The Dominion - human rights

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

Canada Gets Cuddly with Mining Companies

Moira Peters — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:28:38 +0000

Unconditional love for extractive industry costs taxpayers, say C-300 supporters

HALIFAX—Despite the death of Bill C-300, which would have introduced accountability for Canadian mining, oil or gas corporations operating in developing countries, watchdog groups are sounding the alarm louder than ever over what they see as a conflict of interest in the government. Not only is there a refusal to regulate these industries, they say, but government agencies are providing direct and indirect support for their practices.

“They are aiding and abetting, essentially,” said Catherine Coumans.

Coumans is the research coordinator for MiningWatch Canada. The group's raison d'etre is to be a watchdog in the extractive sector, drawing attention to human rights and environmental abuses perpetrated by Canadian companies. MiningWatch also lobbies MPs to promote sustainable mining practices and policies, such as Bill C-300, which would have disqualified any corporation implicated in unethical operations from receiving government funds.

In a report commissioned by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in 2007, Canadian companies were singled out as perpetrating almost half of documented misconduct around the world, including causing community conflict, engaging in environmentally unsound practices and violating human rights. The report went unreleased until it was leaked by MiningWatch in 2010.

Bill C-300 gained broad support—from a coalition of NGOs and activists to the Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star,—yet was defeated by six votes in its final reading in the House of Commons. Despite their initial support for the bill, the Bloc Quebecois, Liberals and NDP were instrumental in its defeat, as a handful of their members missed the vote, including Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Mining companies and the Conservative government vehemently opposed the bill. They argued that if regulations were imposed on the industry, companies would pack up shop and find headquarters outside Canada. They also said it jeopardizes development projects in the countries of the Global South, as well as jobs in Canada. Industry lobbyists, including former Liberal cabinet minister Don Boudria, met with MPs on the issue nearly 100 times in October 2010 alone.

These corporate interests can't be allowed to trump human rights, says Ian Thomson, Program Coordinator for Corporate Accountability with ecumenical justice group KAIROS.

“Whenever we went to Guatemala, we met with Canadian officials in the embassies and it's very obvious where their loyalties lay,” said Linda Scherzinger, a volunteer with KAIROS. The group is committed to advocating and acting on issues of climate and social justice in Canada and overseas.

The Harper government committed in 2009 to re-focus its aid to Latin America, adding five countries from the region to its list of 20 countries targeted by a $1.5 billion bilateral aid fund. The list included mineral-rich countries such as Colombia, Bolivia and Peru.

In November 2009, CIDA unexpectedly announced that KAIROS would no longer receive funding from the public agency. The sudden move raised eyebrows, especially after freelancer Kim Mackrael obtained through a freedom of information request the department memo responding to KAIROS's funding proposal, and published the story with Canadian Press. The memo read, “RECOMMENDATION—That you sign below to indicate you (not) approve a contribution of $7,098,758 over four years...” The word “not” was hand written above by an unknown person and was signed by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda. Oda denied altering the application in front of a parliamentary committee, but has since admitted she edited the document.

In La Libertad, Peru, CIDA is spearheading a $500,000 reforestation project. Coumans says the project sounds good, but if this project is reforesting its mine site, that should be the responsibility of Barrick Gold. Coumans argues that Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill to fix Barrick's environmental impact, especially not under the auspices of “development.”

The La Libertad project is essentially a facade, says Emilie Lemieux, winner of the 2009 Gordon Global Fellowship, an annual award given to a progressive Canadian committed to sustainable international development. In a scathing report based on her experience in the region, she writes, “This project seems to fulfill the basic social needs the company is looking to address, as well as the Canadian embassy’s interest to work in [Corporate Social Responsibility], rather than the needs of the local population.” She goes on to say that CIDA's involvement exists simply to put a good face on Barrick's work, and that locals had no engagement in the projects.

In rhetoric and in cash, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) also backs the Canadian extractive sector abroad. Centerra Gold, a Toronto-based company that operates the Boroo mine in Mongolia, received $270,000 in funding this September as part of a direct investment program that totals $601 million. The company's mine had lain dormant, as months earlier workers picketed the site, demanding higher wages and severance pay. The Mongolian government had also suspended the mine's license, citing, among other things, improper operating procedures.

Centerra also operates the Kumtor mine across the border in Kyrgyzstan. The operation was sharply criticized for being a dangerous work environment after one worker was crushed by a pit wall in 2002. Before that, the mine had been the site of two large chemical spills—the first in 1998 and the second in 2000—that caused four deaths and 2,500 illnesses. In 1998, the company failed to notify residents until a Russian border guard discovered the spill; in 2000 they improved their record and only waited a day to make public the news that 1.5 tonnes of explosive material had spilled near the town.

The Kumtor mine is also the recipient of $35 million from the Canadian Pension Plan investment board and $50 million in political risk insurance from Export Development Canada (EDC). Political risk insurance covers 90 per cent of a company's investment in a “developing” country against events such as government nationalization or political turmoil. The stipulations for receiving the insurance revolve around EDC's corporate social responsibility policies. According to one representative for EDC, “We're not going to support something that the Canadian government doesn't support.”

EDC's support is worth a lot. The Financial Post has estimated that the crown corporation gives the extractive industry $20 billion in subsidies and insurance, including $1.3 billion in political risk insurance.

