Captain Rock: The Symbol of a Risen People

by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin / October 11th, 2023

Ralph Chaplin – Cartoon published in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) journal Solidarity on June 30, 1917.

My unlucky countrymen have always had a taste for justice, a taste as inconvenient to them, situated as they always have been, as a fancy for horse-racing would be to a Venetian.
— Thomas Moore (1779–1852), Memoirs of Captain Rock: The Celebrated Irish Chieftain, with Some Account of His Ancestors (1824)

The raised or clenched fist is a symbol of unity and solidarity that became associated with trade unionism and the labour movement going back to the 1910s in Europe and the USA. Soon after, it was taken up as a symbol of political unity by socialist, communist and various other revolutionary social movements. The clenched fist is ever more powerful than the individual fingers and in art it has been used as a metaphor for strength in unity of the peoples’ movements.

The painting, Le Soulèvement (The Uprising) by Honoré Daumier (1808–1879) of the French Revolution of 1848 includes a possible early example of a “political clenched fist,” according to curator Francesca Seravalle. She writes: “A raised fist appeared for the first time as a political sign in a painting in 1848 by Daumier representing a woman during the Third French Revolution, until that time fists were just expressions of human nature.”

Le Soulèvement (The Uprising) by Honoré Daumier

However, another painting, The Installation of Captain Rock (1834), by the Irish artist Daniel Maclise (1806–1870) in the National Gallery of Ireland, depicts the protagonist with a raised, clenched fist as a political sign fourteen years earlier than Daumier’s revolutionary painting, surely demonstrating that the depth of oppression of colonialism in Ireland had already produced self-conscious radical political groups.

Captain Rock was a fictitious figure that was associated with the militant agrarian organisations in Ireland known as “the ‘Whiteboys’, the ‘Ribbonmen’, and the followers of ‘Captain Steel’ or ‘Captain Right'”.

The Installation of Captain Rock (1834) by Daniel Maclise (1806–1870)

These agrarian groups “issued warnings of violent reprisals against landlords and their agents who tried to arbitrarily put up rents, collectors of tithes for the Anglican Church of Ireland, government magistrates who tried to evict tenants, and informers who fingered out Rockites to the authorities,”  and involved many incidents of murder, arson, beatings and mutilation of cattle.The source of the unrest was the hunger and death suffered by Irish families while their landlords shipped harvests and cattle to the English markets. Peter Berresford Ellis writes:

This was the cause of the agrarian unrest among the rural population. Indeed, in 1822 a major artificial famine was about to occur. We have William Cobbett’s horrendous picture of people starving in the midst of plenty in that year. In June, 1822, in Cork alone, 122,000 were on the verge of starvation and existing on charity. How many people died is hard to say. A minimum figure of 100,000 has been proposed. Most likely around 250,000. At the same time, landowners were able to ship 7 million pounds (weight) of grain and countless herds of cattle, sheep and swine to the markets in England.

Captain Rock’s Banditti – Swearing in a new member.

Insurrections occurred in 1822 that involved many thousands of ‘Rockites’ that had armed themselves with pikes and confronted British garrisons. According to Berresford Ellis:

Colonel James Barry, commanding the garrison at Millstreet, reported that upwards of 5,000 ‘rebels’ had surrounded the town and many houses of loyalists between Inchigeelagh and Macroom were destroyed. The local Millstreet magistrate, E McCarty, added: ‘The people are all risen with what arms they possess and crown all the heights close to the town …’ Cork City and Tralee were cut off for two days before troops fought their way through.

‘Captain Rock’ had already made it into Irish literary history in the fictitious book, Memoirs of Captain Rock: The Celebrated Irish Chieftain, with Some Account of His Ancestors (1824) written by the Irish writer, poet, and lyricist Thomas Moore (1779–1852). In these ‘memoirs’ Captain Rock is depicted in a folkloric way, a character who brushes off lightly the dangers of his profession, as he states:

Discord is, indeed, our natural element ; like that storm-loving animal, the seal, we are comfortable only in a tempest; and the object of the following historical and biographical sketch is to show how kindly the English government has at all times consulted our taste in this particular ministering to our love of riot through every successive reign, from the invasion of Henry II. down to the present day, so as to leave scarcely an interval during the whole six hundred years in which the Captain Rock for the time might not exclaim
‘Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?’
or, as it has been translated by one of my family : —
Through Leinster, Ulster, Connaught, Munster, Rock ‘s the boy to make the fun stir!

Similar comparisons can be made with the contemporary Kenyan author, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, who combines social realism of contemporary society with mythical elements as a way of illustrating his radical themes, for example in Devil on the Cross (1980), Jacinta Wariinga, is invited to a Devil’s Feast by a mysterious  figure called Munti that turns out to be a business meeting for the Organization for Modern Theft and Robbery.

