From resist at resist.ca  Thu Jan  1 14:19:18 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:19:18 -0800
Subject: [news] MFD On The Ferry Workers Arbitration
Message-ID: <3FF49CE6.8040005@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[pr-x] MFD On The Ferry Workers Arbitration
Date: 	Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:14:11 -0800
From: 	Will Offley <willo at lynx.bc.ca>
Reply-To: 	RTL, project-x: it's ALL THE SAME <project-x at lists.resist.ca>
To: 	project-x at resist.ca



*This appeared today on the web site of Members for Democracy, an
opposition grouping in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Local 1518.  It can be found at www.ufcw.net <http://www.ufcw.net/>.

Will the System Men Sink it?

*On Friday December 12th, 2003, veteran labour relations mediator _Vince
Ready_ called for binding arbitration to end a six-day dispute between
the _British Columbia Ferry Marine Workers Union_ (BCFMWU) and B.C.
Ferry Services Inc., a former provincial Crown corporation now run as an
independent business - with some government ties.

The 4,000 workers walked off the job a week earlier over their
employer's demands for wage rollbacks and other concessions. When
ordered by the BC Labour Relations Board to return to work, the workers
refused. Ready had been appointed by the BC government to intervene in
the dispute as a "special mediator". The 11th hour mediation session
took place just as contempt proceedings against the workers were about
to begin in a BC courtroom.

When the marathon mediation session over which he presided failed to end
the strike, Ready recommended binding arbitration and union and employer
representatives agreed. Legions of business, labour and government
officials heaved a sigh of relief. The agreement ended a week long
strike that inconvenienced thousands of commuters.

The ferry workers' strike, perhaps more so than any other labour dispute
this year, has the potential to be a watershed event for working people.
As strikes go, it was short but was very illuminating about the role of
working people according to the labour relations system - to suffer in
silence for profit - and about the extent to which mainstream labour
leaders support and enable that system. It's a wake up call for us to
stop putting our faith in a system that abuses and exploits us and to
stop believing in the people who make it hum - our employers, unions and
legislators.

*Inside the System:
*When we talk about the Labour Relations System we are referring to the
various laws and government agencies that regulate labour-management
relations in Canada. The conventional wisdom tells us that system is a
good thing. It gives us rights - like the right to organize and the
right to bargain collectively - and that it protects us from people who
seek to interfere with our rights. It gives us Labour Boards where we
can go if our employers interfere with our rights to organize and
bargain collectively and arbitrators to whom we can turn if we are our
collective agreements are not honored. The conventional wisdom is that
the system gives us workplace justice but that's bullshit. The LR System
is not about justice in the workplace and was never intended to be. The
system exists to maintain order in the workplace - by keeping workers in
line.
The system was introduced in Canada in the 1940's when the Industrial
Relations Disputes Investigation Act (IRDIA) was implemented. The IRDIA
gave unions the right to recognition and required employers to bargain
once a union was recognized. Organizing became much easier and, in the
decades that followed, unions organized millions of workers. The
legislation came with a big string attached however: Strikes during the
term of a collective agreement were prohibited. Disputes during the term
of a contract were to be taken to binding arbitration - a legal process.
It was this element of the IRDIA that brought about a big shift in the
internal culture of unions. Thousands of staff reps were hired to ensure
compliance with collective agreements and to advise and counsel members
as to their legal rights. The reps were a boon to biz union leaders who
were anxious to control a not-always-satisfied membership. Although
officially they existed to provide service, they were increasingly
relied upon to keep a lid on things at the local level.
The new legislation gave significant rights to unions and placed major
obligations on employers and gave union members... a bone: the right to
fair representation and to periodically see a financial statement. What
was meant by fair representation or how detailed a financial statement
needed to be were questions the law never addressed. Members had the
right to decertify their union and join another one if they wished, but
this could only take place during a narrow window of opportunity at the
conclusion of a collective agreement. The unions quickly developed
methods to deal with members wishing to do so, some legal and some not.
On a practical level, union members had no rights at all in their
relationship with their unions. They could be neglected, poorly
represented, bullied, lied to, bought, traded and sold, whatever suited
their unions. There was no requirement that unions govern themselves
democratically. The conventional wisdom was that unions were democratic
organizations by their very nature and dissatisfied members would toss
out unresponsive leaders. An alternative view was that unions didn't
need to be democratic at all. Workers needed leadership - they needed
tough, strong guys who were not afraid to make decisions, even unpopular
decisions. But it didn't really matter. The legislation wasn't intended
to give workers a whole bunch of rights. It was about controlling their
growing militancy. Their unions would now join with the employers in
putting a lid on that.

By the 1950's, the federal government spun off responsibility for labour
relations (except for a few employers) to the provinces. Labour
relations acts were passed in the provincial legislatures and LRB's were
set up to administer the new laws. Across the country, it was decided
that grievances - complaints arising under collective agreements - would
be resolved by arbitration. Arbitration would become a private matter
between unions and employers who would retain and pay for private
"judges" to adjudicate their grievances and, in some limited
circumstances, help them resolve their differences at the bargaining
table. These circumstances would be restricted mainly to labour disputes
that could place the public at risk (such as disputes involving police,
fire department, hospital workers and so on), but from time to time
would also be used in disputes where there was inconvenience to the
public - inconvenience that might put pressure on elected officials to
end the dispute.

In theory, arbitration was supposed to be a fair and fast way of
resolving labour disputes. Representatives of management and labour
would put their cases before a knowledgeable third party (the
arbitrator) who would judiciously hear both sides and issue a legally
binding ruling. Arbitrators would function much like judges but there
was one major difference: labour arbitrators were unregulated,
fee-for-service practitioners who would be selected and paid for by both
sides. In order to successfully ply their trade, they had to please the
two institutional parties - employers and unions.

The system has evolved so as to meet the needs of the two "institutional
parties". It gives employers the right to expect loyalty, obedience and
compliance from their workers. It gives unions the right to do pretty
much what they want to their members. If a union wants quiet, obedient
members, that's fine with the system. In fact, order is best kept when
employers and unions work together to keep the workers quiet. The system
is particularly harsh on workplace rebels and reformers.

The system guys - the arbitrators, LRB officials and mediators - work
hard for the institutional parties. At the LRB's nothing gets tossed out
as quickly as a DRF complaint. Arbitrators and mediators dispense "rough
justice" to members who just can't quite get the obedience thing down
pat. ("Rough justice" is a term used to refer to mediation techniques
that border on bullying employed to get members to withdraw grievances
or sign off on settlements they don't really like.)
Mediation-arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution that's
become very popular in recent years, actually allows the same system guy
two kicks at the same dispute. First, he can put on his mediation hat
and dispense a little rough justice. If that doesn't work, he can put on
his arbitrator's hat and issue a ruling. His ruling can't be appealed.
The system works really well at keeping as lid on workers' issues.

If you are a member with a grievance or a part of a bargaining unit
whose collective agreement will be settled through arbitration, the
system guys have the ultimate power to make you or break you. They can
work with your employer and your union to make a deal and then shove the
deal down your throat. Or they can just decided, based on whatever, what
you're going to get. As far as the system is concerned, there's nothing
wrong with that.

To function efficiently, the system requires a degree of cooperation
among its three principle players: Employers, unions and governments.
Although the government is supposed to play a balancing role between the
first two and does to a certain extent, all must work together towards
one important objective: Keeping workers in line.
More about the system:

_The Inevitable End of an Era

_The ferry workers' union's tough stand, in the face of demands for
significant concessions by BC Ferries Services, drew harsh criticism
from the business community, half-assed hand-wringing from labour
leaders and some pompous snorting from other labour scene luminaries who
characterized the striking workers as crazies who needed to give their
heads a good shake. The union's President, Jackie Miller, was the target
of a great deal of the criticism with union and business leaders alike
suggesting that her principled stand was simply the result of
inexperience and inability to "lead" her members with a sufficiently
firm hand.

The criticism, from all three corners of the system was because, as a
union leader, she wasn't playing the game by the system's rules and that
just can't happen. Fortunately, the system is prepared for such
occurrences (as rare as they are) and it worked its magic on her.

*Jubilation about Arbitration

*According to media reports like _this one_ in the Globe and Mail, the
agreement to go to binding arbitration was met with jubilation by the
striking ferries workers and apprehension on the part of their employer.

*B.C. ferries return to service
Strikers elated but company unhappy as negotiations go to binding
arbitration
*By ROD MICKLEBURGH
Saturday, December 13, 2003 - Page A7

VANCOUVER -- The familiar, coastal ferries that have become an integral
part -- both loved and loathed -- of British Columbia's seascape over
the years are back in service after the company agreed to an uneasy
truce with its striking workers.

The bitter, illegal strike by 4,300 members of the Ferry and Marine
Workers Union ended just before B.C. Ferries was due in court yesterday
to seek contempt-of-court citations against the union for defying
back-to-work orders from the government and the labour board.

The two sides accepted a recommendation from special mediator Vince
Ready, perhaps the most skilled labour peacemaker in Canada, to submit
their contract dispute to binding arbitration. Mr. Ready will be the
arbitrator.

"We found it next to hopeless at the bargaining table," union leader
Jackie Miller said after a fruitless, 16-hour negotiating session that
ended at 2 a.m.

"Now there is the opportunity to have someone actually listen to our
arguments."

On the picket line, ferry workers seemed jubilant that they could end
their difficult strike, which had incensed business leaders and many
members of the public, without being forced to accept extensive
concessions that the company, B.C. Ferries, wanted and without paying a
penalty -- at least so far -- for defying the government's back-to-work
edict for more than a day and a half.

"I feel great," a striker said as pickets hugged, exchanged handshakes
and began dousing fires in burn barrels.

"I'm very happy," another union member said.

"It's good to be going back to work and make a merry Christmas for
everyone."

The company was less enthusiastic, however.  David Hahn, the president
of the company, had waged a no-holds-barred assault on the union's
contract for overtime, contracting out and pay concessions he said were
needed to make the ferry fleet more efficient.  Now, these issues will
be up to Mr. Ready.  Mr. Hahn said he "reluctantly" accepted binding
arbitration.  "We believe that a bargained solution is always the best
solution, but we understand that the first priority is to restore
service to the public."

With picket lines down, passengers began streaming to the fleet's 25
terminals that connect the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and a number
of other island communities. Many had been lining up for hours, even
days, hoping for ferry service to resume. First in line at the busy
Horseshoe Bay terminal in West Vancouver were Bill Fleming and his dog
Whiskey from Comox on Vancouver Island. Mr. Fleming said he had been
waiting five days to get home. "The dog got more food than he usually
does . . . doughnuts and chocolate cookies from the strikers."

During Thursday's marathon bargaining session, union negotiators were
joined by B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair and
government employees' union head George Heyman, who are believed to have
helped moderate the militant ferry workers' stand.The formerly
government-owned B. C. Ferries, which was quasi-privatized earlier this
year, carries about 22 million passengers and eight million vehicles a
year. The tie-up was the fleet's first from a labour dispute in more
than 25 years. But Labour Minister Graham Bruce, while welcoming the
resumption of ferry service, hinted yesterday that he may consider
legislation to ensure there is no repeat of the week's acrimonious,
crippling shutdown.

It's understandable that the workers would be happy to return to work
and that after a week of fielding acrimonious attacks on her sanity and
her members' motives, BCFMWU President Jackie Miller was content to go
off to arbitration. It's also understandable that, during a lengthy
mediation session where there was little if any movement on the part of
the employer, arbitration began to look like a good option. The process
has a kind of judicious smell about it. For those who haven't been there
or haven't been there enough to know what it's really all about, it's
easy to believe that it will result in a settlement that is fair,
equitable, reasonable and words to that effect. That's how binding
arbitration is usually presented to workers who can't be persuaded to
settle for less. It's like going to court. We equate the courts with
justice, so it's just a given that we'll come out with something "just".
But that's just not the way it is.

Arbitration is /arbitrary/. It's a process that allows a single person
to decide very important issues, with no recourse for anybody who
doesn't like the outcome.

*Nothing to Cheer About

*Will binding arb prove a good move for Miller and the ferries workers?
Probably not. We predict that when Arbitrator Ready is finished with
Miller, she and her members will wish they hadn't gone there. Ready will
throw Miller and the 4,000 or so members a few bones (maybe he'll leave
their wages in tact or even grant them a small wage increase but he will
side with the employer on issues of management flexibility and those are
the issues that are at the heart of this dispute.
The members, many of whom are putting a lot of faith in Ready's
impartiality and labour relations wisdom, will be sorely disappointed.
So will Miller, but there will be nothing she can do to challenge
Ready's decision /legally/.

Having agreed to go to arbitration with Ready acting as arbitrator, she
can hardly take issue with his ruling. There will be no basis for any
kind of legal challenge no matter what Ready awards the workers. They
will be expected to eat it whether they like it or not.

If they walk off the job in protest, they will be engaging in an illegal
strike and will face all the same threats and penalties as they faced
earlier this month. It's unlikely that the pro-business BC government
will bow to any kind of pressure from her union or any other - certainly
not after an arbitration award is issued (although the BC government
overturned a binding-arbitration agreement with its physicians in 2002).

Unless the momentum and solidarity that began during their strike can be
maintained, the chances of the workers themselves resorting to some sort
of protest when Ready slaps them, is unlikely. If they're being led to
believe that Ready is going to do more than /hear their arguments/,
there's a big letdown coming their way. When it happens, there will be
few people outside of their own group who will be willing to go to bat
for them.

Whatever Ready dishes out will be labeled "just" and "fair" by the
mainstream labour community. The gentlemen's rules that govern good
labour relations dictate that every good union leader must accept as a
"good thing", the decision of any presiding rent-a-judge. Miller will
feel a great deal of pressure to make like a seasoned labour leader and
promote Ready's arbitration award as a good deal for the members - even
though it won't be a good thing for them at all. We fully expect that
Ready's award will stick the workers with at least some (if not most) of
the concessions demanded by their employer - including the ability to
contract out work.

*Ties that Bind

*It's important to understand what binding arb is all about, who
presides over the proceedings and how things tend to shake out.

Binding arbitration in collective bargaining works like this:
Representatives of the employer and the union present the issues in
dispute to a supposedly impartial individual (an arbitrator) or an
arbitration panel (an arbitrator and two side kicks, one representing
management and one representing the union) who carefully considers the
positions and supporting arguments of both sides and issues a binding
(/non-appealable/) award that decides all the issues in the dispute.
The issues dealt with in the award as well as issues that were settled
at the bargaining table form the new collective agreement between the
workplace parties. The award (sometimes also called a "decision" or
"ruling") is final. There is no recourse for anyone on either side
(including the workers) who is dissatisfied with any aspect of it. The
workers don't even get to ratify a collective agreement that has been
arrived at through binding arbitration.

