The Dominion - 86

Issue #86

Tim McSorley — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:25:53 +0000

Subhead:

January/February 2013

Cover Image:

86_cover.jpg

Body:

Download Issue #86 (January/February 2013) [8MB, PDF]

To read the individual articles online, visit this page.

Issue #86 is formatted as 24 pages of letter sized paper (8.5x11).

(You need Acrobat Reader or an application that reads pdf files to view the print version of this issue.)

Distribution rights:

You are free (and encouraged) to download, print, and distribute as many copies of The Dominion as you like, with the following restrictions:

the content of the paper will not be modified
no advertising or additional content will be attached to the paper
15 per cent of any profits derived from the sale or distribution of The Dominion will be paid to The Dominion
We ask regular readers for a voluntary contribution of between $2 and $10 per issue. See our donation page for details.

Exceptions to any of these restrictions may be granted on a case by case basis. Contact us with any questions.

Hundreds Protest Block's Message

Tim McSorley — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:00:00 +0000

Saskatoon rallies in response to MP Kelly Block's newsletter boasting of cuts to health care for refugee claimants

SASKATOON—Hundreds of Saskatoonians gathered at Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar MP Kelly Block's office in the city on Saturday, protesting her latest newsletter about cuts to health care for refugee claimants. People have called the item anti-immigrant, xenophobic and racist.

Block's newsletter, entitled, "Ending Unfair Benefits for Refugee Claimants," states, "New arrivals to Canada have received dental and vision care paid by your tax dollars. They've had free prescriptions. Not Anymore."

Some see the message as an early attack on medicare and as an attempt to divide Canadians. Others see it as an attack on Canada's long history of generosity and caring for those coming to the country as refugees.

Dr Ryan Meili, Family Doctor at the WestSide Community Clinic, spoke of caring for refugees and recognizing their special needs as well as requirements for general health care. Meili called Block's publication a "divisive and inflammatory action" through which she was attempting to divide Canadians. He called on the federal Conservative Party to "stop abdicating its responsibilities for health care."

On June 30, 2012, the Conservative government implemented changes to the Interim Federal Health Program. The new directives mean that refugee claimants waiting on appeals, or from a list that the federal government deems safe, no longer have access to important medical services, ranging from insulin for diabetes to treatment after heart attacks.

While the government scaled back some of its proposed cuts on the eve of implementing the changes, advocates for the program have said that the services which continue to be covered account for only two per cent of the former budget.

Speaking at Saturday's rally, Meili also said the western provinces, other than Saskatchewan, have agreed to cover the costs of treating refugee claimants. He said Saskatchewan people should encourage their provincial government to take on the care of the refugee claimants as well.

Meili lives in Saskatoon's Riversdale neighbourhood, which is part of Block's constituency. He is running for the leadership of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party.

Meili's wife, Dr. Mahili Brindamour-Meili, also spoke. She is a pediatric resident studying at the University of Saskatchewan and working in the Saskatoon Health Region. She is also Co-Chair of the Immigrant and Refugee Health Committee at the University of Saskatchewan.

The committee organized a protest last week which drew doctors, nurses, other health care providers and students. It was called the "59 cent protest" because the money that it cost to provide care for refugee claimants is about 59 cents per taxpayer per year. She said refugee claimants, like all people, "need acceptance and compassion," particularly because of the violence many have experienced.

Brindamour-Meili told the story of a caller who attacked her for supporting the needs of refugees. She added that in the end, the caller told Brindamour-Meili she should go back to where she came from.

Mark Bigland-Pritchard, a member of a Mennonite congregation, spoke on behalf of his daughter, a university student in Winnipeg. Reading from her letter, Bigland-Pritchard called the statements contained in Block’s newsletter "unhelpful, dishonest and biased."

A psychologist with the Saskatoon Community Clinic, Dr. Nayyar Javed, described Block as "taking up where Jim Pankew left off." Pankew is a former Reform Party Member of Parliament. He is best remembered as having made a number of very racist remarks in conversation and writings. Javed went on to say that Block was "not elected to spread hatred."

Other speakers included representatives of the legal community and labour.

The event, which attracted approximately 500 people, took place under the watchful eye of Saskatoon Police. The crowd was so large that on several occassions it spilled onto the street in front of Block's office.