Devil on the Cross (1980) by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o

The high educational level of ‘Captain Rock’ is attributed to his associations with the teachers of the Irish ‘hedge schools’, which were small informal secret and illegal schools set up in the eighteenth and nineteenth century to provide primary education to children of ‘non-conforming’ Catholic and Presbyterian faiths.

According to Maeve Casserly, “the hedge schoolmaster played a pivotal role, as both an educator and prominent member in agrarian society, in encouraging the militant political and social sentiments” and that “in an age which promoted the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and emphasised ‘useful learning’ that subjects like Greek, Latin and Hebrew, which formed an intrinsic part of the hedge school curriculum, were wastefully taught instead of necessary vocation skills.” To direct attention away from their militant leadership roles, the hedge schoolmasters used poor grammar and mis-spelled words. She notes that “William Carleton was of a similar opinion that many of the letters, oaths and catechisms of the Rockite insurrectionists, were the work of village schoolmasters.”

A depiction of a 19th century hedge school.

Thus, the very public ‘Installation of Captain Rock’ in Maclise’s painting points to the symbolism of the patriotic movement rather than its reality. The clenched fist represents not only the unity of the gathered crowd but also the passing of responsibility for radical social and political change from the deceased elder leader to the vigorous, radical youth. In the painting Maclise depicts the scene as a joyous occasion within a hall where many groups of ordinary people are busy getting on with life, yet plotting revolution. To the left a group is making a pact signified by their collective hand grasp, while behind them in a dark alcove appears to be a hedge school master surrounded by listeners and readers. To the right of the hall there is much merriment as a man and a woman dance wildly. Our eyes are drawn around a distracting group of young lovers as we suddenly realise that a gun is being pointed right at us by a young man in front who is just about to shoot (signified by a girl putting her hands to her ears), demonstrating that youthful ‘fun’ should never be underestimated and can suddenly turn deadly serious.

The background to Maclise’s painting looks more like a group of people digging their way down to the hall where the secret ceremony is taking place. This signifies the working class aspect of the dangers of mining work (often carried out by children in the nineteenth century), as well as the necessity for literal and metaphorical underground bunkers to hide from the often overwhelming force of the oppressor.

Overall, the people in the painting are portrayed as active, animated, excited, and fearless.

1857 lithograph of Daniel Maclise by Charles Baugniet

Maclise excelled in paintings of large groups of people engaged in various activities grouped around a theme. Maclise had an ongoing interest in the ideology, history, and traditions of ordinary people as can be seen in the subject matter of some of his paintings, for example, Snap-Apple Night (1833) [Hallowe’en traditions], Merry Christmas in the Baron’s Hall (1838) [containing many figures of various ranks and degrees and depicts aspects of the declining traditional Christmas festivities of his time, see my article A Poem for Christmas: Christmas Revels (1838)], The Marriage of Strongbow and Aoife (1854) [depiction of the Norman conquest of Ireland and the death of Gaelic Ireland].

Maclise’s positive portrayal of people is in contrast with the often melancholy depictions of oppressed people around the world, an unfortunate side effect of Social Realism which tried to show the treatment of the poor in all its brutality. However, depictions of the moment of uprising also sows the seeds of hope for a better future, while at the same time providing a fair warning to all elites to beware of the retaliation of a community which has nothing left to lose.

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. Caoimhghin has just published his new book – Against Romanticism: From Enlightenment to Enfrightenment and the Culture of Slavery, which looks at philosophy, politics and the history of 10 different art forms arguing that Romanticism is dominating modern culture to the detriment of Enlightenment ideals. It is available on Amazon (amazon.co.uk) and the info page is here. Read other articles by Caoimhghin.

Former Navajo Nation president announces his candidacy for Arizona's 2nd Congressional District

 FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — Former Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez announced Monday that he’s running for Congress.

Nez, a 48-year-old Democrat, will vie for the seat occupied by incumbent Eli Crane, a Republican who has represented Arizona’s redrawn 2nd Congressional District since last year.

The district covers a large portion of northern and eastern Arizona and includes 14 of the 22 federally recognized tribes within the state.

“I grew up in a rural, low-income home, in a long-overlooked community where my family lived paycheck-to-paycheck, worried about how we’d make ends meet. I understand the struggles that many Arizona families are facing right now,” Nez said in a statement Monday.

Nez was born in Tuba City and grew up in Shonto, both located on the vast Navajo reservation.

He was the Navajo Nation’s president from 2019-23 after serving four years as the tribe’s vice president.

Nez lost in his presidential reelection bid last year and now hopes to become the first Native American to represent Arizona in Congress.

However, the state’s 2nd District has about 30,000 more voters registered as Republicans than as Democrats with an estimated 160,000 voters registered as independent.

Nez said he believes voters care less about which party holds the seat than whether their representatives are taking concrete action to improve their lives.