Despite DFAIT's role in lending support to these companies, it also houses the offices that purport to keep them in check. The office of Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, headed by commissioner Marketa Evans, was created in 2009 to create a partnership between the Canadian extractive industry and those who reside near their projects overseas. The move has been largely panned by watchdog groups as being an ineffective half-measure that does more to serve mining companies than impacted communities. The office has an “avenue of recourse for mining, oil and gas companies who feel they've been unfairly targeted,” said Erica Bach, senior adviser in the office of Corporate Social Responsibility, who lauded the mechanism as being unique worldwide. The office's CSR strategy revolves around encouraging dialogue rather than regulating or imposing sanctions against companies who have been the subjects of complaints. To date, the office has not received any requests to review allegations against any Canadian mining companies.

Even CIDA's Indigenous Peoples Partnership Program (IPPP) is little more than a $10 million, taxpayer-funded lobby group for the mining industry, according to one source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The agency employs Indigenous representatives such as Chief Glenn Nolan and Chief Jerry Asp.

Nolan serves as first vice president of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and on the board of Noront Resources Ltd. Asp is vice president of the Canadian Aboriginal Minerals Association, and made news in 2005 after 35 elders occupied his office in protest of his involvement with the mining companies. The elders demanded that Asp step down, saying he was in a conflict of interest, having simultaneously acted as Indian Act chief and Chief Operations Officer of the Tahltan Nation Development Corporation, which is responsible for bidding on mining contracts for companies such as NovaGold, which operates one of the world's largest gold mines in Alaska with partner company Barrick Gold.

According to CIDA, IPPP exists to encourage the “sustainable development of Indigenous peoples in the [Latin American and Caribbean] region through an exchange of knowledge, experience, expertise, and existing models.” Those Indigenous people who met with Nolan and Asp were not informed of their mining connections, the source said, and were outraged when they learned of their involvement in the sector.

While Bill C-300 may be dead, an alternative bill is lying stagnant on the floor of the House of Commons. Bill C-354 would empower non-Canadian citizens who claim to be affected by Canadian mining companies to sue those companies. While opinion on the bill is mixed, those who supported C-300 are desperate for federal regulation of Canadian-owned mines.

Justin Ling is an activist and a journalist based in Halifax.

Tunnel of Love

Raising the Flag for Union Rights in Guatemala

Moira Peters — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:54:43 +0000

Bottle distributors trying to unionize face 2-year strike, 2 assassinations

GUATEMALA CITY—Guatemalan bottle distributors fired for trying to organize a union are in their second year of protest, camped out in a tent outside Guatemala's National Palace.

According to Edwin Alvarez Guevara, Secretary General of the Peten Distributors Union (SITRAPETEN), Agua Pura Salvavidas employees wanted fair working conditions so they decided to organize a union in 2007. In response, their employer used classic union-busting tactics: the company temporarily closed the factory, declared bankruptcy, then opened new subsidiary companies.

Thirteen bottle distributor workers filed a union application with the Department of Labour in February 2007. That same day, the Department of Labour notified the company, which immediately fired the 13 workers.

Three days later, the remaining workers decided to strike. Later that day, at about 6:00 pm, the company said they would re-hire the workers. The company then sued the 13 workers for Q400,000 (approximately CAD$52,100) in lost revenue from the one-day strike.

The workers tried six more times to unionize. "We contacted the Minister of Labour to find out the status of our last union application and we were told that the Department meant to tell us that our union application was successful but they said it did not matter now because the company no longer exists," said Alvarez. "They are not supposed to fire workers during a union application but that is what they did. They just changed the name of the company to avoid having to deal with a union."

Alvarez worked as a bottle distributor for Agua Pura Salvavidas for 13 years. He worked an average of 14-15 hours a day in order to meet the quota set by the company. Salvavidas delivery workers are paid on commission. Workers are not paid overtime for double and triple shifts, which occur when the workers are not able to meet their quota.

In February 2009, a judge ruled that the workers be reinstated but an appeal overturned that decision. The workers have taken their case to the Supreme Court of Justice and are currently waiting for its decision. They are worried the outcome will not be in their favour since one of the judges on the Supreme Court is a well-known legal counsel for the country's business elite. The workers have vowed to take their case to the Inter-American Court if they cannot get justice in Guatemala.

SITRAPETEN initially protested the firing of workers by setting up a camp in front of the Salvavidas plant in Guatemala City for four months. Forty-one workers took shifts living under the tent. The workers demanded their reinstatement, a raise in commission, and a just and realistic daily bottle distribution quota.

Because of constant harassment, they moved their tent to the front of the Guatemalan National Palace, where they have been for the past two years. They got a permit to be there but according to Alvarez, Guatemala does not want them outside the National Palace because they are a constant reminder that the State does not protect workers.

Alvarez says the strike is not just about quotas, it is about job security, worker health and safety, and the right to organize a union. SITRAPETEN, whose members are currently under human rights accompaniment, points to two assassinations of their members and numerous death threats from company supervisors and thugs. Of the 638 Agua Pura Salvavidas workers in Guatemala, 114 workers signed up to unionize but many have dropped out due to either fear of the consequences—including assassination—or the company coercing workers to accept severance packages.

