The Dominion - Letters

Blacklisted

dawn — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:05:41 +0000

A letter from Dustin Rivers

VANCOUVER—Many will ask, “Why are you against the Olympics?” “Why are natives against the Olympics?”

For me it’s simply about the hypocrisy of this Olympic machine. It is a very stark form of colonialism in modern times. The objective of the colonizer has not changed in the past 200 years. The monster still wants to devour us, take our lands, and appropriate what little we have. With organizations like the Four Host First Nations, Olympic organizers have designed the operation in a way that it has our people aiding in the colonialism and oppression. This is not a new tactic. In the late 1800’s, the state created hereditary chiefs to aid in the Indian Agents' control of the communities. We are told they are helping our people. In the end, however, the environment and spiritual destruction, the twisting of our culture, and the oppression of our people are not worth it. No Olympics on Stolen Native Land.

It seems only a handful of people will truly benefit from the Olympics. Millions of dollars have, supposedly, been poured into our community. But only a small group of people and their friends and family are benefiting. Ironically, some of these people are a part of my family, but I stand by my principles.

One of the worst parts of the Olympics for me is how much our culture is being sold off and commodified into merchandise and money. A handful of artists have benefited from this. I was asked, “How come you're not applying for the Olympic arts opportunities?” Our children must know that some collaborated, and others resisted. And so I resist the 2010 Winter Olympics, and I’m not afraid of who knows that.

The myth about Skwxwu7mesh involvement in the 2010 Winter Olympic Games is quite large and troublesome: The land deals, the money-transfers, the real benefits, the history of how it all come together, and who’s doing what and what they are really doing. Perhaps in time I will work on exposing this myth, and speak the truth. The truth about my nation is that many are fed up with the 2010 Olympics and the lies fed to us by our own politicians. They claimed this would be the best thing for our people, and even use the words of dead chiefs to support their arguments. My community sees little for this, and in the end, it won’t be worth it.

I also have the police approaching me wanting to find out information about the 2010 Resistance. I’ve been told that my name has come up in Police meetings as “someone to watch during the Olympics.” What I say to this is: I know my rights, I know my intentions, I know what I believe in, you don’t scare me. Stop targeting indigenous people who are standing up for their rights.

In solidarity with those who think the Olympics is not worth it. For my ancestors who believed in something better then this. For my ancestors who didn’t die for us to be wealthy capitalists. For the future generations who must know that some resisted.

Dustin Rivers is a Sḵwxwú7mesh-Kwakwaka'wakw writer and artist. This piece was previously published on his blog, http://liberatedyet.com.

Street Sweeps

Correction: Canadian Politicians Travel to Haiti

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:41:46 +0000

Canadian Politicians Travel to Haiti on Eve of Elections" (April 22, 2006) cited an email that was sent to the Dominion in response to a request, saying that specific details of a scheduled visit of a Parliamentary delegation to Haiti were "confidential." In fact, the email was not sent to the Dominion, and was not in response to a request for information. The email was acquired by the Dominion through another source. It has also been brought to the editors' attention that the wording left readers with the impression that the email in question had not provided any information about the Parliamentarians' visit.

The Dominion regrets the error, and the article has been updated accordingly.

"Canadian Politicians Travel to Haiti on Eve of Elections" (April 22, 2006) cited an email that was sent to the Dominion in response to a request, saying that specific details of a scheduled visit of a Parliamentary delegation to Haiti...

Readers respond to Yugoslavia series

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 19:58:25 +0000

From the bottom of my heart, I wish to thank Dru Oja Jay for his courage to write a compelling and truthful attempt to set the record straight on what really happened (and is happening) to Yugoslavia (five part series). It will take literally decades for honest and serious historians and other true scholars to unravel the massive web of lies and deceptions that were the modus operandi of Western media coverage of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. The massive level of highly sophisticated propaganda indicates that the Western-supported destruction of the former Yugoslavia, once a peaceful, beautiful, and multiethnic nation, was supported at the highest levels of Western governments. A natural question for the open-minded public might be "why destroy Yugoslavia?" I would like to complement Dru's excellent pieces by answering this question:

1. Have an excuse to continue NATO's continued senseless existence (since the fall of the Soviet Union) by illegally occupying and fighting a country which never attacked the West, thereby violating NATO's Charter.