“We need leadership in Congress that will put aside the politics of drama and division and fight for rural Arizona families instead,” Nez said. “We cannot afford to have representatives who take us to the brink of a government shutdown just to prove a political point.”

At least two other people have filled out paperwork to possibly run for the 2nd District seat — Lindsay Bowe, a Democrat, and David Bies, a Libertarian.

The Associated Press

Suncor CEO grilled by MPs over Exxon documents, wildfires

Story by Bryan Passifiume • POSTMEDIA

Pictured is Suncor Energy C.entre building in downtown Calgary on Oct. 2, 2020© Provided by National Post

The head of one of Canada’s largest energy companies was grilled by the House natural resources committee on Monday after comments he made to investors that his company needed to rebalance more towards oil production.

However, NDP natural resources critic Charlie Angus, who tabled the motion demanding Suncor CEO Rich Kruger appear before the committee, opted for questions about wildfires, carbon emissions and climate.

Angus opened by asking Kruger if he shared the belief that Canada’s intense wildfire summer was “catastrophic,” and the MP became incensed when the CEO opted to use the word “tragic” instead.

“Global energy, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are complex issues that are important to our society,” Kruger told Angus.

“We all have a role in it — whether that’s government, whether that’s industry, or whether that’s society. I share your passion and concern over the topic, but I don’t think it’s a (question of) ‘what fraction is one party versus the other?'” he said.

Angus pressed on, demanding Kruger provide context to what he described as internal scientific documents produced by ExxonMobil from the 1980s warning of potential “catastrophic” events from global warming connected to fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest report did not make a conclusive link between increased wildfires and climate change.

“What are the legal liabilities that your company and your involvement is, for having suppressed that scientific evidence that its not just ‘we’re all part of this,’ that you knew, scientifically, that what you were doing was destabilizing the planet?” Angus asked.



CEO and president of Suncor Energy was photographed at the Suncor office building in downtown Calgary on Tuesday, May 9, 2023.© Azin Ghaffari/Postmedia

Krugers said he’d previously worked at ExxonMobil for 31 years in a number or roles around the world but said he had no say in strategy or research, and suggested Angus reach out to that company if he had questions over their past climate policy.

Angus’s line of questioning prompted an objection by fellow committee member Shannon Stubbs, a Conservative MP, who questioned why the committee was grilling Suncor’s CEO over documents supposedly drafted by Exxon when she was still in high school.

Unabated, Angus continued grilling Kruger over ExxonMobil’s previous statements on climate change, asking if the oil and gas industry is at a higher risk of lawsuits for a lack of action on the risks of fossil fuels.

Kruger reiterated that he hasn’t worked at Exxon since the 2010s.

“If you want to talk about Exxon, I’m no longer the one to talk about it,” Kruger said.

“Can you talk about Suncor, and that you’re being sued?” Angus asked.

“That’s actually why I thought I came here today,” Kruger replied.

Angus countered that it’s a matter of liability.

“Do you not have an obligation to make sure that the public is aware of the risks and liabilities of further investments, and the damage that’s being done to the planet that your industry has known about since the beginning?” Angus managed to ask before his allotted time ran out.

Angus deferred his second-round questions to committee member and Alberta NDP MP Heather McPherson.

Monday’s appearance came just days after Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act as unconstitutional which would have allowed Ottawa to assess projects based on a much wider set of considerations than the previous regulatory regime, such as downstream emissions, gender-impact analyses and traditional Indigenous knowledge.

Kruger, who replaced interim Suncor CEO Kris Smith earlier this year , came to the company after a six-year stint as head of Imperial Oil.

Before that, he was vice president of operations with ExxonMobil, spending just shy of four decades with that company.

During his first conference call in May, Kruger promised to make the Calgary-based energy company “simpler” and “more focused.”

In August, Kruger said Suncor was too focused on energy transition and planned instead to return his company’s focus on oil — something the company had already hinted at after divesting its wind and solar assets in 2022 for $730 million.

“We judge that our current strategic framework is not insufficient in terms of what it takes to win,” Kruger remarked during a conference call in August.

“The lack of emphasis on today’s business drivers and while important, we have a bit of a disproportionate emphasis on the longer-term energy transition.”

Those words fuelled pointed comment from Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, calling Kruger’s comments disappointing.

Liberals to keep 'no more pipelines act' with amendments after Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional

New Suncor CEO Kruger focused on cost-cutting, will 'play to win'

“To see the leader of a great Canadian company say that he is basically disengaging from climate change and sustainability, that he’s going to focus on short-term profit, it’s all the wrong answers,” Guilbeault said in August.

In an interview last month with The Canadian Press, Angus went further, demanding Kruger appear before the committee to “explain why they’re refusing to accept responsibility” for Canada’s climate crisis.