The workers are up against the largest purified water distributor in the country, Agua Pura Salvavidas, owned by the powerful Castillo Brothers Corporation. The company has a monopoly over the country's entertainment and food and beverage industries, including the Gallo Brewery.

On December 10—International Human Rights Day—SITRAPETEN's camps were violently cleared for the filming of Mexico's version of "American Idol."

"It is ironic that while Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean was replacing the white rose to commemorate 24 hours of 'peace' in Guatemala inside the country's Constitutional Palace, 150 national civil police agents were outside violently evicting the SITRAPETEN workers from their makeshift homes in the Central Plaza," wrote Jackie McVicar, Breaking the Silence's Guatemala-based coordinator who witnessed the incident.

SITRAPETEN has filed two charges related to the eviction—one against the municipal judge who issued the eviction order and one against the Police Director. SITRAPETEN is arguing that the judge did not have the authority to issue such an eviction order and that the Police Director did not follow proper procedures.

On May 14, Alvarez spoke to a delegation of the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence Network. The delegation included union representatives from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada as well as university students and professors.

Before coming to Guatemala, the two delegates with the CUPW, Darrell Kelly of Woodstock, NB, and Nicola Boone of Westville, NS, raised money to give to an organization in Guatemala. After learning of the workers' struggle, they decided to give that money to SITRAPETEN.

"As members of CUPW we have a constitutional obligation to support international solidarity movements," said Nicola Boone.

Alvarez said the economic solidarity is important and that the money will be spent on food and maybe transportation to meetings, since many of their organizers have not been able to work since they were fired two years ago.

"I have always said that what is happening here isn't just a blow to our union but a blow to the international labour movement," said Alvarez in a 2008 interview with Upside Down World. "From all sides the labour movement is suffering a number of threats. So, in whatever way possible we are asking for international organizations to help us maintain the struggle."

"Supporting SITRAPETEN is important because an injury to one union is an injury to all unionized workers," said Kelly. "The world is now a global marketplace controlled by corporations seeking the cheapest place to do business. We're all workers struggling for the right to work in a healthy and safe environment with reasonable wages and benefits. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has been supporting international solidarity work for over twenty years...SITRAPETEN is the face of the union struggle in Guatemala and we're proud to support our brothers and sisters in any way we can."

Tracy Glynn sits on the Board of the Dominion/Media Co-op and is an organizer of the New Brunswick Media Co-op. An original version of this article was published by the New Brunswick Media Co-op.

Guate Salvavidas Strike

Goldcorp Drilled by Shareholders

Moira Peters — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:28:38 +0000

Mining company challenged at AGM to respect host communities

TORONTO—Shareholders of Canadian mining giant Goldcorp Inc. got a glimpse—albeit brief—into the lives of Central Americans whose land is being exploited by the company for gold. Some even paid attention.

Representatives from communities hosting Goldcorp mines in Central America made their way from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to address the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in Toronto on May 19, 2010.

Shareholders learned about the devastating effects Goldcorp’s operations have had on communities in Central America. The presenters told of an increase in health problems, cracked houses, widespread social conflict and the criminalization of protest in their towns and villages.

Carlos Amador, a teacher from Honduras, challenged the company's reclamation process at the closed San Martin mine in central Honduras, which in 1999 displaced 14 families and contaminated water to the point beyond which even the World Bank recommended.

"Who will control the acid drainage? Who is going to clean up the water contaminated with heavy metals?" he asked.

The AGM was not an easy venue for the visitors to tell their stories. Goldcorp attempted to cut Javier de Leon of Guatemala short during question period when de Leon tried to explain the environmental, health and social devastation brought by a Goldcorp mine to his town of San Miguel Ixtahuacan. He had previously been given less than a minute to address the meeting. When a supporter of the visiting group refused to be silent—protesting that de Leon deserved to be heard after traversing a continent to address the meeting—President and CEO Chuck Jeannes relented and gave de Leon the platform.

All the presenters spoke of the need not only for effective and fair consultation with potentially impacted communities before mining operations begin, but also the consent of those communities.

To that aim, a shareholder resolution was brought forward by Kathryn Anderson of the Maritimes-Guatemala Breaking the Silence (BTS) Network, which called on Goldcorp to adopt a corporate policy on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by September 1, 2010.

FPIC is a central theme of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and is the basis of Article 169 of the International Labour Organization, which states that before a mega-project—such as a mine or a hydroelectric dam—can begin on Indigenous lands, residents need to be consulted about the proposed project and to give their informed consent.

The Goldcorp operations influenced by Anderson’s proposed policy would impact not only Indigenous communities, but all communities dependent for survival on natural resources.

Specifically, the resolution calls on Goldcorp to respect UNDRIP as best practice with regards to FPIC rights; to note the legal difference between consultation and consent; to implement the proposed policy retroactively to ensure that all Goldcorp’s mining licenses were obtained in adherence to this policy; to cease all operations, expansions, and exploration where consent of the affected population has not been obtained by the state; and to apply this policy to any license with partial or full Goldcorp ownership.