Who benefits from binding arbitration? Government officials who would
rather not deal with the controversy that legislating striking union
members back to work might set off; mediator-arbitrators like Vince
Ready who make their living arbitrating labour disputes and have a
strong vested interest in keeping government officials happy; labour
leaders who don't want to get dragged into some labour dispute that
doesn't involve their own members; business people whose profits might
be affected by a strike; lots of well-heeled people have something to
gain from binding arbitration. Union members? It's hard to say what's in
it for them.

True, an agreement to go to binding arb will end a strike and get union
members back to work. That's beneficial to workers in the short term.
But over the long haul, union members almost always end up one step
ahead and two steps back if collective bargaining ends in a visit to the
arbitrator. They get tossed a bone in the form of a wage increase or
some minor benefit improvement but in a lot of cases they concede (or
rather, the arbitrator imposes concessions on them) on issues that are
of critical importance to them - issues like management flexibility,
contracting out, hours of work, scheduling - issues like the ones that
caused the ferry workers to walk off the job earlier this month.

Arbitrators have complete control over the process and the outcome. They
can rule whichever way they like on any issue that's placed before them
and there isn't a whole lot that anyone can do about it.

For this reason, employer and union representatives generally try to
avoid binding arbitration when negotiating collective agreements. They
can't be forced into it except if workers are legislated back to work
during a strike or if representatives of both sides agree to it. Not
many go there, and for good reason: You can never be 100% sure of the
outcome and, because at least some of the unresolved issues are ones
that are really important, there is a lot of discomfort with the notion
of letting some outsider, who can do whatever he wants, decide those issues.

Sometimes, however, binding arbitration is used "strategically" by the
workplace parties. This can happen in situations where employer and
union representatives are pretty much agreed on what they're willing to
put in a new collective agreement, but the union is concerned that it
won't be able to get the deal ratified. In these cases, the parties
sometimes use a third party to impose their done deal on the workers.

In these circumstances, the arbitrator is not actively drawn into a
conspiracy. It doesn't work that way. Labour relations is more subtle
than that. The way it works is that during the course of hearing the
employer's and union's submissions and in the informal discussions that
often take place during breaks in the legal action, representatives
"signal" to the arbitrator where the deal they have quietly agreed to is
and the arbitrator - whose role it is to take their interests into
account - is happy to take their interests into account. It's a
nudge-nudge wink-wink sort of thing and it's perfectly OK under the
rules that govern the labour relations system. That's because it serves
the interests of the two workplace parties. The employer gets a deal
that it already knows it can live with, the union can take credit for
whatever its members get that's an improvement over their previous
contract and can wash its hands of anything the workers don't like. The
fact that the whole thing is basically a sham intended to deceive the
workers, doesn't matter because they don't matter. The labour relations
system is all about keeping them under control, not giving them rights
or empowering them.

Binding arb robs workers of what little voice they have in collective
bargaining and leaves decisions about their working conditions to
outsiders who are presented as impartial and unbiased but are, in
reality, completely beholden to the labour relations system that exists
to keep workers down. Binding arbitration is a tool used by our
governments to deprive workers of their single greatest source of power:
The right to withhold their labour.

We are not suggesting that BCFMWU President Miller is in cahoots with BC
Ferries management and agreed to trot off to binding arb just to make
some already done deal look legitimate. Miller took a very principled
stand and would never have displayed the degree of militancy that she
did if she was doing the backroom boogie. What we /are/ suggesting is
that she agreed to binding arb at least partially because of her faith
in the labour relations system and its gurus (guys like Vince Ready) and
also at the instigation of mainstream labour leaders (guys like Jim
Sinclair, President of the BC Federation of Labour and Ken Georgetti of
the Canadian Labour Congress) - men who put labour peace ahead of
workers' rights and who, just like the employers, rely on system guys
like Ready to keep workers in line.

*Rough `n Ready Gurus

*Vince Ready is more than just a system man - he's a labour relations
guru. A former government mediator (he was a conciliation officer with
the federal government and a mediator with the BC government), _Ready_
has since 1982 been president of Vincent L. Ready Labour Arbitration and
Mediation Services Ltd., a private firm based in British Columbia.

His credentials are impeccable. Over the course of his career, Ready has
arbitrated and mediated numerous labour and commercial disputes in a
variety of industries including forestry, manufacturing, agriculture,
transportation and the public sector. In addition, he has also been
named arbitrator in over 600 collective agreement disputes across Canada
and participated in over 4,000 negotiations.

He has received numerous appointments to commissions, panels and
inquiries over the years including the Commission of Inquiry for the
Province of Prince Edward Island and the Construction Industry Review
Panel for the Province of British Columbia. He was an industrial inquiry
commissioner on various issues for the Province of British Columbia and
a special mediator for the B.C. Rapid Transit labour dispute.

Ready has also been a guest lecturer on mediation, arbitration and
alternative dispute resolution at various conferences and training
seminars for employers, unions and educational institutions.
There is no doubt that Ready has a lot of experience in imposing labour
peace. He's done it hundreds of times in the past and will do it again
in the BC Ferries case. A strike will be averted and much public
inconvenience avoided. However, the fact remains that that any form of
arbitration takes the control of the outcome out of the hands of
workers. If you don't have control, you're going to get screwed -
especially if your interests are opposed to those of your employer, your
provincial government and the mainstream labour movement which professes
to represent your interests but doesn't really do that.

Guys like Ready are not impartial or unbiased - as workers are given to
believe. They're completely beholden to the labour relations system -
and the three big players whose interests it serves - employers,
government and unions (ones that know their place). Ready makes his
living sitting on government commissions and panels and by arbitrating
disputes between employers and unions. In order to continue scoring
those lucrative government appointments, he's got to stay on the right
side of the provincial administration. In order to continue being chosen
to preside over arbitration cases, he has to be acceptable to employer
and union officials. If he issues a ruling that is terribly
controversial with employers - employer representatives won't agree to
have him as an arbitrator. If he issues a ruling that acknowledges the
interests of union /members/, a lot of union reps will be giving him a
miss the next time they're picking arbitrators for some other unresolved
dispute. He'll be labeled a "loose cannon" and shunned by all the people
on whom he depends for his bread and butter. For those very fundamental
reasons, Ready and other system guys do not issue rulings that are
favourable to workers. The rent-a-judge concept is just one of the many
ways in which the system operates to ensure that workers are kept in line.
The system is set up to suppress workers' militancy - not to encourage
it. The system exists to maintain /order/ in the workplace (not to
provide workplace justice - a myth that is often fed to workers). Ready
will not do anything that might promote /disorder/ (i.e., workers'
militancy).
Here's a classic example of a binding arbitration decision (one of Vince
Ready's as a matter of fact): In a December 2003 arbitration decision
reported by the _CBC_ Ready gave 2800 unionized Yukon government workers
a 10-per-cent pay hike over the next four years, but the 2,800 unionized
workers were asking for a lot more than a raise from arbitrator Ready.

They wanted a paid day off on National Aboriginal Day, an hourly raise
for people scheduled to work weekends, and an increase in their annual
travel bonus.
Ready's decision, contained in _this 34-page ruling_, gives them a wage
increase but the workers won't get the rest. The workers are bound by
the non-appealable decision of Vincent Ready.
This is how it goes. The workers get a bit of money but rarely ever gain
ground on issues that impact on the quality of their working lives or
that might restrict management flexibility.

When Ready rules on the BC Ferries dispute, the company will have to pay
out some dollars but will have achieved the kind of flexibility that it
couldn't otherwise hope to achieve without a long and bitter strike. The
workers will be stuck with the new flexibility and - because it's
especially hard to negotiate language out of a contract once it's been
awarded by an arbitrator - will be stuck with it for a very long time.

*Sucked into the System

*BC Ferries, the government, the media and mainstream labour leaders
will hail Ready's decision as fair, pointing out that the workers are
getting a pay increase and whatever else they're getting and downplaying
the not-so-good stuff. Jackie Miller will be caught in a bind (no pun
intended). Having agreed to arbitration, she will have a hard time
taking issue with Vince Ready's award and will feel a lot of pressure to
pitch it as a good deal or, in the least, a good deal under the
circumstances. Like many union leaders who started out with some
principles, Miller is about to find herself sucked into the system and
having to decide whether to love it or leave it. Most decide to love it.

She will be faced with further demands for concessions in the next round
of bargaining. If things get hot, Vince Ready or someone like him will
be called in to settle things once again. It will be easier next time,
because everyone will already be accustomed to it. They'll walk into
negotiations with the binding arb option in their back pocket. Just like
the first time, there will be high hopes for a fair and reasonable
settlement. A few more bones will be thrown to the workers, more
flexibility will be granted to the employer. Again, the whole thing will
be pitched as "a good deal" or "a fair deal" and the whole cycle will
repeat itself over and over again just like it's supposed to. That's how
the system works and that's how it creates the kinds of labour leaders
that will play ball and not get the masses stirred up.

The workers will find out soon enough what kind of bone Ready is going
to throw them. Our prediction: The award will give BC Ferries the right
to contract out work, within certain restrictions (which can be loosened
up at the next round of bargaining). The workers will be disappointed.
Some will even be angry but there won't be many of them left to get
militant or disruptive by the time the next round of bargaining comes
around. The most vocal will find themselves out of work, the rest will
be silenced by the threat of possible contracting out of their work.

The leaders of their union - whoever they will be at that time - will
join the chorus of mainstream labour leaders in deploring privatization
and government support of the corporate agenda and continue riding the
rails of the system that exists to support that agenda. They'll make
their views known, firmly but politely, when they meet with Vince Ready
or some other system guy, in yet another round of bargaining where
concessions are being sought. The system guy will nod sagely and
encourage them to think of the "realities" and they will.

How Jackie Miller spends the next few weeks will determine whether she
blazes a path for union members or takes on the role of controller of
workers' expectations. It's not too late for her to escape getting
sucked into the system but it's going to get more difficult with each
day. Every day that BCFMWU members sit quietly around with their fingers
crossed, hoping for a fair decision from Vince Ready, is a day lost.

*In the Fryer:

*Amid the extensive media coverage of the BCFMWU strike, various
business and labour
luminaries weighed in publicly on the side of keeping workers under control.

Among the most verbose was mainstream labour analyst John L Fryer who
dove into the profit-orientated waters of the mainstream media and
offered up some most illuminating views from mainstream labour's "box
seats".

Fryer opined that binding arbitration must have appeared like a "miracle
life raft to a British Columbia union facing shipwreck during the stormy
B.C. Ferries strike".

He was quoted by the somewhat conservative news medium www.canada.com
<http://www.canada.com/> as saying: "Lucky, lucky ferry workers. Vince
Ready, probably the most experienced mediator in the country, let them
walk back in off the end of the plank."

Not content to stop there, he went on to say that he believes the ferry
workers' union was about to be "sucked into a whirlpool that was slyly
engineered by the provincial government and the ferry company", with
both wanting labour cost reductions and diminished power for the union.
"The ferry workers are a very isolationist union," Fryer said. "They
keep to themselves and they don't participate very much in the affairs
of the trade union movement because they believe that they are invincible."

The striking ferry workers had backed themselves into a corner and were
in a no-win situation, Fryer stated flatly. "You always leave yourself a
back door other than humiliation and defeat". Unfortunately, the
leadership of the 4,300-member union doesn't have a face-saving
strategy, he added. "They've escalated the dispute from a battle between
themselves and the BC Ferries and the government of B.C. to a battle
between themselves and the courts".

"That means they are now in open defiance of the rule of law...They
can't win that one," said Fryer. "The absolute defiance of the rule of
law is a no-win strategy," he added. "Everyone should give their heads a
shake."

Just who the hell is Fryer with his condescending attack on the ferries
workers union?

John L. Fryer is an Adjunct Professor at the School of Public
Administration, University of Victoria. He is President Emeritus of the
National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE). Mr. Fryer is a
member of the board of directors of the International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development; and former Chair of the Advisory
Committee on Labour-Management Relations in the Federal Public Service
(1999-01). Mr. Fryer was a member of the Advisory Committee on Senior
Level Retention and Compensation (1997-2001), chaired by Lawrence F. Strong.

In addition, Fryer worked for the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour
Congress before launching a 21-year career in public sector unionism,
first as a General Secretary of the B.C. Government Employees' Union
(1969-83) and then as President of the National Union of Public and
General Employees (1981-90). Mr. Fryer is a member of the Order of
Canada and holder of the G?rard Dion award for outstanding contributions
to Canadian labour-management relations.

Since his retirement from NUPGE, Fryer has applied his negotiating and
dispute resolution skills to numerous important public policy issues.

Fryer is currently working a three-to-six month special assignment with
the World Bank at its Washington, D.C. headquarters that began September
18th, 2003. He is one of three labour representatives invited to
Washington to review current World Bank practices and propose
alternative policies.

During his stint at the World Bank, Fryer is reported to have stated
that, "'There are certain things - water, electricity and health care,
for example - that are best and most properly handled by the state, and
not by private enterprise". Perhaps Fryer doesn't believe that the B.C.
Ferries are one of the things better handled by the state. That's a
pretty scary thing for someone who is touted as a source that is
knowledgeable about the interests of working people.

Fryer also had some interesting things to say about them and their
militancy. Sending union leaders or rank-and-file members to jail, he
stated, would make them martyrs. He recalled union leaders Jean-Claude
Parrot and Grace Hartman were both sent to jail during illegal strikes.
Here's a brilliant statement:  "I know them very well," he said of the
labour leaders. "Being sent to jail changed and shortened their lives."
?       Hartman, who died in 1994, received a 45-day jail sentence in
1981 while head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees after she
refused to order Ontario hospital workers to end their illegal strike.
?       Parrot, the now-retired leader of the Canadian Union of Postal
Workers, spent two months in jail in 1980 for defying back-to-work
legislation in 1978.
?       Eight years ago, 64 union workers in B.C. were found guilty of
criminal contempt of court; some were sent to jail for ignoring
injunctions to lift a blockade at Port Alberni's paper mill.
What's so interesting about Fryer's statements is that he's advocating,
in a more open manner than is normal, the mainstream labour perspective
on workers' militancy: Militancy is bad, it's wrong-headed, workers must
obey the laws of the land even if those laws deny them basic fairness
and operate to their continued disadvantage.

Union leaders are supposed to behave like the leaders of the "labour
movement" that is recognized by the system. Shame on the ferry workers'
union for not wanting to play in the labour fakers club. F***ing
isolationists!

As an credentialed labour "specialist", Fryer is playing as important a
part in the suppression of workers' interests as the BC government, the
privateering corporations and the corporate partner unions that are
beginning to assert their self-serving objectives and their cynical view
of working people more openly than ever before.

Fryer is lending his intellectual cachet to the effort to keep workers
down. Oppressing people is more enjoyable when it looks like its the
smart thing to do.

