?te, dramaturge et militant pour la justice sociale qui vit ? Montr?al. Au cours des derni?res ann?es, il a voyag? ? la fois en Palestine et en Irak, documentant ses exp?riences afin de contribuer ? la compr?hension et d'inciter ? l'engagement face ? la situation de ces deux pays. Sa cr?ation th??trale radiophonique " Crossing Gibraltar " a ?t? produite par CBC Radio et diffus?e plus t?t cette ann?e. ****** L'opposition populaire au processus des certificats de s?curit?, lanc?e par les familles des d?tenus, a fait de cette question un probl?me qui ne peut plus ?tre ignor? de l'opinion publique, des m?dias et des autorit?s canadiennes. Le mouvement d'opposition lutte s'attaque au cour m?me de cette politique de la peur qui a fait basculer le contexte politique en Am?rique du Nord dans une situation souvent compar?e ? l'Allemagne d'avant la guerre ou ? la p?riode McCarthy. Parmi les victoires au cours de la derni?re ann?e on peut compter l'inclusion des certificats de s?curit? dans une r?vision parlementaire, la lib?ration d'Adil Charkaoui, la condamnation de la l?gislation canadienne par le Comit? de l'ONU contre la torture, ainsi que l'acceptation de la Cour supr?me d'entendre la contestation constitutionnelle du processus des certificats de s?curit?. Pendant ce temps, les cinq hommes et leurs familles vivent toujours sous la menace de la d?portation ; quatre d'entre eux demeurent dans l'enfer de la d?tention ind?finie. Parmi eux, Hassan Almrei et Mohammad Mahjoub viennent tout juste de mettre fin ? une gr?ve de la faim de 72 et 79 jours respectivement, afin de protester contre leurs conditions de d?tention. Charkaoui, p?re de deux enfants, est arriv? au Canada en 1995 avec sa m?re, son p?re et sa sour. Il vit sous le coup d'une assignation ? r?sidence humiliante, qui ?touffe ? libert? de toute la famille. " Proc?s " raconte leurs histoires, avec pour toile de fond l'un des plus brillants chef-d'ouvres de l'Allemagne. ---------------------------------- PLUS D'INFO : t?l. 514 859 9023 Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui justiceforadil at riseup.net t?l. 514 859-9023 www.adilinfo.org Teesri Dunya Theatre tduniya at aei.ca t?l. 514 848-0238 www.teesriduniyatheatre.com Parrain? par CKUT Radio 90.3 FM