“The shareholder resolution was brought forward because in cases like San Miguel Ixtahuacan [in Guatemala], we have seen the results of not having FPIC. Communities have not had the full disclosure of costs, benefits, and risks of open-pit gold mining,” said Anderson. “When a full discussion is not there, it creates an enormous amount of conflict.”

In its pre-AGM letter to shareholders, Goldcorp urged its investors to vote against Anderson’s resolution, saying the company would be launching its own human rights platform at the AGM.

In fact, just days before its AGM, Goldcorp released a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of the Marlin Mine in San Miguel Ixtahuacan—the result of a petition by shareholders. Initial assessments of the HRIA by various NGOs, including Amnesty International, express concerns that affected communities were not invited to discuss whether or not the study would have been appropriate or beneficial. Although both a Goldcorp representative and an investor sat on the steering committee for the HRIA, no resident was given such a privilege. Meanwhile, both the communities and NGOs argued that the study would only increase social tensions in the already-fractured communities; the assessor, On Common Grounds, itself concluded that the study resulted in escalated social tensions and polarization between and among communities.

Shareholders representing 90 per cent of Goldcorp’s shares voted against Anderson's proposed resolution. She was surprised by the 10 per cent of shares in its favour, given that shareholders rarely vote against the company line. “We do not have an explanation for that yet,” she said. “Did someone advise a large block of shareholders to vote against Goldcorp in this instance? Or is it because people specifically read and heard our concerns?”

Although Goldcorp claims it participates in consultations with populations affected by its mines, company representatives refuse to articulate a detailed consultation process or put one into company policy. Furthermore, nowhere does Goldcorp claim to respect the rights of communities to say no to mining, which is a keystone of Anderson’s resolution.

When it ignored the results of community-organized consultations in 2005 in Sipakapa, a region bordering the Marlin Mine—where 11 out of 13 communities unanimously opposed the mine’s presence—the local government was pressured to address the issue. The municipality of San Miguel has since organized its own upcoming consultation. Goldcorp General Counsel VP David Deisley said the company is not legally required to respect the results of such a consultation.

Goldcorp in general, and Jeannes in particular, consistently deny FPIC is directly applicable to the company, arguing the laws for consultation and consent apply to governments, not corporations.

Nelly Rivera de Silva of El Salvador explained that despite a moratorium on all mining exploitation in her country, she will be directly impacted by Goldcorp’s proposed Cerro Blanco mine to be built in Guatemala several kilometers upstream of Lake Guija—a binational lake. The lake is the tributary of the Lempa River, the most important watershed in El Salvador. Another 13 mining projects line El Salvador’s border with Guatemala, and 42 line its border with Honduras.

Rivera explained that she came to Canada to address Goldcorp on home soil and to inform people of the local repercussions of gold mining.

Goldcorp’s eight-page glossy handout on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) states: “Sustainable operations are dependent upon good working relationships with the communities in which we operate...We believe our transparent approach to doing business is the only way to fully engage our stakeholders in a meaningful, mutually beneficial relationship.”

But Rivera thinks this company line is an insult to shareholder intelligence.

“Why wouldn’t you think something is not quite right when members of the affected communities are coming all the way to Canada just to have their voices heard?” she asked.

As he was leaving the meeting, a shareholder addressed one of the 50 protesters demonstrating outside the AGM, asking why they were “anti-employment.” His sentiments reflect a feeling by many Canadians that mining companies are effectively bringing development and prosperity to people who would be starving if it weren’t for opportunities from the North.

De Leon had a different story. He maintained that Goldcorp is making millions in profit at the expense of the social fabric in Guatemala, where community tensions and social conflict are direct results of the affected communities having no say about the open-pit gold mine.

De Leon has felt this tension point-blank. After receiving numerous death threats, he was shot at four times on April 19, 2010, a few days before his departure for Canada. He said the majority of such threats come from mine workers or people with personal connections to the mine. Feeling tense, vulnerable, and worried for his family’s safety, de Leon said that a majority of investors do not know or care about this reality.

“No shareholder wants to hear what we have to say. They only want to see the renewal of their investment,” he said. “No-one claims ownership of the damages done to the environment, to society, or to the politics of Guatemala.”

Referenda have been organized across Guatemala to address the lack of informed consent, but neither the national government nor the company recognizes these consultations as legitimate, even though in some cases 100 per cent of an affected population has voted against mining.

Although it wouldn’t legally uphold FPIC, Bill C-300, a private member’s bill tabled by Liberal MP John McKay, could create some legal options for communities impacted by Canadian mines.

The Canadian government provides political and economic support to Canadian mining companies like Goldcorp operating abroad, through embassy relations, tax incentives and investment support with public funds like the Canada Pension Plan. Bill C-300 would make this political support and public money contingent on Canadian companies meeting certain human rights standards—standards these companies have already agreed to in various voluntary principles on corporate social responsibility, many of which are found in the CSR standards for Export Development Canada.

The bill would establish a legal complaints mechanism allowing people who wish to report human rights violations to do so with the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). If DFAIT concludes that a company's actions violate established guidelines for responsible behaviour, the company’s political and economic support from Canada would be withdrawn.

Bill C-300 is a watered-down version of recommendations made at the 2007 National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility, which was approved by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Nevertheless, the mining industry has launched strong opposition to the bill.