His statements are as arrogant as they are ridiculous. Were the risks
taken by labour leaders like Parrot and Hartman and by the union members
in Port Alberni not a means to an end? Sure they were. These working
people made /choices/ - they chose to put their collective interests
first, even though it meant that they might personally pay a price.
These were /choices/, not wrong-headed, emotional, irrational acts as
Fryer suggests.

They are only wrong-headed, emotional and irrational if we accept that
the role of workers is the one that has been assigned to them by the
labour relations system (to submit to the wisdom of more important
people in the workplace and in the union hall), that their immense power
must never be used and that the rule of law must be respected even if
the law is an ass.

Fryer speaks like a true labour aristocrat and there's a good reason for
that: He is one. He's a well-off dude with impressive credentials who's
been immersed in the system and stroked by its ego-inflating machinery
for a long time. The system has helped him make a name for himself and
he's beholden to it for that, just like the other system guys.

We don't dispute that workers who buck the law face stiff penalties:
The Alberta Union of Public Employees was fined $400,000 for a two-day
illegal strike by licensed practical nurses, nursing attendants and
support workers. The fine was reduced to $200,000 on appeal. No one was
jailed during that labour dispute, but solidarity among union members
was strengthened.

We don't dispute that the BCFMWU could conceivably be sued by third
parties for its part in an illegal strike:
?       A precedent was set in 1974 in Quebec when Santana, a shoe
manufacturer, won third-party damages for losses during an illegal
strike after it filed a civil lawsuit against the Canadian Union of
Postal Workers.
?       In 1991, a St. Hubert, Que. resident won a class-action suit
against the Montreal South Shore bus drivers' union when service was
disrupted by a wildcat strike on Jan. 18, 1988.
?       A Quebec Superior Court judge ordered the union to pay a
$100,000 fine -- $20 for each of the 50,000 passengers inconvenienced
that day. The Montreal South Shore Transit Corp. responded by lowering
regular bus fares for three months in 1992.

*Defeat and Humiliation?

*All those things might happen. But what is more humiliating? To lose
some legal battle in a system that is set up to treat you unjustly or to
live your life on your knees? It's a question of your perspective. Guys
like Fryer deny perspectives that don't reflect their own because they
don't consider those perspectives to be valid - because they come from
people who they consider to be beneath them. Yet militancy, activism and
selfless sacrifice for a greater good have been the calling card of
people who have changed our world for the better from the beginning of
civilization.
Lawsuits and fines are pale in comparison to the kinds of penalties that
have been imposed upon activists who have taken on oppressive systems in
the past - and many who are taking on oppressive systems in other parts
of the world today. Presumably they were and are aware of the
life-shortening effects of the firing squad or the "no win" situation in
which one might find oneself if tied up to a flaming pole. Getting
tossed into the slammer for two decades undoubtedly changed the life of
Nelson Mandela. Standing up against the unjust laws shortened the life
of Martin Luther King. According to John Fryer's views on militancy,
both should have given their heads a shake and deferred to the wisdom of
their oppressors.

Apart from his arrogant disregard for the rights of working people to
_life, liberty and security of the person_, Fryer is expressing
mainstream labour's belief that the labour relations system is supreme -
that it's necessary and functions in a way that is beneficial, all
things considered, to our society. He does not consider that the labour
relations system only takes on the appearance of fairness if we ignore
the interests of the largest group within our society: working people.
If we accept his view that militancy creates "no win" situations" where
"there is no way out", we ignore the ultimate power of the workers - the
power that comes from action like withholding their labour, the power
that comes from reaching out to their community, building solidarity
with other workers and raising awareness about their issues. The
mediators, arbitrators, cooling off periods, news black outs and other
expression-suppression tools exist to keep /us/ from /our/ power. Thank
you John Fryer for coming out saying it like a man - a system man. And
to hell with you.

*Activism Works, So Do It

*There is going to continue to be pressure on working people for
concessions until we have nothing left to give. When we give ground to
the point where we are getting only the legislated minimum wages and
benefits, those minimums will be reduced. We will be a nation of
groveling paupers, with no liberty, no security and no hope. If we
complain, the Ready's of the world will impose peace on us and the
Fryer's will lecture us about the rule of law and tell us to give our
heads a shake. Unless workers rise up in large numbers and create total
labour "chaos" (which really means chucking their rule books and doing
things that advance our interests) we will all be considerably poorer
within the next few years and our children will be poorer beyond our
worst nightmares. Rising up can mean engaging in any form of protest. It
isn't restricted to picketing as workplace - it can take many forms.
Whatever puts pressure on employers, unions and legislators - and the
system guys who do their dirty work - is worth doing. It could involve
conventional protests, it could involve cyber activism, it could mean
taking apart their myths and their statements and exposing their myths
(or their darkest secrets). Anything that makes them sweat is
potentially an effective form of protest.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth?
Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for
negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a
tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is
forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it
can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of
the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I
must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have
earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive,
nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt
that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that
individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the
unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must
we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in
society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and
racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so
crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I
therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our
beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
monologue rather than dialogue.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., /_Letter from Birmingham Jail

_/Activism works. That's why the system guys don't like it and go to
lengths to discourage us from engaging in it.

In 2001, the Province of Nova Scotia passed Bill 68, which legislated
away the right to strike for essential service workers. Mass protests
ensued and the bill was never enforced. It was a small victory for
workers, but a victory.

The B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union was right to take a defiant
stance against the B.C. government and its privatization projects. The
rest of the B.C. labour movement let them down and a lost an important
opportunity to derail the government's privatization agenda. The leaders
of the official Canadian labour movement stood by scratching themselves
while business and its government enablers scored another win. As
galling as this is, it's to be expected. That's the role of our
mainstream labour leaders: To scratch themselves while we get screwed.
They're doing a good job of it too.

For months now, activist workers across BC have been advocating for a
general strike but B.C. Federation of Labour President Jim Sinclair and
his status quo cronies won't hear of it. At one point the leader of the
BC /Fed/ stated that he was pretty sure that workers in B.C. were not
ready to rise up. Since then, Sinclair has been busy giving lip service
to proponents of a general strike - spouting rhetoric here and there but
saying nothing of substance in favour of engaging workers' power.

Surely the government and the employers know an idle threat when they
hear one. Sinclair and his crew are just providing the privateers with
motivation to go even further. If the B.C. Fed isn't going to go to bat
for working people, what's to worry about?

It may take a _general strike_, perhaps across Canada, if workers are
going to regain the rights and protections that have been stolen from
them. If our right to determine our own destiny through free collective
bargaining has been taken from us then we must explore other ways to
determine our destiny. Widespread job action has been an effective tool
for us in the past. And let's not confine ourselves to thinking that job
action must be confined to standing around our workplaces with picket
signs. There are many ways of bringing pressure to bear on the
modern-day corporation and its political enablers. We just need to get
started and encourage others to join us.
What will it get us? There will always be uncertainty about the future
but we can be reasonably sure of what we will get if we put our faith in
the leaders of business and its union and government tools. Poorer, more
desperate, dehumanized. It's our choice.

Will Vince Ready's binding arbitration sink the ferries workers and
their will to fight for their own future? It sure has the potential to
do that. Binding arbitration is not called /binding/ arbitration for
nothing. In the very least, the passage of time while they wait for the
decision will halt the momentum that developed during the strike. Union
members will be encouraged to put their faith in the unbiased goodness
of Arbitrator Ready. Then will come the disappointment, when the
long-awaited award comes out. Then the devastation when they learn
there's nothing they can do about it. Then the anguish of seeing their
jobs disappear as their new fair and just collective agreement is
implemented. Then the anger...and then what? Will there be an uprising
or will they disappear into the masses of unemployed who have been
similarly helped out of their jobs as their leaders stood idly by
scratching.

It doesn't bode well for an uprising if workers are demoralized,
disillusioned and disappeared by the time the grim reality arrives on
their doorsteps. It will take the winds out of their sails for sure and
weaken their resolve to fight back especially if they know that there
will be harsh personal and financial penalties for defying the law, when
no other labour organization is willing to support them with a _general
strike_ or similar labour chaos.

*Making Every Day Count

*If Jackie Miller wants to keep herself from being sucked into the
system and leave the door open to a resurgence of militancy among BCFMWU
members she should be encouraging the members to continue their efforts
at raising awareness about their issues in their communities, discourage
blind faith in the arbitration process and get the members exploring
innovative direct action in case Vince Ready's award is disappointing.

If Miller isn't willing to do it, members who aren't prepared to put
their faith in the system, should consider organizing their own
activities to keep the momentum and the fighting spirit of the
membership alive in the countdown to his decision.

Do not go to sleep waiting for the decision. Continue your activism.
Continue raising awareness of your situation. Build awareness in your
communities about the corporate greed that's turning your life upside
down and that will touch their lives one day too - if it hasn't already.

Take stock of your employer's vulnerabilities. Plan for every
possibility, including an all-out loss at arbitration. Where can you
apply pressure, what kind of pressure can you apply to your employer to
get them back to the bargaining table if the Ready award sucks? You've
got some time to think through the options now. Use it productively and
to your best advantage.

If it's a decent decision, celebrate. If it isn't - organize, agitate,
educate, communicate.
The system is big and powerful. But, _as we've already said_, it is near
collapse. What it will take to stand the system on its head is for
workers to stop letting it push them around.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: file:///C|/WINDOWS/TEMP/nsmail.txt
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040101/4a3d9c1c/attachment.txt>

From resist at resist.ca  Sat Jan  3 23:12:52 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:12:52 -0800
Subject: [news] The Latin American Left Between Governability and Change
Message-ID: <3FF7BCF4.7030500@resist.ca>

-------- Original Message --------
From: Tom Childs <childst at groupwise.douglas.bc.ca>

>>>From the Transnational Institute   <http://www.tni.org/><<<<

The Latin American Left Between Governability and Change

Beatriz Stolowicz
New Politics Debate Papers No. 1
TNI Briefing Series No. 1 / 2004

Latin America has entered a new political conjuncture.The electoral
force of the left is a relevant indicator of the new political moment,
but it is neither sufficient as an expression nor as an explanation for
that moment. It could even lead to mistaken conclusions, such as the
supposition that the electoral force of the left in itself means an
absolute decline of conservative forces in the region. While such signs
of the advance of popular forces justly inspire hope and enthusiasm,
this should not obscure the complexity of Latin America's political
processes.

At this new conjuncture, the electoral rise of the left expresses a new
social and political reality, defined fundamentally by the ascent of
popular struggles and the endurance of resistance to neo-liberalism.
Sometimes, this new reality is manifest in popular uprisings able to
stop privatisations, reverse unpopular policies and bring down
presidents. In some cases, such struggles have been the immediate
precursors to electoral success. This ample and diverse panorama of
struggles does not always correlate with elections, however, and the
actors are not necessarily tied to the left parties that participate in
electoral processes.

The Latin American left today is seemingly much stronger than it was
half a decade ago, but not yet strong enough for the challenges that lie
ahead.This could mean reversions. It can be argued that, on the whole,
the left's experiences of government across the region show mostly
positive results: full of creativity, responsive to the needs of the
grassroots,offering greater transparency and subject to the permanent
scrutiny of society, forced to give results, and aimed at the gestation
of a 'governing citizenship'.For many parties, the experiences in
government represent the richest aspect of their political practices.
Yet these experiences have not always contributed (nor to the same
degree)to generating an enduring political force, and they also run the
danger of becoming routinised, if splendid, administrations that could
exhaust themselves as truly alternative projects.

Contents

*A new Latin American reality
*Peculiarities of the political context in which the left operates
*The debate on the local
*Governments and elections
*Some final thoughts
*References
*The New Politics Project:The Context and the Need

Translation
Daniel Chavez
Benjamin Goldfrank

Text Editing
Fiona Dove

Design
Jan Abrahim Vos,
Zlatan Peric, MEDIO

Contact
Daniel Chavez
Project Manager
Transnational Institute
Paulus Potterstraat 20
1071 DA Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: -31-20-6626608
Fax: -31-20-6757176
chavez at tni.org

Full text of paper (20 pages) at:

http://www.tni.org/reports/newpol/left.pdf

[A b o u t  t h e  a u t h o r:
Beatriz Stolowicz, a Mexican sociologist with
ample professional and personal experience in
Latin American left politics, is a lecturer and
researcher at the Department of Politics and
Culture of the Autonomous Metropolitan
University of Mexico * Xochimilco. Stolowicz
is the author of several books and articles on
the impacts of neoliberal policies, social
movements, political parties, democracy and
progressive governance across the Americas,
including Gobiernos de Izquierda en Am?rica
Latina. El Desaf?o del Cambio (Plaza y
Vald?s/UAM-X, Mexico, 1999). This briefing
paper is a chapter of the forthcoming book
edited by Daniel Chavez and Benjamin
Goldfrank, The Left in the City (Latin America
Bureau/TNI, London, March 2004).]


From christoff at resist.ca  Sun Jan  4 08:32:16 2004
From: christoff at resist.ca (Stefan Christoff)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [news] CKUT Radio: Palestinian Refugees - Fighting for Dignity in
	Lebanon
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401040831010.15705@resist.ca>


CKUT Radio: Palestinian Refugees - Fighting for Dignity in Lebanon

Listen to an interview with Raida Hatoum a Lebanese activist who works
with Najdeh, a women's NGO network throughout the Palestinian refugee
camps of Lebanon. Najdeh was established by a group of Palestinian refugee
women near the beginning of the Lebanese civil-war. Currently Najdeh
organizes various social programs throughout many of the Palestinian
refugee camps, focusing on the immediate needs of women and children
within the camps.

The interview focuses on the work of Najdeh within the current context of
Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon. Specifically the interview focuses
on the lack of basic rights for refugees and the various Lebanese &
Palestinian social movements engaged in struggles to fight for the rights
of Palestinians. Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are forbidden from owning
property, working in over 78 professions, receiving proper health care,
and moving and traveling freely. They do not hold Lebanese citizenship
which gives them little influence over the political decision of the
country in which the majority of Palestinian refugees have lived for over
50 years. Essentially the majority of Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon
throughout the poverty stricken, war destroyed camps as non-citizens with
little basic rights.

To listen to the interview with Raida Hatoum visit:
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8335

For more information on Najdeh visit:
http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/360/362/najdeh/

<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>>


From resist at resist.ca  Tue Jan  6 12:41:14 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:41:14 -0800
Subject: [news] VPD cops get criminal records for brutality
Message-ID: <3FFB1D6A.6070601@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:21:25 -0800 (PST)
From: chris at resist.ca

Tuesday ? January 6 ? 2004

Four cops slapped with criminal records

Monday, January 05, 2004

Provincial Court Herb Weitzel called the escalation of violence in the
assaults a 'mob mentality.'