2. Divide and conquer the region for Western economic exploitation. Before NATO's illegal and vicious destruction of Yugoslavia in 1999, George Soros met with various American officials and demanded the Trepca Mining Complex in Kosovo. One of the first targets of NATO during the bombing was the "Div" cigarette factory in Vranje, one of the largest in Europe which competed with Western cigarette companies. Phillip Morris has since constructed a new factory in Serbia. In every former Yugoslav republic, the vast majority of people are much worse off than they were when they lived in the former Yugoslavia.

3. Germany and the Vatican were the first national entities to illegally and prematurely recognize the Slovenia and Croatia before any issues of their treatment of minorities could be addressed. Both Germany and Vatican were responsible for much of the genocide of Serbian Orthodox Christians during WWII which has yet to be acknowledged and compensated for by either entity. Thus, historical anti-Serbian attitudes from both Germany and the Vatican have been largely responsible for the West's anti-Serbian perspectives. Remember that Germany's illegal recognition of Slovenia and Croatia was the first major foreign policy action by a newly-unified Germany.

4. Bases for US troops. As Germany has not renewed leases on US bases in Germany, the US needed a place to station troops. Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is the largest base for US troops outside of the US.

5. Divide and conquer the entire region to have an excuse for open-ended troops that will protect a massive trans-Balkan oil-pipeline from Burgas, Bulgaria down to Vlore, Albania. The pipeline will carry oil from the Caspian Sea region to the Adriatic Sea which will then supply Europe with oil.

I could give many more reasons, but these are the most relevant. It is important to bear in mind that with the massive "success" that the corporate-controlled, Western mainstream media had in brainwashing citizens of the West, the precedent has now been established and as we predictably see, Iraq was similarly illegally and viciously attacked and the media drumbeats of imperialist intervention are now beginning their Goebbel-esque efforts to further bankrupt and bleed America dry by fighting Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

In a true democracy, debate is free and open-ended. Western citizens never had the chance to properly debate the merits of intervention in Yugoslavia's civil wars because the media mostly censored any Serbian points of view. The media has forever shamed itself over the distorted reporting of Yugoslavia's civil wars and the ever-declining readership of corporate-controlled mainstream media is I think a symptom not of the internet by itself but that open-minded people are realizing (with the help of the internet and other "renegade" media) just how much propaganda is created and spewed forth by these self-serving institutions.

Best regards and best of luck in your very noble endeavours to challenge the omnipotent corporate media!

Michael Pravica, Ph.D.
Henderson, Nevada

Thank you for the five-part series on the former Yugoslavia.

I have family on nearly all sides of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia --
both civilian and military. This position has forced me and others like me to
recognize the complexities of the situation which you so eloquently articulated
in your writing.

I still have much to learn and will be checking your sources for more
understanding. I appreciated your thorough research and consequent honesty
which has been so lacking in most Western media.

Also, the systematic parallels that can be drawn to media coverage in places
like Haiti, Venezuela, Iraq and Afghanistan make your articles all the more
relevant in even the most broad of contexts.

Simon A. Dougherty
Scarborough, Ontario

Dru Oja Jay is one, of only a handful of world journalists, that is printing the TRUTH about former Yugoslavia, and the malicious, and wrongful demonization of Serbia, and Serbs in particular. It should serve as a testimonial, and a course of study for journalism schools around the world, with the title: "How to fabricate a war and malign a sovereign nation, fighting future terrorism in the Balkans and Europe". Mr. Jay should get a "Journalistic Oscar" for his great series on former Yugoslavia. Just wonderful. Thank you.

Vojislav Spasic
Cleveland, Ohio

The Dominion welcomes discussion, criticism, and commentary from readers. Letters can be sent to the Dominion by post or email. Letters may be edited for style, clarity and length; if there is a dispute, we will link to an unaltered version of the published letter.