Rare for a private member’s bill, C-300 has passed through two votes in the House of Commons, and is currently at the end of its committee stage. MPs have reported receiving more letters in support of C-300 than any other bill in recent memory. If it succeeds in the committee, the bill will return to the House for a third and final vote; and if passed, it will go to the Senate. Since the Conservative Party opposes the bill on the basis that it would hurt the image of Canadian mining companies and their global competitiveness, the bill will likely die in the Senate because of a Conservative majority.

All four Central American activists who flew to Canada to speak to Goldcorp’s shareholders were adamant that voluntary standards for Canadian companies do not protect against human rights abuses. Although they were all in support of Bill C-300, they continue to push for free, prior and informed consent to be a focal point of Canadian legislation.

Valerie Croft worked in Guatemala as an International Accompanier in 2008 and is active in issues relating to corporate accountability.

Cleaning up Goldcorp's toxic mess

Feliciano Orellana and Carlos Amador

El Salvador's gold fight goes international

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:44:33 +0000

Five representatives of five organizations in El Salvador that form part of the National Coalition Against Mining, known as La Mesa, were in Washington, DC last month to accept the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award. The recognition comes at an interesting time as the group's successes in blocking mining exploitation in their small country, have brought about a unique legal situation. Namely, a Canadian mining company is suing the government of El Salvador for $100 million, through a US subsidiary under the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Real News followed the group of activists around Washington, DC, and interviewed the CEO and president of the company behind the suit, Pacific Rim. Produced by Jesse Freeston.

Goldcorp shows little respect for local population

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:36:57 +0000

In the surroundings of San Marcos, Guatemala, the gold and silver mine of the Canadian Goldcorp Inc. which operates in Guatemala under the name Montana Explorada, has been ready for extraction since 2004. This is yet another blow for the environment and health of the communities of San Miguel and surroundings.

Sickly Sweet Censorship

Tim McSorley — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:19:47 +0000

Despite legal threats, screenings of Coke-critical film continue

MONTREAL—Coca-Cola may be one of the world’s most visible brands, but there's one part of their operations they don't want you to see.

Early this week, organizers with the Cinema Politica documentary screening network received a letter from lawyers representing the $20-billion US multinational. The letter threatens action if Cinema Politica screens The Coca-Cola Case, a newly released film critical of the company’s labour practices. Cinema Politica is set to kick off an international tour of the film tomorrow with a screening in Montreal.

In the letter, the lawyer claims the film is defamatory and statements by certain characters violate a confidentiality agreement surrounding the mediated outcome of the court case. The film's co-directors maintain all the information and statements in the film—while not necessarily easy to find—are publicly available and therefore fair game. German Gutierrez, who co-directed the film with Carmen Garcia, says although Coke had already attempted to block the film, the directors believed they had reached an agreement with the company.

"During the shoot they approached one of the main characters to ask us to cut two scenes from the film. We decided not to [because] the information is all publicly available," he explains. "Then we reached an agreement that [the company would not interfere with screenings] on two conditions. One is that Coke's lawyers can attend all screenings. [Two], that we inform Coke of all screenings all over the planet. So now, with this letter to Cinema Politica, we are surprised."

Coca-Cola's legal counsel did not respond to a request for an interview about why they sent the letter now. The film has already screened in Canada—including an extended run last fall at a Montreal documentary film festival—and around the world, without objection from the company.

"[Coke is] trying to use this momentum to...censor the documentary, because they see Cinema Politica for what we are: a student-run, grassroots organization," says Ezra Winton, programing director for the group. "Lawyers think it would be easier to censor the film in the hands of a grassroots organization. They also see that the film didn't quietly run the festival circuit and then disappear; it's still screening in over two dozen Cinema Politica locales in Canada and overseas."

While Winton says they are taking the precaution of consulting a lawyer, Cinema Politica plans to go ahead with their screenings in over a dozen cities in Canada and a half-dozen internationally.

"It's kind of Orwellian to think that lawyers could censor a film that documents one group's struggle for basic labour rights and accountability from their employer. It says that large corporations are beyond criticism in documentary films and elsewhere and that's a dangerous precedent," says Winton. "We need more [criticism] through popular media like film so [corporations] can be held accountable for their practices when it comes to labour rights and water issues."

The Coca-Cola Case, co-produced by Argus Films and the National Film Board of Canada, follows American lawyers Daniel Kovalik and Terry Collingsworth, along with activist Ray Rogers, as they pursue Coke through the law—over charges of murder, torture and kidnapping in Colombia and Guatemala—and through public opinion—with the international "Killer Coke" campaign.

Colombia has the highest rate of violence against union organizers in the world and workers who attempt to organize unions in Coca-Cola bottling plants are no exception. Violence towards these workers, including the murder of organizer Isidor Gil, prompted Kovalik and Collingsworth to launch a suit under the US Alien Tort Rights Act, allowing US companies to be pursued for crimes committed outside the US. Gutierrez and Garcia were inspired by this attempt to hold Coke accountable.

"Coke is a successful company: they've made money for past 100 years; they are an icon all over the world. Why doesn't Coke split the cake a little bit more with its workers? It isn't going to change [the company's] life," says Gutierrez.