VANCOUVER (CP) - A provincial court judge handed out sentences Monday
ranging from house arrest to an absolute discharge to six Vancouver police
officers convicted of beating suspected drug dealers.

Judge Herb Weitzel said a mob mentality governed the incident a year ago
when the officers took three men to Stanley Park and systematically beat
them.

Constables Duncan Gemmell, Christopher Cronmiller, Raymond Gardner, James
Kenney, Gabriel Kojima and Brandon Steele each pleaded guilty last month
to three counts of common assault in return for the Crown dropping more
serious charges.

Each officer was sentenced separately, based on the role he played in the
assaults.

Gemmell, the most senior officer and a ringleader in the beatings, was
sentenced to 60 days of house arrest and six months probation. Kojima, who
used his police baton on the victims, was given a month's house arrest and
six months of probation.

Gardner was handed a nine-month suspended sentence and ordered to perform
50 hours of community service.

Cronmiller received a conditional discharge along with six months
probation, while Steele received a suspended sentence and six months
probation.

Kenny, an acting sergeant, got an absolute discharge for standing by while
the others took part in the beatings.

Kenny and Cronmiller were also spared criminal records.

Prosecutor Robert Gourlay said after the hearing the Crown would study the
sentences before deciding whether to appeal.

The Crown had suggested a possible sentence of house arrest lasting up to
90 days but noted the officers could face a maximum of six months in jail.

The defence, arguing the men suffered a momentary laps in judgment,
suggested conditional discharges, which would have meant no jail time or
criminal record.

The six officers picked up three men, all with lengthy criminal records,
in downtown Vancouver early Jan. 14 and took them to a secluded spot in
nearby Stanley Park, where they were assaulted.

"Rather than being a heat of the moment situation, it became a situation
of mob mentality," Weitzel said.

A police recruit, now a full-fledged officer, was present at the incident
and reported it, which led to charges.

"In this whole sordid set of circumstances, he is the one bright light ...
when police became themselves criminals by virtue of their behaviour,"
Weitzel said.

A lawyer representing the beating victims in a civil suit said the judge
should have treated all six officers the same.

"I thought the judge did quite a marvellous job of cutting and dicing,"
said Phil Rankin.

"If you accept that people acted as a mob, then why should you distinguish
between the one that kicks and the one that pushes and the one that
pinches?"

Rankin said his clients believe all six should have been jailed, which
would have happened to them if the roles had been reversed.

The officers still face a police disciplinary hearing later this month.

A police spokeswoman has said criminal records would not necessarily bar
the officers from continuing on the job.

Police union president Tom Stamatakis said the officers should be allowed
to keep their jobs.

"The judge himself found they were of good character," he said. "They're
good people. They made a mistake.

"People get second chances all the time, many, many people in all walks of
life, including many other people in other professions where the public
place their trust."
? Copyright 2004 The Canadian Press, Global BC



Copyright ? 2004 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global
Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.




From ron at resist.ca  Tue Jan  6 13:01:32 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:01:32 -0800
Subject: [news] Gordon Campbell's deck chair
Message-ID: <3FFB222C.1090808@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:22:03 -0800
From: shniad at sfu.ca


Globe and Mail	   Tuesday, January 6, 2004 - Page A13

Re: Gordon Campbell's deck chair

By Paul Sullivan

If I were Gordon Campbell, Premier of British Columbia, I'd find somewhere
else to spend the Christmas holidays.

Obviously, the Hawaii project is doomed.

Last year, the Premier was convicted of driving under the influence while
enjoying (alas, too much) his annual Maui vacation. This year, during his
more sober respite, the RCMP raided the offices of the ministerial
assistants of two of his cabinet members. As part of the investigation, the
RCMP also talked to some top Liberal heavyweights, such as Mark Marissen,
Prime Minister Paul Martin's B.C. campaign chairman and husband of Deputy
Premier and Education Minister Christy Clark; Ms. Clark's brother, Bruce,
who's chief fundraiser for the federal B.C. Liberals, and Erik Bornman, who
runs communications for the federal B.C. Liberals.

The RCMP is tightlipped about the exact nature of the investigation, but a
spokesman has been downright poetic about the big picture. At a news
conference last week, Sergeant John Ward referred darkly to organized crime,
how it has reached "epidemic proportions" in B.C., "touching every region
and every major street corner." He said the $6-billion illegal marijuana
trade and its fallout -- "murders, beatings, extortion, money laundering" --
have spread like a "cancer on the social and economic well-being of all
British Columbians."

Sounds serious. The raid went down the weekend before New Year's and,
incredibly, Mr. Campbell just stayed in Maui. He sent fellow vacationer Gary
Collins -- Government House Leader and the boss of the one ministerial
assistant fired to date -- to face the music. Which Mr. Collins did, then
flew back to Hawaii. At this point, they should probably just stay there.

I have no idea what the Premier is thinking, but frolicking in Hawaii while
your brain trust is the target of an organized-crime dragnet is a death
wish. In the wake of the Glen Clark scandal, Gordon Campbell talked about a
"new era" that would wipe the slate clean. So when his government is
implicated in something that appears -- at first blush -- much worse, his
response is to move the deck chair into the shade?

So far, the RCMP won't release details of search warrants used in the raids.
The information blackout has only fuelled rumour and speculation, and the
principals have responded by playing dodge the bullet. House Leader Collins
was sufficiently distracted from his luau to contend, in a news conference,
that "the speculation ends up, usually, being greater than the facts that
underlie the actual event." Mr. Marissen and Mr. Clark have also told the
media they're not suspects, and Mr. Marissen says the connection to the
federal government is "tenuous at best."

So we shouldn't worry? Guess not. I suppose the truth will emerge from the
fog of speculation, but until it does, rumours are all we've got. And these
are some rumours. The two assistants targeted in the raid, Dave Basi and Bob
Virk, are Liberal backroom boys from way back, and are connected to
everything from the sale of BC Rail to the coup that led the Paul Martin
forces to seize the constituency association of Chr?tien loyalist Herb
Dhaliwal right from under his nose. It's rash, at least, to draw
conclusions, but there are so many questions that need answers.

It's rash, at least, to draw conclusions, but there are so many questions
that need answers.

Unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, no one in charge seems
much interested in addressing those questions. Not Solicitor-General Rich
Coleman, who must be cautious about compromising the investigation, not Mr.
Collins, who had to catch a plane back to Maui, and certainly not Gordon
Campbell, who to this point has only agreed to come to the phone. Leadership
remains an opportunity waiting to be seized. At the very least, the Premier
should have taken the first plane home and tried to show that while the cops
are bracing all these important government officials, someone is protecting
the public interest.

This may be a bad time for Gordon Campbell -- his approval rating was at its
lowest point even before the RCMP raid -- but it's a worse time for B.C. The
opposition is split between rookie NDP Leader Carol James, whose previous
political experience was on the Victoria School Board, and Green Leader
Adriane Carr, who hasn't convinced voters she's more than a one-trick pony.

So we have one leader who, on the whole, would rather be in Maui, and two
unelected, untested fringe players in opposition. B.C. voters responded to
the last scandal by giving Mr. Campbell a huge mandate. How will they
respond to this one? By the time election day arrives (May 17, 2005), the
latest scandal may have evaporated, but the strong stench of Mr. Campbell's
hesitation at the helm will continue to linger. It's hard to believe that
voters will just wrap the mantle around Carol James, but this is B.C.
Stranger things are, um, happening all the time.

psullivan at globeandmail.ca

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040106/COSULL0
6/Columnists/Idx

Project-X list:
initiated for the (re)building of the Left.



From resist at resist.ca  Fri Jan  9 12:42:01 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 12:42:01 -0800
Subject: [news] Poll results: Should trans people be welcomed in women only
	spaces?
Message-ID: <3FFF1219.2070302@resist.ca>

Last week, we ran a story called "Pioneer Transsexual Speaks out Against 
Supreme Court" (http://resist.ca/story/2003/12/27/173018/30) about Jamie 
Lee Hamilton's court case with Rape Relief.

We attached a poll to the story that asked "Should trans people be 
welcomed in women only spaces?". The results?

48 people voted. 64% said "Yes". "No" received 4% of the vote and the 
rest (31%) voted "It's more complex than yes or no". Interesting. By the 
way, you can still vote.

Also interesting is that even though 48 people voted on the poll, not 
one person made a comment on the story. Perhaps people don't know how, 
so below are some easy to follow instructions.


To post a comment on a story, you must have a resist.ca email account. 
If you don't have one, you can apply for one 
(http://resist.ca/story/2003/12/27/173018/30). It usually takes a week 
or two to have the account set up.

If you have one, you can go to the Login link 
(http://resist.ca/special/login) at the top of http://resist.ca and 
enter your email login and password. Then just go to the very bottom of 
the story you want to comment on, and click the "add comment" link and 
you are on your way. Your comment then appears at the bottom of the story.


From resist at resist.ca  Fri Jan  9 15:09:26 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:09:26 -0800
Subject: [news] Six Toronto police officers face corruption charges
Message-ID: <3FFF34A6.7040808@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
From: sabate <sabate at ziplip.com>

Six Toronto police officers face corruption charges

7 Jan 2004
By DARREN YOURK
Globe and Mail Update

Charges have been laid against six veteran Toronto police officers in 
the wake of a massive 2?-year RCMP investigation into corruption on the 
force.

Staff-Sergeant John Schertzer, Detective Constable Steven Correia and 
Constables Raymond Pollard, Joseph Miched, Ned Maodus and Richard Benoit 
have been charged with more than 20 offences, including conspiracy to 
obstruct justice, perjury, extortion, assault causing bodily harm and 
theft over $5,000.

?As I stand here today with the news that five serving officers and one 
retired officer are now facing charges I am deeply saddened and 
disappointed,? Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino said Wednesday. 
?Without doubt, this whole situation is quite regrettable.?

The officers, five of whom are still active on the force, were members 
of the Police Service's central drug squad. They turned themselves in at 
Toronto Police headquarters Wednesday morning and are scheduled to 
appear in court Wednesday afternoon. All have been suspended with pay 
while they await trial.

Constable Maodus, a 15-year member of the force, was arrested Monday by 
the Toronto Police Service Professional Standards Special Task Force and 
charged with possession of heroin, cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose 
of trafficking.

Four other officers ? Greg Forestall, John Reid, Jason Kondo and Mike 
Turnbull ? were named as unindicted co-conspirators Wednesday. The 
officers have not been charged with a criminal offence but will be 
placed on restricted duties.

Wednesday's arrests mark the culmination of an internal Toronto Police 
Services investigation that began in 1999 with allegations of thefts of 
relatively small amounts of money from the force's so-called "fink 
fund," used by officers to pay their informants.

That investigation led in the fall of 2000 to dozens of criminal and 
Police Act charges, virtually all of them abruptly dropped in February 
last year, with the only case that proceeded to court, and involving two 
officers from another squad, resulting in jury acquittals.

In August, 2001, Chief Fantino asked the RCMP to oversee a separate 
independent investigation into the allegations that members of the drug 
squad were beating and stealing from suspects.

Chief Superintendent John Neily, who led the RCMP investigation, said 
the evidence in case pointed squarely at a small group of officers who 
chose to get involved in criminal activity while trying to obstruct justice.

The charged officers are alleged to have falsified notes and internal 
police records, given false testimony, sworn to false affidavits to 
obtain search warrants and failed to account for evidence they seized.

?Police officers are not above the law,? Chief Supt. Neily said. ?It 
never has been, and never will be, acceptable for police to engage in 
criminal activity or take the law in to their own hands. There is no 
excuse.?

?...The special task force mandate challenged us to follow the truth, 
The truth has led us to where we are today.?

Chief Fantino that while Wednesday's news was troubling, it must not 
take away from the public's trust in the good work that the vast 
majority of officers in the Toronto Police Service do every day.

?We must maintain our faith in the system,? Chief Fantino said. ?I do 
today as I always have in the past. I can however tell you that the 
allegations are isolated and confined. The investigation has been 
independent, extremely exhaustive and most definitely thorough.?

?...Although I would have preferred a different outcome, I know that the 
public interest has been well served.?



_______________________________________________
copb-van-l mailing list
copb-van-l at lists.resist.ca
https://lists.resist.ca/mailman/listinfo/copb-van-l




From ron at resist.ca  Sat Jan 10 19:40:47 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:40:47 -0800
Subject: [news] CSIS tried bribe: activist
Message-ID: <4000C5BF.6070701@resist.ca>

From: sabate <sabate at ziplip.com>

CSIS tried bribe: activist

Cash for names. Fellow member of left-wing party target of questioning

MIKE KING

The Gazette
Friday, January 09, 2004

Canada's spy agency tried bribing a Quebec left-wing political party 
member into providing information on fellow anti-globalization activists 
this week, the approached man claimed yesterday.

Guillaume Tremblay, a candidate for the Union des forces progressistes 
in last spring's provincial elections, told reporters he was visited at 
his St. Jean sur Richelieu home Wednesday by two Canadian Security 
Intelligence Service agents.

"They made it clear I would get paid if I was ready to co-operate, 
although no exact amounts were given," Tremblay said. "They wanted 
names, phone numbers and addresses" of other like-minded militants.

In questioning by the male and female investigators, who identified 
themselves as terrorist experts for CSIS, Tremblay said, he was asked 
specifically about UFP colleague Amir Khadir and social activist Jaggi 
Singh. The visit lasted about 20 minutes.

Tremblay said he was surprised to find the agents had a file on him and 
his activities with the Quebec-based civil-disobedience group Operation 
SalAMI.

Before leaving, "they said it would be to my advantage not to talk to 
any left-wing groups like mine" about their visit.

Tremblay and Khadir instead called the news conference to denounce the 
CSIS action and publicly demand an explanation from Deputy Prime 
Minister Anne McLellan, who is also the chief minister for emergency 
preparedness (which includes overseeing CSIS) and public safety.

Alex Swann, a special assistant to McLellan in Ottawa, confirmed 
yesterday his office had received a copy of the UFP statement.

He said he couldn't discuss any specific CSIS operation, but noted CSIS 
is governed by legislation, and there is a process for citizens to 
appeal actions by CSIS.




From resist at resist.ca  Sat Jan 10 19:59:15 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist collective)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:59:15 -0800
Subject: [news] Angry MPs oppose missile defence: Backbenchers slam
 Pratt	over planned talks with U.S.]
Message-ID: <4000CA13.10204@resist.ca>

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:13:20 -0500
From: steven_staples at on.aibn.com
Subject: Angry MPs oppose missile defence
Sender: owner-abolition at watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
To: abolition at watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
Cc: melvillewatkins at yahoo.com

Angry MPs oppose missile defence: Backbenchers slam Pratt over planned
talks with U.S.
The Ottawa Citizen
10 Jan 2004
By Tim Naumetz


Backbench Liberals are rebelling against their government's plan to
begin  missile-defence talks with the United States, saying Defence
Minister  David Pratt is "sticking his neck out" by forging ahead
without caucus  support.