“We’ve had thousands of people displaced, millions of hectares of forest destroyed, large sections of North America covered in toxic smoke,” Angus said in September.

“And as everyone was talking about the urgency of dealing with this, we have Mr. Kruger saying the only urgency he sees is making as much money as possible.”

Kruger clarified his comments in an August op-ed published in the Calgary Herald , saying that Suncor is still committed to long-term sustainability and being “part of the solution” as the world’s energy needs change.

Kruger told the committee that position hasn’t changed, explaining that the intent of his comments was to build a strong company to ensure a stronger future tomorrow.

“My comments on our earnings call looked at our company and said, ‘for us to be a part of the solution for the long term, we have to do today’s business very well,” he said.

“If you look back at the track record over the past several years at Suncor, that can’t be said. We have opportunities to improve the safety and operational integrity of business, so that we can continue our decarbonization efforts and being part of the transition for the longer term.”

When asked by committee member Julie Dabrusin why Suncor no longer has a chief sustainability officer, Kruger said that was an incorrect statement

“She’s sitting right next to me,” he said, indicating Suncor executive Arlene Strom, sitting to Kruger’s right.

“My understanding is that position is not going to continue, am I correct?” she asked.

“No, that is not correct,” he said, putting his arm around a grinning Strom, explaining that while she is indeed at the cusp of retirement, the position will continue under a new person she’s actively mentoring.

Despite moves to shift the country away entirely from oil and gas, global forecasts predict the sector to remain a vital part of Canada’s energy makeup for years to come, Kruger said.

“Therein lies the dilemma — effectively and affordably decarbonizing the oil and gas sector, not eliminating it,” he told the committee.

“With among the world’s largest reserves, Canada has a major opportunity to lead and proper by providing low-carbon oil and gas, both home and abroad.”

He said Canadian oil and gas is a much more desirable and beneficial than that produced by nearly every other country — but said the industry needs a “shared vision” of public policy support, competitive investment, technological advancement, and sound leadership.

“In other words, a collective effort is required between government, industry and society,” he said.

— With files from the Canadian Press

• Email: bpassifiume@postmedia.com | X: @bryanpassifiume

Suncor CEO says company committed to decarbonization, is accused of greenwashing

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Suncor remains totally committed to eliminating its carbon footprint in less than three decades, the company's CEO said Monday on Parliament Hill.

But Rich Kruger was accused by some MPs of greenwashing his industry's efforts to address climate change, including after he said he hadn't yet read in detail the fine print on new federal regulations to cut emissions from gasoline and diesel.

The regulations took effect July 1, requiring gasoline and diesel producers and importers to offset their emissions through various investments, such as replacing power sources at oil extraction sites with renewable or lower-emitting energy, investing in the production of biofuels like ethanol or investing in electric-vehicle charging infrastructure.

Bloc Québécois MP Mario Simard tried to have Kruger explain the cost the new clean fuel regulations will have on his company, whether those costs will be passed on to consumers and how they compare to Suncor's main climate investment of installing a carbon capture and storage system.

"I've not studied the regulation in my six months in the job here," said Kruger.

Simard scoffed at the idea, saying in French that either Kruger didn't really care about climate change enough to pay attention to the regulations, or he was a bad manager.

Kruger pushed back to say that he was aware of the regulations he just hadn't looked at them in detail. He also said the company was meeting them as required.

The early stages of the regulations have a limited impact on most companies, which were already doing enough to meet them. They become more stringent each year through to 2030.

Following the meeting, NDP MP Charlie Angus said he simply doesn't believe Kruger doesn't know the cost of the regulations.

"Someone in Mr. Kruger's capacity, who has been top dog in some of the biggest oil firms in the world, knows what's going on in the industry," said Angus.

"And this is a major battle zone right now between the provincial government in Alberta, where he's based, and the federal government. It will have implications for us meeting our climate targets. And he hasn't read them? It's it's simply not believable."

Kruger was at the House of Commons natural resources committee to explain comments he made to shareholders in August about reducing his company's emphasis on the transition to lower-emitting energy sources.

Kruger said his comments were misinterpreted as Suncor ending its commitment to curbing its carbon footprint, when the focus is really on ensuring the company is making profits now to be able to afford the required investments in decarbonization.

He said it's about making sure the company is healthy both now and in the future, and only investing in areas where the company can be competitive.

"Our commitments on being part of the transition have not changed," he said.

The company sold off its solar and wind power assets last year before Kruger took over as CEO. But he said Suncor is investing in clean fuels with its large ethanol plant in St. Clair, Alta., and with plans to build carbon capture.

He said last year the company invested $540 million in decarbonization efforts.

Suncor is part of the Pathways Alliance, a consortium of oilsands companies joining together to invest in carbon capture. The technology has been in limited use to date but is a critical part of Canada's emissions targets.