Beyond the company's alleged human rights abuses, both Gutierrez and Winton say there are important reasons for this film to screen at universities and colleges. Coke, they point out, has been heavily criticized for its attempts to gain exclusivity contracts on campuses, effectively banning any other company's beverages—including beverages they don't produce, such as soy milk. In two instances, at the Universities of British Columbia and Calgary, Coke attempted to ban new drinking fountains because they competed with bottled water sales on campus, according to Winton.

"They're strong-arming students to block access to drinking water and force them to buy bottled water," he says. “That's problematic and, for very good reasons, students across the country aren't happy with this situation.”

Film-goers will get the chance to voice those opinions. In keeping with Cinema Politica's focus on fostering debate, discussions will follow all Canadian screening dates, some with the directors and "Killer Coke" organizer Ray Rogers.

Winton admits it isn't easy dealing with some of the controversy and legal threats that come with screening political documentaries—this isn't the first time they've been pressured to cancel screenings—but feels it vindicates the work of the filmmakers and Cinema Politica.

"For one of the world's most successful corporations to put in the effort to shut down this tour illustrates that the filmmakers are doing something right," he says, "and that we are doing something right, by circulating and screening the film."

The Coca-Cola Case screening series launches January 18 at 7:30pm at Concordia University in Montreal, followed by a Q&A with Ray Rogers, German Gutierrez and Carmen Garcia. Find the full schedule, watch the trailer and interviews, and find out more, including dates for planned theatrical releases.

This article was originally published by the Media Co-op.

Tim McSorley is Media Analysis editor with The Dominion.

Coke bottling

Coke.Hope

Homelessness Hits Home

Moira Peters — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:00:37 +0000

Volunteers provide shelter where government drops ball

HALIFAX—The opening of Out-of-the-Cold Shelter in Halifax this winter was described as both a celebration and a sad reality by shelter organizers.

"We are pleased to be providing this service but it's not really a happy occasion," said Carol Charlebois, Executive Director of Metro Non-Profit Housing Association. "We would much prefer it if we were opening longterm, supportive, affordable housing," rather than a "last resort" winter shelter.

The shelter, a community-based response to homelessness in Halifax, has provoked mixed feelings for another reason: Out-of-the-Cold is run entirely by volunteers.

"The response from the wider community has been amazing," says Fiona Traynor, a member of the organizing committee for the shelter and community legal worker at Dalhousie Legal Aid. "But the elephant in the room is that there has been no government funding of this project."

The 15-bed shelter was open for two months last winter and is open for its first full season this year. Staffed entirely by volunteers, it is open every night until April from 9pm until 8am. The shelter space has been donated by St Matthew's United Church. Everything from clean blankets to hot meals are provided by volunteers—some in their teens, some in their 70s.

"I've learned things I didn't know I didn't know," says volunteer Shannon Aulenback. Aulenback says he's had his eyes opened to the realities that people face without a home. "Whenever I work, I do the overnight shift," he says. "Some of the people like to stay up late and chat. They've always got interesting stories, although not always happy stories."

On the day of the interview he was working a full day, volunteering all night at the shelter and returning to work the next morning at 8:30am.

But according to Aulenback, the lack of sleep is not the hardest part of volunteering. The hardest part is waking people up in the morning and telling them they have to return to the streets. "We can't provide the service the whole day," he says. "You don't want to send people out in the cold at 8am. You don't want to wake someone from a warm bed. That's the tough part."

It's a cycle that frustrates Megan Leslie, New Democrat Critic for Housing and Homelessness and Halifax Member of Parliament. "It's hard to find work when you don't have a home or a phone. Never mind not being rested and having a place to relax and just be a person," she says. "The solution to homelessness is housing."

"I am a huge supporter of the shelter. I think it's wonderful and addresses a huge need in Halifax," says Leslie. "It's incredible what [volunteers] are doing. It's also completely tragic. This is not housing. This is not acceptable."

Leslie is a strong advocate of a National Housing Strategy, as put forward by bill C-304. Bill C-304 calls on Canada to work with all levels of government, Aboriginal communities, civil society and private sector stakeholders to establish a national strategy to ensure access to adequate, affordable housing.

The NDP bill is supported by the Bloc and Liberals and cleared the committee stage in December. At the time of the interview, Leslie was hoping the bill would be voted on in February. However, since the federal Conservatives have suspended parliament until March the vote will have to wait.

In the meantime, Halifax is not the only place community members are mobilizing to respond to what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities calls a national disaster.

Seven churches in the Annapolis Valley have formed teams of volunteers to staff a winter shelter one night per week. Anyone needing a place to sleep for the night must register with the RCMP who will then take them to the church that is open on that night.

John Andrew, co-director of Open Arms, which coordinates the emergency shelter says the situation is not ideal but the group had difficulty finding a permanent space for the shelter. He explains that there's lots of fear about homelessness, which is also part of the rationale behind the RCMP escort. The fear is unfortunate and unfounded, says Andrew who has been working with the homeless population in his community of Kentville for over six years. He is seeing the need for housing increasing.

This winter, Lunenburg County has launched a similar program with several churches working together to provide winter shelter for those who need it, once again staffed entirely by volunteers.

The trend is an alarming one for for some. Huge amounts of community resources are going into what many consider a band-aid solution.