The MPs reacted angrily to Mr. Pratt's move to seek more information on
the plan after CanWest News Service disclosed yesterday that a Canadian
defence department

document last year warned the missile-defence shield risks paving the
way  for the placement of weapons into space.

Three Liberal backbenchers said Canada should have nothing to do with
the  "weaponization" of space and warned that once Canada becomes
involved,  even in just information-gathering discussions, it might be
impossible to  withdraw from the scheme.

Liberal MP Bonnie Brown slammed Mr. Pratt for planning to write U.S.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to begin the process and

questioned whether Canada could trust any information it gets from the
White House, considering the U.S failure to back up claims Iraq was
concealing weapons of mass destruction.

"When they tell you something, will it be true?" said Ms. Brown. "There
is  the whole question of what they told us about Iraq, which has proven
to be  untrue."

Ms. Brown, Toronto Liberal MP Charles Caccia and Montreal Liberal MP
Marlene Jennings said the government should drop its plan to begin an
information exchange with the U.S., arguing Mr. Pratt failed to consult
widely with caucus members.

"I don't know any numbers (of MPs opposed), but I think that this
minister  is sticking his neck out pretty far without checking with us,"
said Ms.  Brown. "He has been the chair of the defence committee and as
such has  developed, in his few years in public life, a very
military-influence view  of the world."

Ms. Brown was also worried the defence system will restart a new arms
race  and said the government should wait to see if President George W.
Bush  survives the upcoming U.S. elections in November before beginning
any  talks with the Americans.

A Department of National Defence Department report last spring said a
"significant risk" associated with the missile-defence plan is "its
reinforcement of trends toward the weaponization of space."

The system, to cost an estimated $100 billion, will use ground-based
interceptor rockets to form a defence shield against missile attacks
launched against the U.S. The interceptors would be based in California
and Alaska.

Another Canadian military analysis of the missile shield, produced last
year, determined that putting weapons into orbit would greatly increase
the ability of the U.S. system to destroy incoming warheads.

Ms. Jennings said she is against any proposal that would lead to the
deployment of weapons in space.

"I do not want space to be weaponized," she said, noting that Canada has
  held a longstanding position opposing the deployment of weapons in
space.

"As far as I'm concerned, any discussions that should be taking place
is:  There are no weapons testing -- there is no weapons testing
whatsoever  what happens in space. I'm opposed to any kind of increase
in weapons,  weaponry, in the world."

Mr. Caccia, a former cabinet minister, said Prime Minister Paul Martin's
  cabinet must prove there is a threat of attack against Canada before it
  begins any discussions that could lead to Canadian participation in the
  system. He said the U.S. must also first prove the system will not lead
to  weapons in space.

"For the life of me, I can't see see anyone in the world who would want
to  attack Canada," Mr. Caccia said.

Michael D. Wallace
Department of Political Science &
The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1
phone:(604)822-4550, fax:822-5540




From resist at resist.ca  Mon Jan 12 13:16:14 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist at resist.ca)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:16:14 -0800
Subject: [news] More cops on the way (200)
Message-ID: <40030E9E.6070506@resist.ca>


-------- Original Message --------
From: chris at resist.ca

Monday ? January 12 ? 2004
200 police will be added, mayor says
Larry Campbell leads forum on neighbourhood safety

Frances Bula
Vancouver Sun


VANCOUVER - Faced with rising public concern about crime, aggressive
panhandling and what some Vancouver residents say is general lawlessness,
Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell promised this weekend to increase the
city's police force by 200 officers.

Campbell, who led a city forum on "neighbourhood safety and livability"
that attracted 250 participants, promised at the end of the four-hour
session that he is "committed to having this police force reach the
national average" of police officers per population.

Campbell said he thought that would mean having a city police force of
1,320 sworn officers, compared to the 1,124 that are now authorized.

He didn't say over what period of time that would happen.

Campbell also said the city needs to work toward strengthening
neighbourhoods, lobbying senior levels of government for more affordable
housing, and helping young people, who are increasingly turning to street
life.

Campbell's statements came at the conclusion of a Saturday morning forum
at the Roundhouse Community Centre, where participants were split into
discussion groups to come up with recommendations to address the problems.

The wildly diverse groups, ranging from full-time "binners" -- poor and
homeless people who scavenge in dumpsters for a living -- to business
association representatives, talked about solutions to an equally diverse
range of poverty-related problems, from homelessness to crime.

More police, more community policing, more foot patrols, more bylaw
enforcement, more aggressive action action on drug dealers and other "get
tough" measures were mentioned by almost every group.

"We would like to see the city take leadership in the problems we're
seeing everywhere -- crime, graffiti, panhandling, litter, general
lawlessness," said Sheryl Williamson Harms, of the newly formed West End
Citizens Action Network.

The network came into being last April because of a general concern in the
West End about rising problems with break-and-enters, public drug use, and
aggressive panhandling.

But many participants also said they didn't want to see just an
enforcement approach. They said Vancouver and other levels of government
need to tackle underlying reasons for the increasing number of people
living on the streets.

"There's a feeling that we have to get to the root causes for this," said
architect Sean McEwan.

Strategies like creating affordable housing, increasing the number of
drug- and alcohol-treatment resources, and low-threshold employment
programs to help get people off the street were frequent suggestions.

Jim Storie of Tourism Vancouver said his discussion group also thought the
provincial government should delay its plans to cut people off welfare.
Jennifer Campagnolo's group suggested that business groups, instead of
treating street people as the enemy, should try to involve them in taking
care of the street, paying them to clean up and keep an eye on their
areas.

One of the most common -- and unexpected -- suggestions was that the city
should help empower and assist community groups so people in
neighbourhoods get to know each other, increasing their ability to protect
their neighbourhoods.

"We're strangers. We should know each other," said Peter Brown, president
of the Kitsilano Chamber of Commerce.

Campbell's promise at the end of the meeting to increase policing drew
applause from the crowd.

Chief Jamie Graham said he expects the Vancouver police force, which has
been decimated this year by an unprecedented number of retirements due to
a pension-plan technicality, will be back to its currently authorized
number of 1,124 officers by the end of the year.

Graham, who has been lobbying consistently for more officers ever since he
became police chief last year, was encouraged by Campbell's support and
said he would like to see officers added through a steady increase of
30-40 a year over the next several years.

Vancouver currently has about one officer for every 523 citizens, which,
on paper, doesn't seem that far below Montreal (one per 442) or Toronto
(one per 502).

But deputy chief Doug LePard has been making the argument to the city that
Vancouver is in a different situation than Toronto and Montreal, which
have metropolitan police forces that cover not just the central city but
suburban areas.

Although the Vancouver police force nominally serves only the 588,000
people who live in the city, it effectively deals with a population closer
to one million, based on the numbers who come in from other
municipalities.

About one-third of the people arrested by Vancouver police come from
outside the city. LePard says a police force of about 1,380 officers would
bring Vancouver to the national average.

Within Vancouver, one of the areas with the lowest policing levels is the
downtown peninsula, which has almost doubled in population in the past 10
years thanks to aggressive city efforts to promote downtown living.
However, its allotment of police officers hasn't increased at the same
rate.

The city forum on neighbourhood safety was initiated after a wave of
public complaints about the public homeless camps near False Creek and
Chinatown last fall and about rising levels of crime in the West End.

The political opposition on council, Non-Partisan Association councillors
Peter Ladner and Sam Sullivan, pushed the issue energetically, while some
Liberal MLAs also chimed in, accusing Campbell's council of being soft on
crime.

Campbell held a number of private meetings with community and business
groups in the fall. He said he plans to take the recommendations from this
forum and two others to be held in February and look at ways of
translating them into action.

? Copyright  2004 Vancouver Sun
Copyright ? 2004 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global
Communications Corp. All rights reserved.


From resist at resist.ca  Mon Jan 12 14:33:17 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist at resist.ca)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:33:17 -0800
Subject: [news] Chavez React to US Remarks on Referendum and Relations with
	Cuba
Message-ID: <400320AD.4080801@resist.ca>

-------- Original Message --------
From: Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby at resist.ca>

[important article, the tone of the US is changing, not for the better--
Macdonald]

see below:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1162


From ron at resist.ca  Mon Jan 12 17:11:24 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:11:24 -0800
Subject: [news] U.S. dollar put on yellow alert
Message-ID: <400345BC.1000904@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
From: shniad at sfu.ca


Financial Post	   January 12, 2004

U.S. dollar put on yellow alert

Orderly decline, or disorderly crash?

Jaqueline Thorpe

The first full working week of 2004 is barely behind us and the U.S. dollar
has found itself on yellow alert -- at significant risk of further attack.

While the greenback has dropped more than 30% against the euro over the past
two years, its 2% skid in the first week of the year has many openly
wondering: When does an orderly decline become a disorderly crash?

"The risk of a U.S. dollar collapse -- or at least a further substantial
decline -- seems to be more and more likely," George Magnus, chief currency
strategist at UBS in London, said in a report last week.

Just a few weeks after putting out his projections for 2004 -- and he was
already known as a U.S. dollar bear -- Mr. Magnus cut his year-end forecast
for the greenback to US$1.40 per euro from US$1.32.

The slide in the world's reserve currency has certainly been picking up.
News that the U.S. economy created a measly 1,000 jobs in December was the
culprit behind its bellyflop to a record US$1.29 low on Friday. It is now
down 12.5% against the European currency, 10% against the British pound and
11% against the Swiss franc in the past two months.

Oddly it appears to have eased up somewhat against the loonie, dropping only
5% since November but there were some fireworks on Friday when the loonie
dollar crossed the US78 cents barrier to end at a fresh 10 1/2-year high of
US78.67 cents.

So far however, policymakers have been sanguine. A European Central Bank
meeting came and went last week with no change in 2% interest rates.

"Although recent exchange rate developments are likely to have some
dampening effects on exports, export growth should continue to benefit from
the dynamic expansion of the world economy," Jean-Claude Trichet, the ECB
president, said.

All U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said last week was that the United
States supports a strong dollar, something he has said many times before.

There was no "officials are watching market developments closely," no
"disorderly movements in exchange rates are undesirable" or any of the other
usual verbal hints that officials are starting to sweat.

"It's a bit alarming to find officials on both sides of the Atlantic so
laissez-faire about the pace of the decline," Michael Woolfolk, senior
currency strategist at Bank of New York, said.

"It certainly suggests ... that it might not be until the G7 meeting on Feb.
6-7 that we get any kind of guidance. The problem with that is that the way
in which the market has been trading recently -- in which the dollar has
been perceived as a one-way bet downward -- we could hit 1.30 well before
that."

The US$1.30 mark is important in two respects. It is a big fat round number
and traders like to target those. More importantly, Mr. Woolfolk thinks it
represents a pain threshold for financial officials.

A slide to US$1.30 against the euro would bring its losses to 20% over the
last 12 months and no Group of Seven currency has dropped more than 20% in a
single year since 1980, except in three specific instances.

These were the co-ordinated efforts to bring down the greenback under the
Plaza Accord in 1985-87 (it dropped 22.4% against the German mark in 1985,
21.4% in 1986 and 18.3% in 1987), the 22.8% devaluation of the Italian lira
during European currency crisis of 1992 and the 22.8% drop in the euro
against the Japanese yen after the euro's launch in 1999.

"In light of this, it appears that the 'maximum speed limit' for the
devaluation of a G7 currency is 20% a year," Mr. Woolfolk said.

Yet markets were abuzz last week with strategists trying to define what
would be a "crash" in the U.S. dollar . Putnam Investments in Boston was
quoted as characterizing a crash as a 20% drop or more over three to six
months. Morgan Stanley in London meanwhile said it would take a 5% drop per
month over several months or a 3%-per-month fall against on a trade-weighted
basis. That has been down about 1% per month for the past 24 months.

But many others say forget percentages.

"The question is whether [the slump in the dollar] is impacting other asset
markets, corporate competitiveness or anything like that and in that regard
I find it difficult to believe anybody in the the U.S. administration is is
concerned about it," Bob Sinche, senior currency strategist at Citigroup in
New York, said. "Bond markets are behaving well, equity markets are behaving
very well, inflation is under control, so you have difficulty finding a
reason why one would not be pleased about these developments."

Indeed, it is clear a substantial fall in the dollar is one plank in the
Bush/Greenspan recovery plan along with the tax cuts and ultra low borrowing
rates.

Still, central bank and financial officials will undoubtedly have to step in
to arrest the greenback's decline at some point, even if stock markets don't
melt down.

"One of the first rules of foreign exchange is that [currency moves don't]
stop without policy intervention," Mr. Woolfolk said, pointing out it took
the Louvre Accord to put a rug back under the greenback in the mid-1980s.

jthorpe at nationalpost.com




http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=e3bb
0ce5-bb1b-486e-809d-2522f37c024d


From ron at resist.ca  Mon Jan 12 17:20:10 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:20:10 -0800
Subject: [news] The Year of the Fake - Naomi Klein
Message-ID: <400347CA.9080404@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
From: shniad at sfu.ca

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040126&s=klein

>From the January 26, 2004 issue

The Year of the Fake

by Naomi Klein

Don't think and drive.

That was the message sent out by the FBI to roughly 18,000 law enforcement
agencies on Christmas Eve. The alert urged police pulling over drivers for
traffic violations, and conducting other routine investigations, to keep
their eyes open for people carrying almanacs. Why almanacs? Because they are
filled with facts ? population figures, weather predictions, diagrams of
buildings and landmarks. And according to the FBI Intelligence Bulletin,
facts are dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists, who can use them to
"to assist with target selection and pre-operational planning."

But in a world filled with potentially lethal facts and figures, it seems
unfair to single out almanac readers for police harassment. As the editor of
The World Almanac and Book of Facts rightly points out, "The government is
our biggest single supplier of information." Not to mention the local
library: A cache of potentially dangerous information weaponry is housed at
the center of almost every American town. The FBI, of course, is all over
the library threat, seizing library records at will under the Patriot Act.

The blacklisting of the almanac was a fitting end for 2003, a year that
waged open war on truth and facts and celebrated fakes and forgeries of all
kinds. This was the year when fakeness ruled: fake rationales for war, a
fake President dressed as a fake soldier declaring a fake end to combat and
then holding up a fake turkey. An action movie star became governor and the
government started making its own action movies, casting real soldiers like
Jessica Lynch as fake combat heroes and dressing up embedded journalists as
fake soldiers. Saddam Hussein even got a part in the big show: He played
himself being captured by American troops. This is the fake of the year, if
you believe the Sunday Herald in Scotland, as well as several other news
agencies, which reported that he was actually captured by a Kurdish special
forces unit.