A Bear of a PR Scam

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:48:55 +0000

Letter from Michael Michael Major

The full court PR press by our government, the forest industry and the foundation funded industrial sustainabilism engos has marginalized and deprecated many of BC's environmental voices that wish to contain coastal industrial forestry entirely within the existing second growth plantations that have already replaced natural forests on the most productive lands of the region.

The environmental context for the agreement is that more than 50% of the original north and central coast forest has already been harvested. Most of that harvest (about 70%) has taken place during the last 45 years. Public forest policy for the region has priorized and targeted the best and most accessible timber for earliest harvest. The biggest, the best and the most accessible timber is almost precisely identified with the most ecologically productive core alluvial zones of the region. These core alluvial zones are hundreds of times more productive than the medium and marginal forest areas that predominate in the remaining unharvested areas (perhaps economically unharvestable).

Though 50% of the original forest cover still remains technically available for harvest much of it is uneconomic and only about 10% of the original core highly productive ecological areas remain unharvested. These core alluvial productive areas are the critical ancient interfaces between terrestrial ecosystems and oceanic (mostly salmon mediated) nitrogen exchange that drives the engines of environmental resilience and ecological diversity for the Great Bear Rainforest and closely integrated marine ecosystems.

These few precious uncut highly productive alluvial areas are the only fully functioning restoration templates remaining for the entire GBR region. The RSP enviros (Rainforest Solution Project: Greenpeace & SCBC with leadership and financial support from the US engos ForestEthics & RAN) concurred with the forest industry to accept and allow the continued liquidation and conversion of these remaining core highly productive alluvial zones into silvicultural plantations that maximize early seral timber productivity at the expense of natural forest resilience and biodiversity.

Essentially, the government of BC and its forest industry received green cover from their hand-picked enviros to continue the liquidation of the core alluvial areas on which the ecological sustainability of the GBR depends. In return, government will convey some of the economically unharvestable, lower quality and less ecologically significant sites for conservation and for an imprecise PR scam called EBM (ecosystem based management) which simultaneously promises greenwashed timber for logging and sustainable old growth logging for naive and distant enviros.

The announcement was a none-event. It provided ForestEthics with an apparent declaration of victory with which they can recruit enviros for a campaign to enjoin the Ontario forest industry to lower expectations of its environmental performance. This new psuedo environmentalism is called sustainabilism and it begins with the objective not of protecting the environment but of reforming industrial appearances to make development seem just a little bit greener. Sustainabilism is the product of frustrated engo pragmatism and public relations that in the total absence of environmental acheivement has decided instead to market celebrity enviros, greenwash, drive-by photo-ops and serial victory press releases for the media to lull us to sleep.

The GBR deal is a travesty, not because some of its components are not desirable, but because the deal functions first to deliver the appearance of positive response, environmental effectiveness, systemic change and potential for wholistic and civilized improvement as a disposable wrapper and legitimizing rationale for continuing the depletion and exploitation of the few remaining sites eventually with which the GBR may ultimately restore itself. Having worked, lived-in and loved this forest for much of my life, I can not pretend that its continued industrial depletion is any fashion sustainable.

The so-called agreement commits the RSP enviros to stay invested, to steward and spin the deal, to marginalize the deals opponents and to defend the certainty of forest liquidation and conversion which this agreement provides to the provincial government and its forest industry. Look on the PR glitz, rock, ice, high altitude vistas and areas of marginal forest protected from entirely uneconomic logging and realize that Burson Marsteller, NPR, Hill & Knowlton, Michael Marx and their rented celebrity enviros have delivered a corporate victory for the forest depletion business in BC and conned the media into warmly declaring environmentalism achieved.

Michael Major

Great Bear Deal is Defeat for Environmentalism

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:39:49 +0000

Herbert's "Bear of a Deal" in the Dominion. The Dominion purports to be a 'grassroots' newsletter, but Mr. Herberts article panders blatantly to all the big professional enviro-corp hype about what is basically an awful compromise/collaborationist sell-out of the world's largest remaining tract of temperate rainforest. This deal has produced a divisive schism within BC's once strong and united environmental movement, a minimal 30% protection featured in a shot-gun blast scatter of isolated refugia tufts amidst a future sea of ill-defined industrial logging, but it has also superceded and sacrificed important grass-roots protection work on all other areas of British Columbia forest.