Liberal MP John Aldag said Suncor's planning sounds like a company trying to pump out as much oil as it can while it still can.

"It seems like you're trying to get every last dollar out of that oil and gas sector," he said.

Kruger said the fact is that oil and gas will remain part of world energy sources for decades to come and even if Canada produces less oil, that doesn't mean the world will consume less oil.

"The question for me is where the investment will be made," he said.

"I think oil and gas has a long life ahead of it, it's how we do it that will make it more socially acceptable."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 16, 2023.

Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press

BELL: DANIELLE SMITH OTTAWA DOES NOT WANT YOU

RICK BELL

CALGARY SUN

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, speaking at a press conference in Calgary on Friday, October 13, 2023, comments on the Supreme Court finding the federal environmental impact assessment law unconstitutional.© Provided by Calgary Sun

Premier Danielle Smith isn’t in Ottawa today.

Her plane ticket was booked. She wanted to be there. The premier actually thought she would be there.

She was ready to mix it up with the House of Commons crowd, the good, the bad and the ugly in their ranks.

Fresh from the Supreme Court of Canada handing Alberta two points on the environment, Smith is clearly on offence.

She talks openly about bringing in the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act and telling the federal government to take a hike.

Without concessions from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Alberta government is more than willing to go to the wall over Ottawa’s brainwave to cap emissions in the oilpatch and somehow get to net-zero emissions electricity in a dozen years.

Some Smith supporters figure the meme FAFO summarizes the situation they’re in with Trudeau’s Ottawa.

But the trip to Ottawa was not to be.

In Ottawa the story was like a soap opera episode of As the World Turns.

Follow the bouncing ball.

Two Smith cabinet ministers, Brian Jean and Nathan Neudorf, are invited by a committee of members of parliament “given the urgency of the climate crisis.”

At the same meeting, Rich Kruger, Suncor number one, was also on the invite list, called on the carpet to “explain why his company is abandoning its climate targets that had been previously laid out in the face of a climate emergency.”

Premier Smith decided she would go to Ottawa instead of her cabinet ministers to speak on behalf of the Alberta government.

She wanted to talk about the Trudeau government’s “often misleading information” about their proposed clean electricity rules.

A couple of days later, Smith was told to forget about Ottawa. The committee would not go ahead as planned.

Suncor’s Kruger couldn’t attend because of a scheduling conflict and many on the committee really wanted to go a few rounds with the oilman.

The all-party committee — with a solid majority from the Liberals, Bloc and NDP — was also “very specific” in their invitations. They wanted Jean and Neudorf.

Period. Full stop. Alberta cabinet ministers could not be substituted for the premier.

Smith was out.
Suncor CEO says company committed to decarbonization, is accused of greenwashing

Bell: Alberta sovereignty act a go unless Trudeau blinks quickly

'Massive win': Premiers jubilant after Supreme Court finds federal environmental impact assessment law unconstitutional

Bell: Danielle Smith on fire battling feds, Trudeau Liberals fire back

Liberal MP Chahal denounces premier's Tell the Feds campaign as 'misinformation'

Not Smith, where there would likely have been fireworks.

Not Smith, where she would score some free air time on the national stage.

Not Smith, where these days she would like nothing better to debate the critics.

Smith is told if she wants to appear at the committee, and she does, the majority of the committee would have to give the thumbs-up, a group where Conservatives are the minority.

By the way, this collection of politicians still have a meeting Tuesday but it’s a briefing with the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.


Oh joy.

But wait …

On Monday, Suncor’s top gun is at another gaggle of politicians headed up by none other than George Chahal.

Smith would have been willing to appear before that group as well.

Chahal is the former Calgary city councillor and now Liberal MP who raked Smith over the coals at a recent Calgary press conference accusing the premier of spreading misinformation, fear-mongering and making wild claims about the Trudeau government’s plan for electricity.

Chahal has been upping his game, no doubt earning points with his boss.

He is an Alberta member of parliament saying the Alberta premier is full of it.



Federal Liberal MP for Calgary Skyview George Chahal speaks to media at a press conference where he called on Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to come clean about her new energy campaign Wednesday, October 11, 2023.

As for Smith not getting in her two cents in Ottawa, Chahal says the difference between being invited and uninvited is “like the difference between a clean grid that works (our plan) and a fossil fuel-free grid with blackouts (UCP fever dream).”

At the Chahal-chaired to-and-fro on Monday, Liberal, Bloc and NDP members of parliament grill the Suncor oilman about his company and the oilpatch making huge profits while, in the words of an Alberta NDP MP, “boiling the planet.”

The Suncor boss said his comments were taken the wrong way and his company is looking to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 while adding “oil and gas has a long life ahead of it.”