It was Britain, however, that pushed the taste for fake to new levels. "Her
main aim is to meet as many Nigerians as she can," the Queen's press
secretary, Penny Russell, said of the monarch's December trip to Nigeria.
But just as Bush never made it out of the airport bunker in Baghdad, the
Queen's people decided it was too dangerous for her to mingle with actual
Nigerians. So instead of the planned visit to an African village, the Queen
toured the set of a BBC soap opera in New Karu, constructed to look like an
authentic African market. During the "fake walkabout," as the Sunday
Telegraph called it, the Queen chatted with paid actors playing regular
villagers, while actual villagers watched the event on a large-screen TV
outside the security perimeter.

But 2003 was about more than embracing fakery and forgery ? it was also
about punishing truth-telling. The highest price was paid by David Kelly,
the British government weapons expert who killed himself after he was outed
as the source of a BBC story on "sexed up" security documents. Katharine
Gun, a British intelligence employee, faces up to two years in prison for
revealing US plans to spy on UN diplomats in order to influence the Security
Council vote on Iraq. And in the United States, Joseph Wilson, who told the
truth about finding no evidence of Saddam's alleged uranium shopping trip in
Africa, was punished by proxy: His wife, Valerie Plame, was illegally outed
as a CIA operative.

While truth did not pay in 2003, lying certainly did. Just ask Rupert
Murdoch. According to an October study conducted by the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, when it comes to the war in Iraq, regular
watchers of Murdoch's Fox News are the most misinformed people in America.
Eighty percent of Fox News watchers believed either that weapons of mass
destruction have been found in Iraq, that there is evidence of an Iraq-Al
Qaeda link or that world opinion supported the war ? or they believed all
three of these untruths.

On December 19 the Federal Communications Commission gave Murdoch the right
to purchase the top US satellite broadcaster, DirecTV. The FCC vote took
place just five days before the FBI's almanac bulletin, and they can best be
understood in tandem: If books that fill your brain with facts make you a
potential terrorist, then media moguls who fill your brain with mush must be
heroes, deserving of the richest rewards.

When Bush came to office, many believed his ignorance would be his downfall.
Eventually Americans would realize that a President who referred to Africa
as "a nation" was unfit to lead. Now we tell ourselves that if only
Americans knew that they were being lied to, they would surely revolt. But
with the greatest of respect for the liar books (Lies and the Lying Liars
Who Tell Them, Big Lies, The Lies of George W. Bush, The Five Biggest Lies
Bush Told Us About Iraq et al.), I'm no longer convinced that America can be
set free by the truth alone.

In many cases, fake versions of events have prevailed even when the truth
was readily available. The real Jessica Lynch ? who told Diane Sawyer that
"no one beat me, no one slapped me, no one, nothing" ? has proven no match
for her media-military created doppelg?nger, shown being slapped around by
her cruel captors in NBC's movie Saving Jessica Lynch.

Rather than being toppled for his adversarial relationship to both the most
important truths and the most basic facts, Bush is actively remaking America
in the image of his own ignorance and duplicity. Not only is it OK to be
misinformed, but as the almanac warning shows, knowing stuff is fast
becoming a crime.

It brings to mind the story about why Castilian Spaniards pronounce gracias
as "grathiath." In the seventeenth century, the country was ruled by a
monarch with a severe speech impediment and a fragile ego. To flatter the
ruler, it was decreed that everyone should imitate the king's lisp and
mispronounce their c's and s's.

According to all reputable linguists, the legend is a complete fake. But in
Bush's America that should hardly matter.


Project-X list:
initiated for the (re)building of the Left.




From ron at resist.ca  Mon Jan 12 17:39:31 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:39:31 -0800
Subject: [news] US/Iraq in a nutshell  Online movie
Message-ID: <40034C53.3010401@resist.ca>

-------- Original Message --------
From: shniad at sfu.ca

US/Iraq in a nutshell ? Online movie

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html


From ron at resist.ca  Tue Jan 13 13:21:23 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:21:23 -0800
Subject: [news] Mohawks block highway near Oka, Que.,
	reserve over band dispute
Message-ID: <40046153.9060107@resist.ca>


From: mick <mick at nefac.net>

If anyone has further news, analysis, or background on this I'd be 
interested in reading it. I''ll be maintaining a log on 
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000649 of 
related articles. It's also a discussion board so feel free to chime in 
with your $0.02.

Cheers,
Mick

-------------
Mohawks block highway near Oka, Que., reserve over band dispute

KAHNESATAKE, Que. (CP) - Demonstrators burned the band chief's house, 
torched a car, and blocked a highway Monday night to protest the 
dismissal of the Mohawk community's police chief and a renewed effort to 
fight contraband cigarette sales.

Grand Chief James Gabriel, had reportedly received threats after seeking 
a tougher stand on crime on the reserve, particularly the sale of 
contraband cigarettes.

Some of the protesters said the protest was sparked by news that the 
RCMP was preparing to raid the reserve to shut down the cigarette sales 
points, which have grown to 27 along a three- kilometre stretch of 
highway near the reserve. There were only three such places two years ago.

Gabriel left the community shortly before his house and car were 
destroyed by fire. No one was in the house at the time of the fire and 
there were no injuries. Fire trucks were not able to get around 
barricades to fight the blaze.

The protest followed a decision by Gabriel and the band council to 
replace the police chief and hire extra officers to combat the 
burgeoning contraband cigarette traffic on the reserve. The protesters 
claim the sales bring much-needed money into the reserve economy.

Earlier in the day, Gabriel said that the reserve's police, called 
Peacekeepers, had been ineffective in combating contraband on the reserve.

"Since 2001, there has been a decline in the work of our police," 
Gabriel said. "They haven't done any raids for two years, they haven't 
moved. We want to bring back order."

Several people were seen going to Gabriel's house with clubs and it was 
reportedly ransacked before being burned.

About 30 people also felled trees to block a highway near the reserve. 
One of the large pine trees lay in the exact spot where Mohawks 
overturned Quebec provincial police cars and used them as barriers 
during the 178-day land claims crisis at the reserve that was only 
resolved after Canadian troops were brought in.

Another group hovered outside the headquarters of the Peacekeepers.

The group, which gathered around a bonfire in the chill, kept a number 
of the Peacekeepers from leaving the building and the cars parked behind 
a fence. A small pile of baseball bats, boards and golf clubs lay nearby.

About 40 Peacekeepers were in the station, most of them reportedly 
invited by Gabriel from other aboriginal reserves to help in dealing 
with the cigarette trade.

At one point in the evening, the mob stood facing the police officers at 
the fence surrounding the headquarters and taunted them. Some of the 
Peacekeepers told the protesters they had to go out and patrol and 
members of the crowd replied that only local Peacekeepers would be 
allowed on the road.

Quebec provincial police did not immediately intervene and were not 
asked to help out, said Const. Chantal Mackels of the provincial force.

She said provincial police stationed a lone cruiser on the highway to 
reroute traffic and prevent drivers from running into the downed trees. 
Provincial police do not have jurisdiction on the reserve.

The band council concluded a deal with Ottawa in November to crack down 
on contraband cigarettes on the reserve.

Those who favour the trade said they had been told recently that the 
RCMP was preparing to move in.

The newly appointed police chief started Monday.

Sonia Gagner, a member of the seven-person police commission, said the 
decision to hire the new police officers was done unilaterally without 
the commission's knowledge.

"It wasn't (a decision by) the community or by the commission," she 
said. "We're there to work for the people of the community and as 
liaisons between the leaders and the people of the community.

"Our job is to keep the peace. . . . but we haven't been able to do that 
tonight."

Reports said several cars - including some belonging to the 
Peacekeepers, were damaged in the protest.

The reserve, near Oka, Que., gained national headlines during the 1990 
Oka land claims standoff that saw one police officer killed when police 
stormed barricades erected to prevent expansion of a nearby golf course 
onto land the Mohawks considered sacred.




From ron at resist.ca  Tue Jan 13 13:48:33 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:48:33 -0800
Subject: [news] Three plead guilty to Earth Liberation actions
Message-ID: <400467B1.1030403@resist.ca>

THREE PLEAD GUILTY TO EARTH LIBERATION ACTIONS - RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

For Immediate Release

The ELF Press Office has learned that three self-identified members of 
the Earth Liberation Front have plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to 
destroy by fire vehicles and property used in interstate commerce as a 
result of ELF-claimed actions that took place in and around Richmond, 
Virginia in 2002. Adam Blackwell, Aaron Linas, and John Wade plead 
guilty to the charges separately on December 18, January 7, and January 
12th.

Specifically, the three plead guilty to acts of earth liberation that 
incurred over $200,000 in damages over the course of a one-year period 
which included:

     * damage to the gas and hydraulic tanks of construction vehicles as 
well as electrical systems on those vehicles
     * the defacement of glass windows at McDonald's and Burger King 
restaurants with etching cream;
     * monkeywrenching of the electrical systems, doors, and windows of 
homes under construction in Goochland County;
     * attempts to destroy a crane and other construction vehicles being 
used at a construction site for the Short Pump Town Center;
     * etching "ELF" and "SUV" on the windows and bodies of 25 SUVs at 
the Universal Ford dealership.
     * the destruction of various SUVs, and Jeeps owned by dealerships 
and individuals.

       Sentencing for the three will occur in April, though news reports 
indicate they have already agreed to pay restitution of $200,000 as part 
of the plea agreement.

       Although these arrests will impact the individuals involved, and 
the community in which they live, this does not pose a problem for the 
Earth Liberation Front as a whole. The ELF operates using the strategy 
of leaderless resistance, where individuals and groups who carry out 
actions never know or meet others who may also be active. This means 
that even though one group may be broken up through legal action such as 
this, others involved in the ELF will not be affected

       In the history of the ELF, there have been very few arrests and 
even fewer convictions. None of these law-enforcement actions have put 
an end to the Earth Liberation Front in North America, which in 2003 had 
a record-setting year in terms of total property damage.

       The ELF Press Office supports those who are facing repression at 
the hands of state and federal law enforcement and is available for 
e-mail interviews concerning this matter.

       The Earth Liberation Front is an international underground 
organization that uses direct action in the form of economic sabotage to 
stop the destruction of the natural environment. Since 1997, the ELF in 
North America has caused over $100 million in damages to entities who 
profit from the destruction of life and the planet.

       The Earth Liberation Front Press Office is an autonomous entity 
that serves to publicize news and actions of the ELF, as reported 
through news media or by anonymous communications from the individuals 
involved in activities.

       -30-

       Contact:
       North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office
       elfpress at resist dot ca


From ron at resist.ca  Wed Jan 14 11:40:04 2004
From: ron at resist.ca (ron)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:40:04 -0800
Subject: [news] Bush 'outed' on Iraq
Message-ID: <40059B14.8020608@resist.ca>


-------- Original Message --------
From: shniad at sfu.ca


Toronto Star	 January 13, 2004

Editorial:

Bush 'outed' on Iraq

And so it comes out.

Invading Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein was a top priority at U.S.
President  George Bush's very first National Security Council meeting ?
seven full months before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks Bush then
cited as a reason for "pre-emptively" disarming Saddam's regime.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go," former Treasury secretary Paul
O'Neill has confirmed in a whistle-blowing appearance on the CBS program
60 Minutes.


"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The
president saying `Go find me a way to do this.'"

O'Neill even saw a secret memo entitled Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq and
other related documents.

This won't shock the 7 in 10 Canadians who were unpersuaded by Bush's
9/11 case for war. But it may hurt him with the 6 in 10 Americans who
were taken in.

During two years in cabinet, O'Neill "never saw anything I would
characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction." And Saddam's
alleged coziness with Osama bin Laden has never been documented.

These comments have caused a stir, and remind Prime Minister Paul Martin
to arm himself with skepticism as he begins to manage tricky Canada/U.S.
issues ranging from mad cow to missile defence. This White House has
forfeited any right to have its utterances taken on faith.

Right up to the March, 2003, invasion, Bush led the world to think war
might be avoided.

"I believe the free world . . . can disarm this man (Saddam)
peacefully," he said five months before the troops landed. While the
U.S. had wanted "regime change," Bush hinted Saddam could yet redeem
himself.

"If he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations . . . that
in itself will signal the regime has changed," Bush said.

Now we know differently. Saddam's fate had been sealed years earlier.
Diplomacy was irrelevant.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1073949009964&call_pageid=968256290204&col=9683501167
95




From resist at resist.ca  Mon Jan 19 17:52:42 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist at resist.ca)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:52:42 -0800
Subject: [news] The end of unions
Message-ID: <400C89EA.7040106@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
From: shniad at sfu.ca

Financial Post	   Thursday, January 15, 2004

The end of unions

The death rattle of the Canada's union movement grows louder as workers
eschew brotherhood and employers jettison superfluous union partners

Hugh Finnamore

Labour unions as we know them are fast dissolving. That's because union
bosses have been swallowed by a dysfunctional system designed in the 1940s
to tame worker radicalism. Over the decades, they have been co-opted into
the role of business partners, and that has set the stage for a new form of
workplace revolution -- an event few have put their minds to. The union fat
cat has become irrelevant to his members and is of waning value to his
corporate partners.

In 2003, Loblaw Companies Limited snapped the proverbial fingers and its
unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and the Canadian Auto
Workers (CAW) rolled over and gave it wages and working condition formerly
available to non-union retailers. Now that their playing field is near level
with Wal-Mart, there will be less of a need for the unions as partners.

In California, where the UFCW hesitated in its game of "roll-over and play
dead," the major retailers have all but crushed the UFCW. The Teamsters
Union offered to help the UFCW and claimed to be the "silver bullet" that
would bring Safeway, Ralph's and other retailers to their knees. The
employers stood fast and the Teamsters quickly abandoned the UFCW.
Solidarity Forever, a standard union hymn, was proven little more than a
worthless ditty.

As workers eschew mainstream unionism and as employers start the process of
jettisoning their superfluous union partners, labour leaders sit wide-eyed
and listening to the fearful sounds of death's rattle and creak. Confused
and in disarray, they clamour for their chequebooks in a last-ditch attempt
to buy politicians and to curry their favour. They are frantic for new
legislation or legislative interpretations that will further
institutionalize the labour-relations bureaucracy. They are prepared to
spend a fortune on politicians of every stripe to insulate themselves from
the ravages of internal democracy and the wrath of their disaffected
members.

Canada's largest unions transferred $3.5-million into the federal NDP
coffers in December, 2003, alone. Laborers International Union of North
America (LIUNA) helped raise $750-thousand for Prime Minister Paul Martin's
leadership campaign and his union was a push behind former Rogers Cable CEO
and right wing Toronto mayoralty candidate John Tory. In B.C., Premier
Gordon Campbell predicts that unions will place "millions and millions of
dollars" backing the lacklustre B.C. NDP for the 2005 provincial elections.