People need to understand that the Weyerhaeuser's of the world (the largest logging company on the planet and a signatory to the deal) have only one single objective, and that is to provide the largest possible return to its investors. Weyerhaeuser investors don't buy into Weyerhaeuser because they think it's a progressive, green, ethical investment, but because they know that the corporation is expert at destroying the maximum amount of wilderness that it can get away with. Weyerhaeuser only talks to environmentalists when it knows that if it doesn't, its forest-consumption rate will be impacted. That means that BC's environmental movement was on track to severely damage Weyerhaeuser and its destructive logging ideology. We should have stayed the course.

Ten years ago, the BC environmental movement was a widely inclusive, diverse, predominantly grassroots effort which had accumulated a powerful stock of political capital from its tenacious obstructionist action against the destruction of BC's forests. More than 800 individual activists were arrested at Clayoquot Sound. We had a lot of traction towards turning around the voracious wanton destruction of our forests. Since then, this power has gradually slipped away, and now the BC enviro-movement is mired in apathetic intertia and neutered. The RSP groups spent 10 years negotiating secretly behind closed doors with Weyerhaeuser and ilk, and have sucked up the vast bulk of BC's enviro-buck. They agreed to suspend support for campaigns anywhere else while they worked on the deal, and grassroots efforts were starved and marginalized as a result. There is virtually no opposition to the destruction of forests going on anywhere in British Columbia today, and they are logging at the fastest, most voracious rate ever, and the have Greenwashed the future of logging, as yet an undefined pipe-dream of "EBM" in the GBR.

The RSP groups--Greenpeace, Sierra Club of BC, Forest Ethics and RAN have squandered all of BC's hard-won grass-roots capital in exchange for the GBR deal--certainly a deal which has enriched their professional organizations, but nevertheless, in the end, a shoddy tragic deal. Today, British Columbia's once-proud and effective grassroots volunteer activist community has been reduced to licking fundraising flyer envelopes in RSP offices and signing grovelling petitions destined straight for Gordon Campbell's shredder.

For some counterpoint to Mr. Herbert's article, please see:

Going, Going, Almost Gone: Compromise with a Chainsaw in the Forests of British Columbia

Ingmar Lee

Yuill Herbert responds:

Thank you for your response. On may points I agree with you. You make very clearly the point that this agreement is not perfect from an ecological perspective; I believe I reflected that in the article, highlighting both Suzuki Foundation and Raincoast Conservation Society's perspectives. I agree with your analysis of Weyerhauser; its aim is to maximise profits. Certainly the companies did not voluntarily enter into negotations, rather they were forced to the table by environmental activism, including actions such as yours at a shareholder meeting; I also pointed this out in the article. While I'm not sure about the inclusivity and diversity of the environmental movement during the Clayoquot protests, these protests clearly played a key role in setting the stage for the GBR negotiations; and I reflected that in the article.

I suspect your disappointment lies in its tone. And this highlights the fact that a writer is never neutral. In my opinion, the GBR deal is a significant milestone, but not a panacea, for the following reasons which I stand by; (1) it unarguably sets a new global precedent in terms of ecological protection for a region, (2)it has initiated steps to create a new type of management regieme that has the potential to transform the relationship between humans and the forest, (3) it represents a new level of respect for indigenous peoples in Canada and (4)the conservation fund initiates an innovative support mechanism both for people who are put out of work and for people without work in the region. Obviously, your opinion is considerably more severe. So long as it encourages people to aim higher, all the power to you.

I do think you have to be wary of over-simplifying the nature of the agreement; if for nothing else but to respect the work of a wide range of people in BC. The protected areas in the GBR were negotiated at two land use tables that included representatives from unions, small business, recreation, tourism, local government, provincial and federal governments (members are listed at:* http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cr/resource_mgmt/lrmp/cencoast/contacts.htm). *The consensus land use plan that came out of these tables was then negotiated between the provincial and first nations governments, who had developed their own land use plans, which was highly significant for the First Nations. So, at least from what I understand, it was not some sort of conspiracy between environmentalists and large corporations, but rather a complex, participatory process that involved representatives of a wide range of people that spanned a decade.