With more government funding for affordable housing, argues Leslie, the payoff would be huge. "If you look at building housing, there's three possible wins," she says. "First, combating poverty. Affordable, secure shelter helps combat poverty. [Second,] if you build it sustainably, you could also lower the carbon footprint. Thirdly, it employs people to build it. This is the perfect time to build housing. You can hire the architects and builders. It creates job opportunities."

Environmental and economic arguments aside, Leslie believes that being homeless is an affront to a person's dignity. "I believe housing is a rights issue," she says.

Traynor echoed Leslie's sentiment at the opening of Out-of-the-Cold. "Housing is a human rights issue. It's not a tragedy. It's a human rights issue," she says.

"We don't have a national housing strategy. We have a shelter run by volunteers. It's good, but it's not a solution."

Hillary Lindsay is an editor at the Dominion. This article was originally published by the Halifax Media Co-op.

Homelessness Cots

Homelessness Meeting

Concerns

Paula LaPierre — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:45:41 +0000

The Dialogue Denied Us

HAITI: Calls Mount to Free Lavalas Activist

WadnerPierre — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:08:09 +0000

sit-in fev 14, 2007 MJSP KOLEKTIF 004.jpg

By Wadner Pierre and Jeb Sprague

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Aug 20 (IPS) - Government authorities in Haiti face recent criticism over allegations that they continue to jail political dissidents.

On Aug. 7, Amnesty International called for the release of Ronald Dauphin, a Haitian political prisoner. Dauphin is an activist with the Fanmi Lavalas movement of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He was seized by armed paramilitaries on Mar. 1, 2004 - the day after Aristide's government was ousted in a coup d'état.

According to Amnesty, "the delay in bringing Ronald Dauphin to trial is unjustifiable and is politically motivated". The organisation "opposes Ronald Dauphin's continued detention without trial, which is in violation of his rights, and urges the Haitian authorities to release him pending trial."

Amnesty noted that Dauphin's health has deteriorated severely in Haiti's National Penitentiary, which is notorious for the appalling conditions to which it subjects inmates. One of Dauphin's co-defendants, Wantales Lormejuste, died in prison from untreated tuberculosis in April 2007.

In May 2009, doctors examined Dauphin and called on the authorities to immediately transfer him to a hospital. But today, nearly five and half years since his original arrest, he has not seen his day in court and remains locked up.

Demonstrations in downtown Port-au-Prince, with hundreds of supporters, occur here on a weekly basis, calling for the release of political prisoners. They are organised by local grassroots groups such as the Kolektif Fanmiy Prizonye Politk Yo, Fondasyon 30 Septanm, Organizasyon AbaSatan, and the Group Defans Prizonye Politik Yo.

[DETAINED] : Mariano Abarca, Mexican Community Leader organizing against Canadian Mining

Sandra — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:51:46 +0000

Mariano Abarca.jpg

Photo: Landholder Mariano Abarca speaking about an ongoing blockade in his community in Chiapas against Canadian mining corporation Blackfire. Abarca, a well-known opponent of Canadian mining corporations in his municipality, was [detained] on August 17, 2009. REMA.

# # # # #

UPDATE POSTED AUGUST 19th by MiningWatch.ca:

Update (August 19, 2009): Mariano Abarca is safe and sound. Thank you to all who responded to the urgent action.

According to the latest reports, Mariano Abarca is being held by the Public Ministry in Tuxtla Gutiérrez; the armed men who abducted him seem to have been undercover police. He was not injured and is reportedly being held on charges of disturbing the peace, blocking public roads, organized crime, criminal association, and 200,000 pesos in damages, all relating to a blockade that Abarca and other residents have maintained against Blackfire Resources' mining operations since June of this year.

According to the Mexican Network of People Affected by Mining (REMA), Mariano's abduction and arrest, and the overblown charges, are clear attempts to criminalise legitimate protest, intimidate local people, and disrupt the group's planned August 29-30 meeting in Chicomuselo. REMA spokespeople say they are working to secure Abarca's release, and that the meeting will go ahead regardless.

Clearly the immediate local and international response have been very helpful in assuring Abarca's security. We are awaiting word from REMA as to what further actions are needed.

[update posted by MiningWatch Canada @ http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/blackfire/ua_mariano_abarca]

# # # # #

ORIGINAL DOMINION BLOG RE-POST:

# # # # #

Reposting of a REMA (Mexican Network of Communities Affected by Mining) urgent action:

DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL IN HAITI

WadnerPierre — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:38:18 +0000

Justice for political prisoners102_6716.JPG

Mrs. Dauphin102_6199.JPG

sit-in fev 14, 2007 MJSP KOLEKTIF 004.jpg

AI Index: AMR 36/003/2009
by:

Amnesty International August 2009
all photos by wadner Pierre

APPEAL CASE: RELEASE RONALD DAUPHIN

Ronald Dauphin, a Lavalas Party activist, has spent four years in prison without trial for his alleged involvement in an armed confrontation between government supporters and opponents where several people were killed. He is the last remaining in prison of
16 Lavalas members and supporters who were arrested in relation to the killings and other crimes that occurred between 9 and 11 February 2004 in St. Marc’s neighbourhood of La Scierie, 100km North of Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince.