While about 70% of Canadians think unions are relevant, only 30% would
bother to sign a union card if asked. Canada's labour elite mistakenly
believes the problem lies in bad PR and unfriendly labour laws. "Our task is
image, we don't get a fair shake in terms of characterization of the labour
movement," CLC president Ken Georgetti told the media in October. "We have
to deal with that." If dealing with a repugnant image means attempting to
buy political favours, then the deal seems to be running full throttle
ahead. However, it isn't a matter of a fair shake; it's what's shaking
within the so-called labour movement that is the major turnoff.

In mid-2003, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
(UFCW) unveiled a sweetheart, mid-contract deal that it cut in secret with
Loblaw Companies. When UFCW members complained to the Ontario Labour
Relations Board (OLRB), they were told by way of a formal ruling that the
deal was really none of their business because they weren't a "party" to the
agreement. The parties were the employer and the UFCW.

The OLRB vice-chair essentially said that if the union members didn't like
the deal, they could decertify the UFCW. Strangely, in the same ruling the
OLRB pointed out that the size of the bargaining unit made that eventuality
highly improbable if not impossible. Those employees would face even greater
hurdles if they chose to switch unions because the CLC has rules so onerous
that no affiliate would agree to take another union's human assets.

In British Columbia, the worthlessness of unionization was no more evident
than by the provincial government's Bill 29, the Health and Social Services
Delivery Improvement Act. With the stroke of a pen, thousands of health care
workers represented by a variety of unions received notice that their jobs
were being contracted out to companies paying close to 50% less in wages and
benefits. Hungry for a piece of the dues action, the Industrial, Wood and
Allied Workers (IWA) signed a sweetheart deal allowing it to be the
union-tax collector for the lower-paid workers. That move effectively
created a scenario similar to the one faced by Loblaw employees.

Meanwhile, the IWA is widely rumoured to have its members up for sale, and
the UFCW is reportedly one of the suitors. That pending sale may explain the
bizarre move whereby the IWA joined with employers to ask the government to
enact legislation that will force a settlement in their current contract
talks. I say bizarre because employers and unions routinely agree to binding
arbitration without asking politicians to create law to facilitate it.

Also out West, in an apparent suicide attempt, B.C.'s Marine and Ferry
Workers Union stepped outside of the box and defied the B.C. Labour
Relations Board (BCLRB) by launching a full-blown strike and momentarily
defying a BCLRB back to work order. In response, the government has promised
a law to create a much smaller and stronger box to lock that union in.

As unions implode, they may create a momentary vacuum, but employee activism
will inevitably emerge to fill the void. What form that activism takes
remains to be seen but companies have no reason to feel secure. Those who do
not pay attention to these shifting tides will find themselves in deep
water.

Hugh Finnamore, a former union official, is now a senior consultant at
Vancouver-based Workplace Strategies Inc. E-mail: workplace at telus.net.


From resist at resist.ca  Mon Jan 19 18:26:27 2004
From: resist at resist.ca (resist at resist.ca)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:26:27 -0800
Subject: [news] Halifax police apologize to boxer Kirk Johnson in
 discrimination case
Message-ID: <400C91D3.6070506@resist.ca>



-------- Original Message --------
From: sabate <sabate at ziplip.com>

Halifax police apologize to boxer Kirk Johnson in discrimination case

ALISON AULD

Canadian Press

Monday, January 19, 2004

HALIFAX (CP) - Halifax's chief of police apologized to Kirk Johnson on 
Monday and admitted the heavyweight boxer was discriminated against when 
an officer stopped and seized his car five years ago, leaving him 
stranded on the side of a highway.

Frank Beazley said he was sorry for the difficulty the high-profile 
incident caused Johnson and his family after the black athlete was 
pulled over in April 1998 for allegedly not having the proper papers for 
his car. "I accept the finding that Mr. Johnson was discriminated 
against and recognize that this has been a humiliating, stressful and 
painful experience," Beazley said.

"I regret the effect this incident and the inquiry has had on the black 
community."

But moments after the chief issued his apology, the head of the police 
association issued a very different statement, insisting that Const. 
Michael Sanford - who wasn't disciplined for his actions - acted 
appropriately and did not let race affect his judgment when he stopped 
Johnson.

Det.-Sgt. Bill Hollis dismissed the opinion of the police chief and the 
chairman of a human rights commission that found Sanford discriminated 
against Johnson at least in part because of race.

Hollis denied the veteran officer was guilty of racial profiling after 
he spotted the 1993 black Ford Mustang, noticed the car's Texas plates, 
allegedly saw two black men inside and seized the vehicle.

"He made the stop because of his training and experience, not because of 
racism or profiling or stereotyping," said Hollis, head of the Municipal 
Association of Police Personnel.

"(The association) stands behind Sanford and remains steadfast in our 
belief that racial profiling is neither condoned nor tolerated by our 
members."

Hollis said the 450-person association, which has 37 black members, will 
accept new training to improve racial sensitivity, but he maintained 
that Sanford should have responded the same way if faced with a similar 
situation.

Johnson launched the discrimination case after he and his cousin Earl 
Fraser, who was driving the vehicle, were stopped by Sanford. The boxer 
accused the officer of pulling the pair over for "driving while black."

Sanford insisted he hadn't seen the colour of the men's skin as he 
passed them, but Philip Girard, the head of the inquiry, found race was 
a factor in Sanford's decision to stop the car.

Girard also found Sanford treated Johnson dismissively after the boxer 
produced his registration and insurance papers from Texas, where he has 
been living.

Sanford misread the date on the insurance and didn't recognize the 
registration sticker on the windshield, leading him to believe Johnson 
was without valid documentation.

Five police cars arrived on scene and a tow truck later came to take 
away Johnson's car.

Victor Goldberg, Johnson's lawyer, said he was dismayed by the police 
association's response and worried that little would change in a force 
he argued was tainted by systemic racism.

"They don't seem to get it," Goldberg said from his Halifax office, 
adding that Johnson was training in Dartmouth and not available for 
comment. "You have to wonder how there can be change if the rank and 
file don't think there's a problem. They're just worried about their 
reputation."

Girard ruled that Johnson, 31, is entitled to damages of $10,000, a much 
smaller sum than the $25,000 Johnson was seeking. Girard also awarded 
$1,000 to Fraser.

Girard said he didn't believe the Halifax police force is rife with 
racism. However, he ordered the force to hire two people to complete an 
assessment on whether race sensitivity training is needed.

Beazley said the force would accept the suggestions by offering Sanford 
and other members training that deals with stereotyping issues. They 
will also review sensitivity training to see if it needs to be improved.

The force will also look into ways to gather information on the role 
race plays in stopping cars. A consultant will be brought in to 
determine what needs to be done to deal with racial training.



From sharai at resist.ca  Tue Jan 20 17:38:29 2004
From: sharai at resist.ca (sharai)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:38:29 -0600
Subject: [news] jamie lee hamilton press release
Message-ID: <004d01c3dfbf$45a20720$036c4818@pentium-266.accesscomm.ca>

January 21, 2004
> 
> 
> Press Release
> 
> Prostitute Advocate Seeks Mayor' Summitt To Combat
> Crimes of Hate on Local Sex Trade Workers
> 
> Vancouver, BC
> 
> "Once again Vancouver has a black eye as prostitutes
> are left battered, bruised and beaten while the
> rampaging torture inflicted on them by serial
> sadists
> continues without any political action to combat
> these
> serious and henious crimes", claims Jamie Lee
> Hamilton, a well known sex trade worker advocate.
> 
> The City of Vancouver has the dubious reputation as
> the dirtiest,seediest and most violent city in the
> world when it comes to harm of prostitutes. 
> 
> To back up her claims, Hamilton cites the senseless
> slaughter and murders of over 60 women from the
> Downtown Eastside while political leaders made
> comments such as 'oh they just moved away' or 'we
> are
> not going to fund a Location service'. And now
> following on the worst serial killing in Canada is
> the
> fact that over 50 known sex workers in the Downtown
> Eastside once again have been brutally raped,
> tortured
> and maimed while Law officers stood by and refused
> to
> take action as prostitutes cried for help only to be
> informed 'well what do you expect-you agreed to
> provide services so it's not really rape' or 'you
> know
> how dangerous this scene is so why do you do it' or
> 'get out if you can't stand the heat'.
> 
> Says Hamilton, "Pathetic and Troubling is that NOT
> one
> officer, when it could have made a difference took
> the
> time to take a report or do follow up. Yet the city
> after the fact is embarking on a public relations
> campaign and is spending hundreds of thousands of
> dollars to deflect what is sure to be ample calls of
> concern".  
> 
> Hamilton poses these questions:
> 
> Could these horrendous crimes have been prevented
> and
> subsequently lives saved? Can the city  decrease
> violence against sex workers? Most importantly, can
> the city stop the organized commodification,
> degradation and exploitation of Sex Trade workers?.
> A
> public police inquiry would shed light but as we
> know
> from the Pickton case the police will hide behind
> the
> veil of protecting the rights of the accused and
> therefore prevent public inquiry' until after
> lengthy
> court cases are complete.  
> 
> Jamie Lee Hamilton is calling for immediate action.
> The Mayor must strike a Summitt on Sex Trade Safety.
> This group should include representation from active
> sex workers, Councillors Roberts and Woodsworth,
> politicians and concerned community members. Failure
> to act will undoubtedly lead to further tragic harm.
> 
> -30-
> 
> For more info Jamie Lee Hamilton )604)781-6624
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------
"Love is profoundly political. Our deepest revolution will 
come when we understand this truth. Only Love can 
give us the strength to go forward in the midst of 
heartbreak and misery. Only Love can give us the 
power to reconcile, to redeem, the power to renew weary 
spirits and save lost souls.The transformative power of 
Love is the foundation of all meaningful social change."
---Bell Hooks 





From garlicbobcat at resist.ca  Tue Jan 20 17:03:33 2004
From: garlicbobcat at resist.ca (Big Garlic Bobcat)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [news] uprising in kanesatake
Message-ID: <4575.64.180.208.60.1074647013.squirrel@mail.resist.ca>



UPRISING IN KANESATAKE
1.media analysis - joey
2.first hand account - jake brant

************************************************************************

1.UPRISING IN KANESATAKE
joey - (media analysis)

On Monday January 11th there was an uprising in the infamous Mohawk
community of Kanesatake Quebec. The home, car and tractor of Grand Chief
James Gabriel were set on fire after he suddenly fired the 12 person
police force and the ?soft of crime? police chief Tracy Cross. The new 67
officer police force was federally subsidized to the tune of $900,000 for
November 2003 to June 2004. After James Gabriel and his family fled the
reserve Quebec Public Security Minister Jacques Chagnon pulled a deal to
disband the new police force from 16 different native communities, this
ended the uprising.

Pine trees were dropped on highway 344 symbolically on the spot where
police cars were flipped over and used as barricades during the 1990 Oka
standoff. Other community members went to the police station to throw
rocks and debris at the reserve cops when they tried to leave for patrol.
With the help of trucks the police were prevented from leaving the
station, no police force patrolled Kanesatake that night. Terry Isaacs
(the day old police chief) faxed the Quebec Provincial Police requesting a
riot squad to engage the demonstrators outside the station. Isaacs later
said, ?these people who are outside have (prevented) us from eating. They
haven?t allowed any food in. That night we ordered some pizza and they
stole four boxes of pizza from us. A lot of the boys are hungry, they?re
tired.?

Why all the new cops in Kanesatake? There are 27 kiosks on a 3 kilometre
stretch of Highway 344 that sell Indian-rolled cigarettes (Native, Seneca,
Niagara, Bronco). The smokes are produced on reserves and cartons go for
$25, $40 less than the going rate in Quebec. Kanesatake (pop.1200) is a
rare native community; it does not have federally recognized title to its
land, it is not recognized as a reserve under the Indian Act and it did
not have a native police force until 1997. The community is but a sliver
of a land, too small for agriculture, development, residential growth or
manufacturing; the high school does not have a science teacher. Many
people who are unemployed and receiving social assistance work in the
tobacco kiosks because they have no choice. The Montreal Gazette reported
that many of those who took action against the police occupation on were
cigarette vendors.

Mohawks along the St.Laurence Seaway have often struggled with the
government over their cigarettes. The RCMP contends that the cigarettes
are illegal because an excise stamp must be on every pack, with
provincial, federal, and excise taxes included in the price. In a
cigarette dispute in August1994 the Army, Joint Task Force 2 (J2F2), the
RCMP and the Quebec Provincial Police planned to send a force of 18,000
into the border community of Akwesasne Ontario by helicopter gunship,
rail, armoured personnel carriers and by securing the roads. Mohawk
warriors sent many warning shots over the valley letting the invaders know
just how ready they were. Hours before the invasion was to take place
Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien was told by advisors that the ?bloodshed
would be too great for the Canadian public to stomach?. They changed their
strategy, the next day the price of a cigarette pack dropped way down to
$3.15 curbing the cross border ?organized crime ring?. Slowly taxes were
raised again; cigarette costs are back up to $6-8.

On the reserve of south shore Kahnawake there are over 60 tobacco kiosks.
The Kahnawake Council sees nothing wrong with them. But things are
different across the river, last fall Treaty Chief James Gabriel promised
the federal government that he would clean up the cigarette trade in
Kanesatake.

Kenneth Deer of the Kahnawake newspaper ?the Eastern Door? said, ?you talk
to James Gabriel and he says this is about law enforcement and drugs, and
you talk to the other side and they say that it not about that, it?s about
a power play by James Gabriel to control the local trade in (Mohawk made)
cigarettes.?

Karen Etiene, a resident of Kanesatake said Treaty Chief James Gabriel,
?just wants his own dictatorship on the reserve. I think he wants to
manipulate and control the community. He?s the worst thing that ever
happened to Kanesatake.?

Treaty Chief James Gabriel is determined to resume his role in Kanesatake
during next Tuesday?s band council meeting even though people in the
community have said they will no longer recognize his authority. Gabriel
is obsessed with returning ?law and order? to the community saying it is
an ?essential cornerstone in a democratic society?. Gabriel lost a vote of
confidence in the community two years ago, but a federal court overturned
the vote. A group of dissident Mohawks, including three chiefs, blockaded
Highway 344 last April to protest a policing deal Gabriel had made with
the federal government. About a week before the fire 30 people stormed the
band council to confront Gabriel about rumours that he?d secretly asked
the government for money to conduct police operations.