At the end of Kruger’s time on the firing line, Alberta Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs couldn’t resist rubbing salt in the wound going on about Alberta’s Bill C-69 win against the federal government , a victory the Trudeau team see as no big deal.

UCP types these days see a Liberal government they feel is running scared, a basement dweller in the polls where Smith in Ottawa would potentially score more points for her than for them.

Smith says if there are any more meetings in Ottawa her bags are packed.

A little advice. Don’t wait by the phone.

rbell@postmedia.com

UCP ALBERTA

Indigenous Environmentalists Slam AER and Federal Inaction Over The Kearl Mine Leakage

Story by The Canadian Press •6h

 (ANNews) – Indigenous climate advocates are harshly criticizing an Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) report into Imperial Oil’s Kearl mine leaking 5.4 million tonnes of contaminated water, which concluded that the oil company followed all required regulations, even after it failed to notify members of the downstream First Nations. 

While it was initially reported that the AER concealed the leakage from Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Mikisew Cree Nation for almost a year until contaminated water surfaced in February 2023, the regulator knew about the leakage for years prior, according to reporting from The Canadian Press. 

Groundwater reports Imperial submitted to the AER in 2020 and 2021 acknowledge that tailings were seeping from the ponds intended to contain them. 

In May 2022, the First Nations were first informed that discoloured water had surfaced from the pond, but Indigenous leaders were then kept out of the loop until February, when the AER issued an environmental protection order against Imperial after 5.4 million tonnes of toxic water escaped from the pond. 

Mandy Olsgard, an environmental toxicologist who worked with nearby First Nations, said the regulator would have known about the seepage since 2019. “They knew there was seepage to groundwater,” said Olsgard, adding that the AER and Imperial decided to “just manage it internally,” rather than notify the public. 

The seepage continues, with hydrocarbon levels in test wells exceeding provincial guidelines, CP reported.

“There is no indication of adverse impacts to wildlife or fish populations in nearby river systems or risks to drinking water for local communities,” Imperial spokesperson Lisa Schmidt told CP.

An AER report said Imperial followed all existing rules in reporting the leak, but acknowledged the rules have major shortcomings. 

Mikisew Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro, who has called for a stop-work order at the Kearl site, said he has no reason to trust Imperial or the AER.

“They say they have contained the seepage. They have not. The fact that they did not tell us about the seepage for nine months is the tip of the iceberg,” he told CP.

A statement from Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, which has called on the federal government to intervene, expressed similar doubts about the AER’s integrity. 

“We do not believe that the Kearl leak was an isolated incident, and we do not believe the regulator would inform the public if another incident occurred,” the band told CP.

Indigenous Climate Action (ICA) issued a blistering Sept. 27 news release decrying a lack of accountability from the AER. 

“They don’t live there, they don’t drink the water. Oil and gas groups have spent millions, if not billions, aiming to weaken policies so they can continue to get away with destroying our planet," said ICA executive director and Athabasca Chipewyan member Eriel Tchekwie Deranger.Their only interests are their bottom lines—our community and our rights mean nothing to them."

Deranger added that the AER’s conclusions “are unfortunately not surprising.” 

“It only affirms that spills, leaks and overflows are considered acceptable and normal within the Canadian colonial system,” Deranger said. “Standard ‘business as usual’ holds no consequences for industry. It’s the land, waterways and the people that are expected to shoulder the consequences for them.” 

The release noted that the AER report came days before the annual Day for Truth and Reconciliation across Canada.

“We can’t truly work toward reconciliation until the whole truth is told about the oppressive colonial systems and practices that caused, and continue to cause, harm to our lands, waterways and rights of our peoples,” said ICA engagement manager Jamie Bourque-Blyan, a member of Buffalo Lake Metis Settlement. 

She called the Kearl spill, and ensuing coverup, just “one example of these harms,” with Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree nations “left in the dark about the tailings breach and increase in toxic chemicals in the waterways and environment often used to practice inherent Indigenous and treaty rights, including those of harvesting foods and medicine, and practicing land-based ceremonies.” 

The report also came a week after the UN Climate Ambition Summit in New York, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to “build a cleaner and more prosperous future for all.”

Despite his rhetoric, Trudeau continues “to miss the mark when it comes to upholding human rights, including Indigenous rights,” said ICA digital media coordinator Katie Wilson, a member of Peguis First Nation. 

“Not once did Trudeau mention Indigenous rights in his address last week and this report from the AER further demonstrates the sincere lack of interest by colonial governments in upholding Truth and Reconciliation, as long as it impacts industry wealth,” Wilson added.

Jeremy Appel, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Alberta Native News

Opinion: Coal mining company won't take no for an answer

Opinion by Lorne Fitch•

A third-party report into the release of millions of litres of oilsands wastewater at Imperial Oil's Kearl mine has found Alberta's energy regulator followed all it rules and procedures in keeping the public and area First Nations informed.