Rob is a retired career journalist based in Saskatoon. He has worked in both electronic and print news. This article was originally published on the Media Co-op.

We Disagree full file

A Call to Fight Feminicide, in Juarez and Beyond

Tim McSorley — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:27:27 +0000

Laval author puts a structural lens on the killings of women and girls

MONTREAL—Ciudad Juarez. The name conjures up images of violence, maquiladoras, drug traffickers, kidnappings, military interventions, and dead women—too many dead women—in the city's streets.

In her book, Féminicides et impunité: Le cas de Ciudad Juarez (Feminicide and Impunity: The case of Ciudad Juarez, Les Éditions Écosociété: 2012), Marie France Labrecque explores in detail how (and why) women have been special targets, going beyond the usual explanations (organized crime, battles for turf among narco-traffickers, the documented inhumane conditions of maquiladora work, etc.) to relate these deaths to what she calls “feminicides” (féminicides).

Feminicide refers to a system of violence that results from state policies that create social, cultural, economic, and political inequalities and inequities for women and girls. It encompasses more than does the word femicide, the killing, rape, and violence against women and girls because they are women. Making this distinction lets Marie France Labrecque clarify how the ongoing murders of women are embedded in multiple structures of patriarchy found in the family, in society, and in state policies.

Labrecque, a professor emeritus at the University of Laval specializing in Mexico and political economy, argues convincingly that without a deep understanding of feminicide, the political changes needed to end the killings in Ciudad Juarez—and elsewhere—won't be possible. She supports her arguments with quantitative and qualitative data, all horrific and sometimes too much to digest in a single reading.

These details give insights into what needs to be changed to end the murders, punish those who are responsible, and begin to build a more just and equitable society. But they also suggest that making change will not be easy. In fact, women’s rights activists who traveled to Mexico in January 2012 actually found a continuing overall increase in deaths of women and girls since 2006, especially in the border state of Chihuahua where Ciudad Juarez is located, with this happening despite special agencies and programs set up by the Mexican government allegedly to address violence against women.

During the spring presidential election campaign in Mexico, students and others demonstrated against the complicity of the government and its contributions to crime and corruption. Their protests continue, and it is to be hoped that Enrique Peña Nieto, the newly-elected president who begins his term this winter, will listen to their calls and establish the conditions in which full human rights are guaranteed for women and all citizens.

However, it already seems more likely that Peña Nieto's administration will only perpetuate the practices of past governments and do little to end the violence and murders of women. Fears are that he will continue past policies and privilege the militarization of the fight against drug cartels, fail to stop and punish the corruption within the army and police, and do nothing substantive to end the killings of women and girls.

If that is the case, women will remain oppressed and all that Labrecque relates in her powerful book will continue—including the complicity of the USA and Canadian governments in these practices. Therefore, it's important for feminists and others to keep pressing for change and an end to impunity, not only in Ciudad Juarez, but also here in Quebec and Canada where there is need for more and strengthened solidarity with Indigenous women whose lives and rights have not been protected by past and current governments.

The conditions underlying femicide and feminicide are not just over “there”: they are impediments to full justice for all women and girls here, too.

Abby Lippman is a community activist/feminist/researcher-writer in Montreal. An abridged version of this review, translated to French, has been published in aBabord magazine (October/November issue).

Feminicide and Impunity cover

War is Peace

Tim McSorley — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:26:04 +0000

Francophonie summit exposes Canada's hypocrisy towards the Congo

MONTREAL—Comforted by the contradictions befitting classic Orwellian “doublespeak,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended the Sommet de la Francophonie in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, over the weekend.

Prior to the weekend, Harper had already indicated to the Congolese, with a straight face no less, that they should engage in actions that favour democracy and respect for human rights. Such a posture of talking down to the Congolese allows Ottawa to cut short all legitimate questions concerning the historic responsibility of Canadian businesses and the Canadian government in the Great Lakes area conflict in Africa that claimed millions of Congolese lives between 1996 and 2003.

In the early 1990s, the power hold of Joseph Mobutu's Congolese kleptocracy had begun to waiver. Mobutu, who had ruled the Congo, and before that Zaire, as absolute master, largely by supporting the country's social system with a nationalized mining infrastructure, suddenly found himself cut lose by his former supporters. These included most notably Belgium, France and the United States.