On January 14th Gary Dimmock?s article in the Ottawa Citizen ?BIKER DRUG
NETWORK BEHIND UNREST, EXPERT SAYS? began with, ?a multi-million dollar
drug network, unfettered by authority and controlled by the Hells Angels,
is behind the civil unrest at Kanesatake, the stage of the 1990 Oka
standoff.? Dimmock?s article was based on the interview of Guy Ouelette a
former police investigator. Oulette claims that the Hells Angels puppet
club (Northern Rockers) controls the pot harvest at several Mohawk
reserves. Sensational articles like Dimmock?s are meant to deliberately
confuse the issues for the public; it changes the caricature of the public
debate and ideologically taints people?s perceptions.

Band Councillor Steven Bonspille, who plans to replace James Gabriel in
June?s election said, ?I have lived here my whole life. I have no
knowledge or indirect knowledge of the Hells Angels being in Kanesatake.?
Bonspille denied that Kanesatake is a haven of organized crime and pot
saying, ?(Gabriel) is fixated on drugs this whole term in office, he
should have been a police chief somewhere instead of a band chief.?
Barry Bonspille said, ?there is no problem with law and order. The biggest
problem here is health, housing, roads and education.?

Micheal Rice is a teacher at the Kanesatake School. He published an
article this week about poverty in Kanesatake saying, ?Is it a wonder that
people are working in the tobacco shops? Is it a surprise that some people
might be involved in drug dealing. The frustration and anger that have
boiled over in Kanesetake are a manifestation of the division in the
elected band council system introduced (here) and other First Nations. How
do you expect to achieve harmony when you impose an outdated Canadian
political structure that gives political power to one party even if it has
only 51% of the votes? This system was set up to create division and
conflict in native communities.?

The Ottawa Citizens Gary Dimmock completely avoids the real issues such as
the sovereignty of the Haudonesaunee (Six Nations) Confederation of 1703,
of which the Mohawk Nation belongs. Canadian style democracy has little in
common with the longhouse council of the Iroquois Confederacy, where
decisions were made collectively and not by the mandate of an RCMP
collaborator such as James Gabriel.

There are several morals in this story. The Six Nations receive none of
the benefits of the free market or free trade within their ancestral lands
or beyond. The community members of Kanesatake defended the trading
interests of their Nation. If people show strength in standing up to the
system the police and corporate media will always cooperate against you
because they see each other as legitimate bodies in the Canadian state.
And the real moral of the story is that average people picked up rocks and
axe handles, defeated a police force, a Treaty Chief, and asserted the
never ending sovereignty of the Mohawk people.


*************************************************************************

2. REPORT ON RECENT EVENTS IN KANEHSATAKE, MOHAWK TERRITORY
by Jake Brant, forwarded by Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
Note on what follows:

Over the past week the Canadian public awoke to find the struggle of the
Mohawks of Kanehsatake as front page news.  The trigger of events was a
secret deal with the Feds signed by Grand Chief James Gabriel (who was
ousted by the community by way of a non-confidence vote this past summer
in Kanehsatake, only to have him re-instated by the Feds based on an
obscure legal technicality) to bring in an outside, invading and illegal
police force to occupy Kanehsatake at a cost of $900,000.00.  In response,
members of the community torched Gabriel's home, and the invading cops
were forcibly confined in the Kanehsatake police station for over 24
hours.  This compelled the Government of Quebec to broker a deal and
remove the occupying force.  The mass media has portrayed this as a
dispute between law-abiding Mohawks and criminal factions within the
community with connections to organized crime.  However, all credible
reports indicate this event was only one in a series based on the sincere
and genuine desire for peace and stability in the community to which James
Gabriel, in collusion with Federal and Provincial government authorities,
continues to stand as the impediment.


January 17, 2004

Re. Kanehsatake

I have had the opportunity to visit with my brothers and sisters in
Kanehsatake and would like to share that experience and insight into the
current situation.

Within the whole of the Mohawk Nation, we have been waiting for such an
event.  Since the failed Military invasion of our communities in 1994,
which included some 6,000 troops and months of training, the Federal
Government has been quietly organizing a new strategy to deal with its
approach to "organized crime" within all Mohawk communities.  The crime
that was alleged to have been committed in 1994, and as government
suggests, continues to be committed is the manufacturing and sale of
"Native Cigarettes". One report suggests the need to "target the Indians'
claims to the inherent right of inter-tribal trade with sister Mohawk
communities and the native run tobacco manufacturing industry as a whole."

It is concluded that the organized aspect to the criminal offense exists
because all distributors in Kanehsatake charge the same price of $25.00
per carton thereby suggesting collusion between proprietors.

The government has successfully transmitted its media message of "law and
order" and "organized crime" to the public and they do so at any cost.  I
sat through a Kanehsatake Police Commission press conference and witnessed
a proud Mohawk man give his story on serving his community, as a member of
the Police Commission and with no criminal record, and watched him break
down when he told us how he had to explain to his children that he was not
a criminal.  Each of the members recounted similar stories.

I personally recall in Sept/95, reading government propaganda, endorsed by
the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), that specifically stated, "There is
no burial ground in Ipperwash Provincial Park.  These people are on the
fringe and are not supported by the council for the Band."  A few short
days later, three Anishnawbe were shot, one fatally, and people who tried
to help were beaten.  The most severe beating was in-fact reserved for a
band council member.  Then Minister of Indian Affairs, Ron Irwin, was
forced into admitting that there was in fact a burial ground in the park,
after proof was presented.

During Gustafsen Lake, supporters behind the lines were presented as
terrorists, dissidents, and on the fringe.  The public as a whole failed
to question the legitimacy of the government reports and allowed for an
invasion force to attack and shoot the defenders of the land.  A U.S.
court however, after being asked to return one First Nations man for trial
who was involved, ruled that the people of Gustafsen were engaged in a
legitimate and political action to force the government of Canada from
power and advance the cause of the people who lived in squalor on Indian
Reservations.  The court further found that the information relayed to the
public at large was not truthful and was only intended to discredit the
people involved and to create a feeling or sentiment of lawlessness and
imminent peril for the Canadian people as a whole.  There was no prospect
for a fair and impartial trial and the Canadian request for extradition
was refused.

I cite these two examples of struggle to illustrate the ignorance of the
general public at that time and their inability to determine fact from
fiction.  It further illustrates the government's willingness to engage
us, even in the most righteous of situations and including those that have
been likened to the protection of a cemetery from commercial development.

Today in Kanehsatake, the government propaganda is "organized crime" and
"Hells Angels connection".  For us living on Nation lands and within
Mohawk communities, this type of rhetoric is laughable.  We know that
families with children run the convenience stores.  In the year 2004,
Mohawk people have developed their mental capabilities to be able to
establish stores that sell pop, chips, newspapers and cigarettes without
mob involvement.  There are craft shops, smoke sh\ops, wood shops and
others that don't charge taxes on their goods or services and are all
perceived as organized crime because they agree collectively not to
collect taxes.

There is no lawlessness in Kanehsatake.  There are no Harleys running up
and down highway 344.  I would suggest that the recent Barrie, Ontario
"Molson's Pot Bust" would not fit in all the basements of the few homes in
Kanehsatake.  In that situation, I would hardly think that the Barrie
Chief of Police was fearing for his job because he didn't know it was
happening right under his nose or that the people of Barrie would have
tolerated the city being surrounded by military while every house and
person was searched.

The issue at hand is simple.  It is an attempt to curb the sale of
cigarettes, made by First Nations people and industries, and sold
throughout First Nations communities in every province.

The issue of solidarity and understanding is always difficult, despite the
lessons learned from 1995.  If good Canadian people are tricked once again
by their government, then people in Kanehsatake and elsewhere will be
subjected to further despair, intrusion, and violence.  That being said,
we can all rest assured that some report, sometime in the future, will
reveal once again how the government lied to its people and justified its
assault on the Mohawk Nation.  Perhaps in a few years we can have some
speakers come out to a workshop who will speak first hand to the bullshit
and injustices that are being faced today by the people of Kanehsatake,
but however it may be billed at the time, "Aboriginal solidarity" and
Mohawk sovereignty will be determined over the next few days and weeks.

This issue has not concluded.  Let us govern ourselves accordingly. ? Jake
Brant

for more information please call 613.968.3305





From Enviro at ams.ubc.ca  Wed Jan 28 15:01:51 2004
From: Enviro at ams.ubc.ca (Student Environment Centre)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:01:51 -0800
Subject: [news] 4th Annual Sustainability Conference at UBC
Message-ID: <B50D2860A2EB6B4E95B094D0CCAE6A1303A32E@ams3.ams.ubc.ca>


hey - could you pass this on - lots of great social justice and enviro content at this event!

thanks - Abram Moore
ps. blaine is cute

<<please forward widely!!>>

<< saturday panel / workshop descriptions attached...>>

<<registration info. at bottom of e-mail>>

Building Livable Communities: the 4th Annual Sustainability Conference at UBC
Friday January the 30th and Saturday January the 31st, 2004
FIRST NATIONS HOUSE OF LEARNING, UBC

the event:

Friday Evening Celebration 
w / Keynote Speaker John Robinson, Sustainable Development Research initiative
and Community Art Projects, Performances brought to you by the Public Dreams Society.
5pm-10pm   /   $5
(incl. light dinner)

Saturday Conference
w/ Keynote Speaker Helen Spiegelman and a series of panels, workshops and student discussions throughout the day
9am - 5pm   /   $10
(incl. lunch)

Follow-Up Sessions
there will be a series of workshops and networking events to follow up the conference.  times and locations to be announced.

the Location:

the First Nations House of Learning was built in 1993.  it serves as a home away from home for first nations students, and is a gathering place, a place of learning and caring.  see www.longhouse.ubc.ca for more.

format:

the conference is intended to be a community building exercise in itself.  wherever possible we are trying to create opportunities for students to connect, converse and engage with other students in their community.  this conference is primarily for students.

******Registration:

please fill out the information below 
e-mail to enviro at ams.ubc.ca - you can also pick up a form at SUB 245b.
payment for conference for ubc students must be dropped off at AMS Administration Office, box 39, or Sub 245b (sliding under door is okay).  for off-campus students, payment is due day of conference.  space is limited - please do not register unless you plan to attend.

today's date:
your name:
e-mail:
phone #:
student (y/n):
school:
area of study:

you will be able to attend one of the panels / workshops from each of the 4 sessions.  please number them in order of preference in the blank provided.  see attached file for full titles and descriptions.

session A
__ ubc / downtown eastside
__ bicycle planning / advocacy
__ co-op transport alternatives
__ public policy and health
__ visualising community sustain
__ dirt to fork
session b
__ community gardening
__ natural building
__ energy alt / development
__ landscape arch / comm
__ devel in marginalised comm
__ sustain game
__ democratised learn syst
session c
__ coop model
__ media democracy
__ seeds
__ sustainability ed
__ art and community
__ consensus decision-making
session d
__ sweatshop purchasing
__ urban agri at ubc
__ gender / globalisation
__ transport planning
__ tradit eco / bio-region
__ what paradigm.?

will you also be attending the friday celebration? y / n










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040128/077b8b11/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: registration page 2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 10858 bytes
Desc: registration page 2.pdf
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040128/077b8b11/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT05635.txt
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/news/attachments/20040128/077b8b11/attachment.txt>

From pnbrown at vcn.bc.ca  Fri Jan 30 23:45:35 2004
From: pnbrown at vcn.bc.ca (Paul Browning)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:45:35 -0800
Subject: [news] Fw: HEADLINES NEWSLETTER
Message-ID: <001401c3e7ce$36796330$6401a8c0@PAUL>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jennifer Girard" <outreach at headlinestheatre.com>
To: "*Newsletter #6C" <outreach at headlinestheatre.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: HEADLINES NEWSLETTER


HEADLINES
#323 - 350 East 2nd Avenue, Vancouver BC, Canada V5T 4R8
Tel (604) 871-0508    Fax (604) 871-0209   web: www.headlinestheatre.com

~~~Look who's Practicing Democracy

We have now concluded our interviews for 30 workshop participants, 6 cast
and 8 crew for the upcoming main stage production, Practicing Democracy.
Join us in welcoming some of the team!

Cast: Lillian Carlson*, Emily Mayne, James Michelson, Monserrat Munoz,
Theresa Myles and Sandra Pronteau *Appears with the permission of Canadian
Actor's Equity Association
Director/Joker:                    David Diamond
Production Manager:          Dylan Mazur
Community Outreach Coordinator:    Jennifer Girard
Financial Administrator:       Jackie Crossland
Publicity:                              Jen Cressey
Legal Consultant:                Carrie Gallant
Workshop Support:             Dana Starritt
Stage Manager:                  Melissa Powell
Technical Director/Designer:  Harry Vanderschee
Lighting Designer:               Caitlin Pencarrick
Costume Designer:             Marina Szijarto
Telecast Director:                Michael Keeping
Graphic and Slides:             Lincoln Clarkes


~~~What happens next?

The venues are set, posters are made, cast is selectedS Now all we need is a
script!  During the first week of February, workshop participants (including
cast) come together to use theatre games and exercises to explore their
struggles with the cuts to welfare. Through this process we investigate the
problems that Vancouver residents are facing which informs the content of
the play.

In the community workshop, the cast has a special task - not only to
contribute their perspectives, but also to absorb the experiences of the
other people in the room. After the workshop is over and the play creation
process begins, it is the task of the cast and director to reflect the
mandate given by the workshop group.  The true portrayal of lived
experiences is what inspires audience members to come up with solutions.

In Practicing Democracy, the ideas generated by audience members not only
help the characters in the play, they have the potential to define civic
law.  Legal consultant Carrie Gallant will be creating a report based on the
audience interventions that will go to Vancouver City Council as
recommendations for changes to policies within Vancouver. Council has
unanimously agreed to consider the Legal Report as public input marking a
Canadian first in using theatre to create law.

~~~Join the grassroots publicity crew!

If you are passionate about the issues of local democracy and social
justice, we want you to help us get the word out!  This Thursday is your
chance to come to Headlines, learn more about our upcoming project and meet
other folks who wondering, "How can the City of Vancouver respond  to the
cuts to welfare?" Please join us Thursday, January 29, 5:30 -7:00 pm and/or
Monday, February 23, 5:30 - 7:00 pm at Headlines.  We will have snacks so
please RSVP to outreach at headlinestheatre.com or 604-871-0508 to ensure there
is plenty for all.  Bring a friend! If you would like to assist but can't
make it to these meetings, please call.

******
Headlines thanks the following for ongoing operational support: The Canada
Council; BC Gaming Commission; City of Vancouver, BC Arts Council;  the
Melusine Foundation.  Thank you to the following for  project support;
VanCity, Canadian Heritage, The Leon and  Thea Koener Foundation,   Tides
Canada Foundation - Endswell Fund, Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Foundation,
Legal Services Society, Co-op Radio, Shaw TV and the Westender. Our venue
sponsors are Croatian Cultural Centre, St. James Community Square, and
Vancouver Japanese Language School and Japanese Hall.
******

If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please reply to
outreach at headlinestheatre.com with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject
line.