Yuill Herbert

I am very disappointed to read Yuill Herbert's "Bear of a Deal" in the Dominion. The Dominion purports to be a 'grassroots' newsletter, but Mr. Herberts article panders blatantly to all the big professional enviro-corp hype about what is basically...

Poor mainstream coverage, not special access, made documentary stand out

Tue, 24 May 2005 20:52:03 +0000

Mr. Rourke speculates [Hog Town: The Politics of Policing, May 23] that as Chairman of the Toronto Police Services Board, I gave Ms. Lee special access to behind the scene meetings to film her documentary.

In fact this is not the case.

Almost everything shown on the documentary occurred at public meetings or public press scrums/interviews.

This underlines the relatively poor job the mainstream news media do in covering important public institutions like the Toronto Police Services Board.

Ms. Lee did an outstanding job and rendered a public service in bringing to light the goings on at the TPSB during a particularly important time.

As did your Mr. Rourke who wrote the most thoughtful review I have read of this film.

Yours Truly,

A.M. Heisey Q.C.
Former Chair Toronto Police Services Board

Port Radium assessments not "frivolous"

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:41:10 +0000

Canada, Racism, Genocide and the Bomb" by Kim Petersen, published in your online journal, and we are very unhappy with some aspects of the article. Our staff, which represents the Déline arm of the Canada-Déline Uranium Table, has been working very hard for the past four years to conduct research on the environmental and human health impacts of Port Radium on behalf of the Déline community. This work has included a comprehensive assessment of environmental conditions at the site, a historical reconstruction of radiation doses to former Dene workers and residents, a present day human health risk assessment, an epidemiology project and an ongoing program of community healing activities aimed at mitigating the social impacts of Port Radium on the people of Déline. Assessments of high risk patients were actually done, whereas your article states that they were only "developed".

Furthermore, the visit to the Port Radium site by 15 community members (which included numerous Déline First Nation leaders), which your article describes as "frivolous", was a very valuable experience. Scientists gave people a tour of the site to explain the results of the site assessment activities that have been conducted. This has assisted key decision makers in the community to participate in the development of a clean up plan for the site.

We would like to speak with you as soon as possible to discuss revisions to the article, as we feel that it does not give a full and accurate picture of our organization or the work we have been doing.

Jennifer Blomqvist
Final Report Coordinator
Deline Uranium Project Team

Kim Petersen responds:

Dear Jennifer Blomqvist,

The article is not about the work of the CDUT. Readers of the article should realize that it is primarily about the tragedy that has befallen the Sahtugot'ine, who started suffering (presumably from exposure to radiation) in the early 1960s and dying. On 22 March 1998 -- over 30 years later! -- Chief Raymond Tutcho alleged "prior knowledge and ongoing complicity in the environmental crime" inflicted on the Dene First Nation of Déline. Tutcho's six-point plan called for immediate crisis assistance, a comprehensive environmental and social assessment, full public disclosure, clean-ups and monitoring, acknowledgment of government responsibility, and community healing and cultural regeneration. Well, seven years later there has been no immediacy to the crisis assistance, and people are dying. Yes, as noted in the article, an assessment has been carried out -- though not yet released to the public.

Ms. Blomqvist inaccurately quotes the article and asserts an error: "Assessments of high risk patients were actually done, whereas your article states that they were only 'developed.'" The quotation came from an email exchange with Mr. Danny Gaudet of the CDUT. I asked, "Since the CDUT has been formed, has any special treatment of radiation-afflicted people been undertaken?" Mr. Gaudet responded, "No. Other than developing assessments of high risk patients." This was quoted in the article.

Ms. Blomqvist again inaccurately quotes the use of the word "frivolous" in the article. I cited the source of my contention in the article as the November 2004 Newsletter of CDUT, which readers can find online.

In summary, 15 community members and 4 CDUT staff variously head to the Port Radium site, avoid walking, start a fire, prepare lunch, go up a hill and then to Murphy Bay "where an old tennis court is." Questions are asked all the time but not one is divulged. Rock samples are collected, a "cup of tea" is "enjoyed," an aerial view is beheld, and after they arrive back in Déline "a tired but very satisfied group." The trip's achievement: giving the group a "much better idea of what the site looks like and what the issues and concerns at the site are."