Amnesty International believes that the delay in bringing Ronald Dauphin to trial is unjustifiable and ispolitically motivated. The organization opposes Ronald Dauphin’s continued detention without trial, which is in violation of his rights and urges the Haitian authorities to release him pending trial. Amnesty International also calls on the Haitian authorities to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the 2004 events in La Scierie and bring to justice all those responsible for the killings and other crimes committed by both groups involved in the confrontation, in trials that adhere to international standards of due process and fairness. Impunity for these crimes must not prevail but justice is not served by depriving Ronald Dauphin of his rights.

SECRET FUNERAL FOR A MINUSTAH VICTIM HAITI LIBERTE

WadnerPierre — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:59:24 +0000

"Justice. Verite. Independance."

* THIS WEEK IN HAITI *

July 29 - August 4, 2009
Vol. 3, No. 2
by Kim Ives

The young man who appears to have been gunned down by UN occupation troops after a funeral last month received an all but secret funeral himself on July 14 in Port-au-Prince because the priest and family were fearful of UN and Haitian government reprisals.

The victim has also been finally identified as Kenel Pascal, 22, of Delmas.

On the morning of June 18 outside the Port-au-Prince Cathedral, immediately following the funeral for Father Gérard Jean-Juste, troops of the United Nations Mission to Stabilize Haiti (MINUSTAH) fired at unarmed mourners who shouted angrily at them after they roughly arrested a man in the crowd.

When the fusillade ended, Pascal lay dying on the ground just outside a cathedral door, blood bubbling from his head and mouth. He died minutes later. His body was carried by the mourners a half mile to the National Palace. There they left the body in the driveway, laying blame for the killing on President René Préval (see Haiti Liberté, Vol. 2, No. 49, June 24, 2009).

Pascal was originally misidentified as "Ti Charles," then Charles Désir, then "Roudy."

His death was not certified by the Justice Ministry until almost a month later on July 13.

Lavarice Gaudin of the Miami-based Haitian rights organization Veye Yo, founded by Father Jean-Juste, helped organize Pascal's funeral. Most of the arrangements were made by Ketchine Joseph, a Veye Yo sympathizer in Port-au-Prince.

Gonaives, a Destroyed and Abandoned City

WadnerPierre — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:52:21 +0000

DSC_0122.JPG

DSC_0248.JPG

by Wadner Pierre - HaitiAnalysis.com
All photos by Wadner Pierre

Gonaives is a port city with an estimated population of 200,000. It is the sixth largest city in Haiti and is located approximately 110 kilometers north of Port-au-Prince, Haiti's capital. In 2003, it was one of first places to come under the control of armed rebels who helped oust Haiti's democratic government on February 29, 2004. The coup was actually completed by foreign powers - primarily France, Canada and the US. Months after the coup, in September of 2004, Gonaives was hit by Hurricane Jeanne. Three thousand lives were lost. In 2008, with the damage done by Jeanne still unrepaired, fierce storms (Hurricanes Fay, Gustav, Hanna) battered Gonaives yet again. At least 500 were killed, over a hundred thousand made homeless. An astounding 800,000 were victimized by the storms if crop destruction and drinking water contamination are considered.

On my way to Gonaives

It was just after mid day on June 19th, two days prior to another round of senatorial elections boycotted by most Haitians, when my bus left Port-au-Prince with 70 other passengers. Before 2004, it would have taken about 2 hours to reach the city. Now it takes almost 5 hours. The so-called good part of the road is from Port-au-Prince to Montrouis in the northern part of the capital, also the last part of West department. Travelers are usually talkative in Haiti. They often discuss religion or political, economic and social issues. On this trip, they would talk mainly about the destruction visible everywhere in Gonaives. They complained about the state of the road and blamed political leaders in the Artibonite department and at the national level for the lack of reconstruction.

Mourning met with State Violence

WadnerPierre — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:49:49 +0000

DSC_0332.JPG

By: Jeb Sprague, A Guest Author for Wadner Pierre's Blog

Hello, I would like to share some information and thoughts on the continued violent United Nations-Brazilian led-military occupation of Haiti.

After overthrowing Haiti?s democratically elected government (of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide) in February 2004, the United States,France and Canada put in place a neoliberal regime.

From 2004 to 2006, under a foreign installed dictatorship, Haiti was subjected to thousands of political killings, with thousands more exiled and illegally jailed, often under the watchful eye of UN authorities; this amounted to what some believe to be the largest human rights disaster in the western hemisphere over the last decade.

Today Haiti has an elected government that came to office in an"electoral" process tightly managed by elites and transnational technocrats.

Conditions for the poor have worsened with the outfall of the global financial crisis now greatly affecting developing aid dependent countries. Under the auspices of the UN military occupation, the sovereign course and focus on social investment programs by the former Aristide government are but a fading memory.

People are starving, unemployment and the costs of living soar,political prisoners such as Ronald Dauphin rot sick in jail, Human Rights leaders such as Lovinsky Pierre Antoine have been disappeared without investigation, the main political party/movement of the poor (Fanmi Lavalas) has been banned from running in elections, NGOs along
with right wing American evangelists and those civil society groups befriended by foreign embassies and SUV-sporting aid agencies hold immense influence.

But what I would most like to talk about is the life and death of Father Jean-Juste.