Money talks. It says, “Bend over.” The persistence of Benga, now renamed Northback, an Australian mining company owned by mogul Gina Rinehart is testament to never accepting no for an answer. Money has paved the way for an intensive lobbying effort with Alberta politicians and bureaucrats, only exceeded by the effort displayed by the petroleum industry.

The now infamous Grassy Mountain coal mine proposal has already been turned down by a joint federal/provincial panel, on environmental, economic, social and health grounds. The proponent, believing they had the fast track to a mine based on promises from the UCP government, was furious and appealed the decision. The courts refused to hear the appeal, no doubt believing this had already been dealt with in the panel proceedings.

Channelling Mark Twain for a moment, in terms of his view of mines, Grassy Mountain has become a metaphorical hole in ground, into which power, influence and money are poured. From that hole in the ground the owners hope for an answer that does not include “no.”

Northback must believe firmly in the proposition that heads they win, tails they get to flip again. It must be so, because they are back, flipping under a new name (as if that makes any difference) and applying for a new exploration permit, for the same thing they were turned down on in 2021.

If nothing else, they deserve credit for brass and chutzpah.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is currently accepting statements of concern about this resurrected mine proposal from Albertans. This is the same agency that failed to advise downstream residents of a serious leak in a tarsands tailings pond for months, until confronted by the issue. In the case of this coal exploration proposal, they are subjecting Albertans to a flawed form that the agency laughingly calls “user-friendly.” Virtually at the beginning of the form, you are told you have to be directly and adversely affected by the activity to register a concern.

Woe betide you if you are a downstream water drinker, breathe air coming from the proposed mine site, are an angler, a hunter, a camper, a naturalist, a rancher or any Albertan who has already emphatically said no to coal development in the Eastern Slopes. You will not penetrate the economic cordon imposed by the AER.

Mind you, you shouldn’t have to since we’ve been through this; a decision has been made and nothing, absolutely nothing has changed, except maybe the drought has heightened our concern over water. This might matter, except in Alberta where you have to endlessly parse the fine print for wiggle room, exceptions and deviations.

The 2022 ministerial order restricts coal projects but does allow for exceptions for “active coal mines, for advanced coal projects and for safety and security activities.” However, the definition of “advanced” means a project is already moving through a regulatory process. The current application for coal exploration on Grassy Mountain does not meet this test.

One needs to sift through this with a large degree of incredulity. This project is not in a regulatory process and none of the conditions of the 2022 ministerial order have yet been met. Why it is even being considered by the AER is a mystery. I would agree it is an “advanced” project, one that has advanced through a prior legitimate process of review and scrutiny. It has advanced to the point of rejection.

The fumbling by the AER and the government of Alberta on this file defies belief and suggests several things. Is there an attempt to subvert both the ministerial order and AER process? It raises serious questions on whether lobbying efforts have been successful at circumventing government policy related to coal exploration and development. One hopes that when money talks, policy and the broader public interest don’t walk.

It also calls into question how many times “no” has to be applied before it sticks.

Lorne Fitch is a professional biologist, a retired fish and wildlife biologist and a former adjunct professor with the University of Calgary.

NO VOICE

Corporate Australia takes Indigenous support into its own hands after poll defeat

FILE PHOTO: Voters walk past Vote Yes and Vote No signs at the Old Australian Parliament House during The Voice referendum, in Canberra, Australia, October 14, 2023. REUTERS/Tracey Nearmy/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

By Byron Kaye

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Top Australian companies that backed constitutional recognition of Indigenous people said they respected voters' rejection of the change but would now take their own steps to try to improve opportunities for the country's first inhabitants.

At an Oct. 14 referendum, Australians overwhelmingly voted down a proposal to create a constitutionally-protected Indigenous parliamentary advisory body, known as the Voice.

Financial support and publicity from big business for the referendum failed against a far less well-resourced "No" campaign, which branded corporate endorsement of the change as elitist and out of touch.

Without a political solution, it is now up to the companies themselves to pursue strategies to address entrenched disadvantage in Australia's 3.8% Indigenous population, corporate leaders and political researchers said.

"While the country resolved not to amend our constitution, there's never been more awareness of the significant challenges facing many Indigenous people," said Rob Scott, CEO of Wesfarmers, which owns the Australian Kmart and Target department store chains plus hardware chain Bunnings.

Shirley Miller and her partner sit on their front porch, ahead of a nationwide referendum on Indigenous issues, at a town camp on the outskirts of Alice Springs, Australia, September 17, 2023. REUTERS/Jaimi Joy/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

Wesfarmers, which counts about 3% of its 120,000 employees as Indigenous and gave money to the "Yes" campaign, already ran programmes to educate, recruit and promote Indigenous people and develop Indigenous businesses, and "we must seize on this momentum", added Scott.