Under pressure from the World Bank, Mobutu opened the country's prized asset, its mining sector, up for privatization. Barrick Gold, the Canadian gold mining outfit, at the time received an exploration lease for a mind-boggling 82 000 km2. Justin Kanhwenda, former assistant to the special representative of the Great Lakes area to the Secretary General of the UN, has noted that the Barrick Gold deal officially signalled to the world that the Congo was open for business.

What followed was the triggering of a bloody and protracted conflict over the country's mineral resources. The High Commissioner on Human Rights, referring to the violation of fundamental rights during this period, summarized the conflict as a clash between armed rebel groups and militias representing the government's interests. Both sides made war to secure mining leases, which they would then concede to international, private enterprises, for the very purpose of continuing to finance their own war.

Yet another UN report on the war-torn Congo, this one published in 2002, highlighted the actions of nine mining Canadian companies in particular, including AMFI, Banro and First Quantum Minerals. The report found that their actions went against the guidelines for multinational enterprises of the France-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, as their dealings in the Congo were considered unethical.

In the mid-2000s, the Congolese parliament had recovered slightly from the shock of years of mineral-driven civil war, and created a commission charged with studying the contracts signed between the government and private industry during war time. The commission, signed-off on by then president Christophe Lutundula, concluded that an impressive number of extremely unequal contracts had been signed between private companies and the government-at-war during the period of 1996 and 2003. These ultra-advantageous contracts involved numerous Canadian companies, notably Anvil and Emaxon. Some of these Canadian companies ratified these contracts via their subsidiaries located in tax-haven nations.

A commission to “revisit” these mining contracts was subsequently put in place to attempt to restructure their terms, at least superficially. Fear of reprisal from foreign investors has limited this commission's strength.

Amidst the UN sources already mentioned, the “expert” report mandated by the UN Security Council on the October 16, 2002 (S/2002/1146) recommended that home nations investigate the companies suspected of having profited from the pillage of resources in the Congo during the war. The report added in no uncertain terms:

“The Governments have the power to regulate and sanction those individuals and entities. They could adapt their national legislation as needed to effectively investigate and prosecute the illegal traffickers. In addition, the OECD Guidelines offer a mechanism for bringing violations of them by business enterprises to the attention of home Governments, that is, Governments of the countries where the enterprises are registered. Governments with jurisdiction over these enterprises are complicit themselves when they do not take remedial measures.”

The UN report mentioned that the experts themselves did not have the legal prerogative to carry out such investigations, or bring private companies to justice.

Canada never capitulated to these demands. It did perhaps win itself some points, and time, by organizing round table consultations with various concerned parties, all within the sterile, and legally-unbinding, environment of determining “good governance.” The “consensus” that came forth from these consultations amounted to nothing, except for Ottawa's nomination of a powerless “ethics counsellor.” For this continued inaction, Canada has assumed the global leadership role as the regulatory and judicial safe haven of choice for mining companies. Today, 75 per cent of mining companies choose to register themselves within the Canadian legislative framework, as the lax system of accountability assists them in their mining endeavours outside of Canadian soils.

Canadians driven by ethic convictions are today at the same point as were Europeans at the end of the 19th Century. All attempts are made by the government to hinder the identification of the individuals responsible for the grave suffering caused to the Congolese people. In the age of Belgian colonial domination in the Congo, the Brit Edward Dene Morel and the American author George Washington Williams, having gathered information from returning Europeans as to the atrocities being committed, drew grave hypotheses as to the true goings-on in the resource rich African nation. Diplomat Roger Casement confirmed these allegations in an investigation undertaken by the British government.

Today, Canada has still not undertaken a similar investigation. Instead, we find ourselves with a regressive government seeking, through any possible artificial means, to create colonial-inspired propaganda that allows Canada to assume the role of a democratic older brother to the Congo. All this, when in reality the pressure should be weighing on Canada.

Alain Deneault's most recent book, written with William Sacher, is Imperial Canada Inc.: Legal Haven of Choice for the World's Mining Industries (Talonbooks: 2012). He is a member ATTAC-Québec and the Réseau international pour la justice fiscale. Translation from the French by Miles Howe.

Mining and War