Whether this is "frivolity," readers can assess themselves. This writer couldn't help but wonder about an aerial survey, ground tour, and tea in September 2004 when lethal cancer cases arose in the early 1960s.

Kind regards,

Kim Petersen

...and Blomqvist again:

Mr. Petersen's indignant response to my critique of his article, though
obviously heartfelt, is again inaccurate.
I don't have the time to engage in this back and forth bickering over
disputed facts and terminology (e.g. "frivolity" vs. "frivolous"), as we
are in a critical phase of our project at the moment. I would like to
end this matter by saying that he should have allowed our staff to
review his article before posting it, as he has misinterpreted and
misrepresented this very important story.

Jennifer Blomqvist
Final Report Coordinator
Deline Uranium Project Team

Our staff have reviewed the article, "Canada, Racism, Genocide and the Bomb" by Kim Petersen, published in your online journal, and we are very unhappy with some aspects of the article. Our staff, which represents the Déline arm of the...

Is the system the scandal?

Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:47:42 +0000

"The System is the Scandal" published on the website of The Dominion on April 16, 2005, Duff Conacher inaccurately states that EDC and other organizations operate "without legal accountability" in areas including the access-to-information law, ethics rules, hiring and spending rules, and auditor general oversight. In fact, EDC is subject to a variety of oversight and accountability regimes that ensure it remains an organization that serves the best interest of Canadians.

EDC operates according to the law by which it was established, the Export Development Act, and is accountable to Canadians through Parliament and reports to the Minister of International Trade. As stated in the Act, the Auditor General of Canada is EDC's auditor. The Auditor General's oversight of EDC includes annual financial audits and special examinations at least once every five years of EDC's environmental review practices and management controls and processes, including those related to resources and expenditures. EDC's employees are required annually to review and sign-off on our Code of Business Ethics and Code of Conduct, policies which hold our employees to the level of conduct expected of them by Canadians and that equal the most stringent global standards for such policies. These policies and the Auditor General's reports on EDC are available from www.edc.ca. The applicability of the Access to Information Act to EDC and a variety of other Crown corporations and government agencies is currently under review by the Government.

We trust that you will take these facts into consideration in any future articles referencing EDC.

Yours truly,

Glen Nichols
Director of Public Affairs
Export Development Canada

Duff Conacher Reponds:

The letter from Glen Nichols of the EDC only confirms exactly what I wrote in my op-ed, despite his claim that my points about the EDC were incorrect.

In my op-ed I wrote that many government organizations operate "without legal accountability in one or more of the areas of "access-to-information law, ethics rules, hiring and spending rules, and auditor general oversight." I made it clear in the op-ed that by accountability I meant loophole-free rules enforced by an independent watchdog with high penalties for violators.

So, yes, the Auditor General has oversight over the EDC. However, the EDC does not have independently enforced ethics rules or hiring rules, and is not (as Mr. Nichols' acknowledges) covered by the federal access-to-information law.

Similar the EDC, as again I wrote in my op-ed, many other government organizations lack accountability in one or more of these key areas. In addition, there is no general, effective whistleblower protection law so that people in these organizations (and in any government organization) that learn of wrongdoing can blow the whistle without fear of retaliation.

Mr. Nichols, and many other public servants (and politicians) seem to believe that Canadians should just trust them to act properly, even though the history of every country in the world proves clearly that a secrecy, rules with loopholes, lack of effective enforcement, and lack of effective penalties in key areas are a collective recipe for government corruption.

This is not to say that all public servants and politicians are unethical. The point is that the current system is the scandal because it, in effect, legalizes dishonest, unethical, secretive, wasteful, and irresponsible activities. No country can afford to have government organizations so vulnerable to being exploited by corruption.

Sincerely,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator
Democracy Watch

Dear Sirs: In "The System is the Scandal" published on the website of The Dominion on April 16, 2005, Duff Conacher inaccurately states that EDC and other organizations operate "without legal accountability" in areas including the access-to-information law, ethics rules,...