Airline Qantas, which emblazoned "Yes23" on three of its aircraft to support the change, said it would focus on practical measures like using First Nations suppliers and offering employment and scholarships to Indigenous people.

Australia's biggest public company, miner BHP, which had campaigned for a Voice to parliament for four years before the referendum, would "continue to engage with traditional owners and Indigenous partners, employees and organisations to understand their priorities", said Geraldine Slattery, the company's Australia president.Indigenous reconciliation remains largely unresolved in Australia which, unlike New Zealand, Canada and the U.S., never signed a treaty with its first inhabitants after European arrival.

The Voice, which was to provide non-binding advice to parliament on Indigenous matters, was requested by elders in 2017 as a way to bridge the divide.

The country's biggest companies have since sought to boost their social credentials by showcasing Indigenous programmes as investors increasingly measure performance beyond traditional markers of profit and dividends.

"Our intent and position to support reconciliation through practical actions is unchanged by the outcome of the referendum," said Ross Piper, CEO of superannuation at Australian Ethical, which has A$9.2 billion under management.

"If there's any one good thing that has come from the referendum process, it's been the increased awareness."

Intifar Chowdhury, an associate lecturer in politics at Australian National University, said companies were accused of "virtue-signalling" - making empty statements to gain popularity - about the Voice, ultimately to the campaign's detriment.

The companies could now "take meaningful corporate actions to close the gap, such as by hiring and retaining Indigenous staff and systematically co-designing projects that impact Indigenous Australians," she added.

Estelle Parker, executive manager at the Responsible Investment Association Australasia, whose members manage A$9 trillion in assets globally, said the referendum defeat was a "setback (but) the business community knows it has a special and significant responsibility here, and investors know this too".

($1 = 1.5741 Australian dollars)

(Reporting by Byron Kaye; Additional reporting by Melanie Burton in Melbourne; Editing by Sonali Paul)

A Losing Voice: The Fall of an Indigenous Referendum Measure

by Binoy Kampmark / October 14th, 2023

Even before October 14, The Voice, or, to describe in full, the Referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, was in dire straits.  Referenda proposals are rarely successful in Australia: prior to October 14, 44 referenda had been conducted since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1901.  Only eight had passed.

On this occasion, the measure, which had been an article of faith for Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, hinged on whether an advisory body purportedly expert and informed on the interests and affairs of the First Nations Peoples would be constitutionally enshrined.  The body was always intended as a modest power: to advise Parliament on policies and legislative instruments directly of concern to them.  But details on who would make up such a body, nor how it could actually achieve such Olympian aims as abolishing indigence in remote indigenous communities or reducing the horrendous incarceration rate among its citizenry, were deemed inconsequential.  The near cocky assumption of the Yes case was that the measure should pass, leaving Parliament to sort out the rest.

In the early evening, it became clear that the Yes vote was failing in every state, including Victoria, where campaigners felt almost complacently confident.  But it was bound to, with Yes campaigners failing to convince undecided voters even as they rejoiced in preaching to their own faithful.  The loss occurred largely because of two marshalled forces ideologically opposite yet united in purpose.  They exploited a fundamental, and fatal contradiction in the proposal: the measure was advertised as “substantive” in terms of constitutional reform while simultaneously being conservative in giving Parliament a free hand.

From one side, the conservative “Australia as egalitarian” view took the position that creating a forum or chamber based on race would be repugnant to a country blissfully steeped in tolerance and colour-blindness.  Much of that is nonsense, ignoring the British Empire’s thick historical links with race, eugenics and policies that, certainly in the Australian context, would have to be judged as genocidal.  Even the current Australian Constitution retains what can only be called a race power: section 51(xxvi) which stipulates that Parliament may make laws regarding “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.”

Beneath the epidermis of such a view is also an assumption held by such Indigenous conservatives as Warren Mundine that there have been more than a fair share of “voices” and channels to scream through over several decades, be it through committees or such bodies as the disbanded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission.  The plethora of these measures did not address inequality, did not improve health and educational outcomes directly, and merely served to create a managerial class of lobbyists and activists.  To merely enshrine an advisory body in the Constitution would only serve to make such an entity harder to abolish in the event it failed to achieve its set purposes.

Campaigners for the Voice will shake their heads and chide those who voted against the measure as backward reprobates who fell for a gross disinformation campaign waged by No campaigners.  They were the ones who, like worshippers having filled the church till, could go about morally soothed proclaiming they had done their duty for the indigenous and downtrodden.  Given that the No vote was overwhelming (59%), the dis- and mis-information angle is a feeble one.

It is true to say that the No campaign was beset by a range of concerns, some of them ingenuous, some distinctly not.  There was the concern that, while the advice from Voice members on government legislation and policy would be non-binding on Parliamentarians, this would still lead to court challenges that would tie up legislation.  Or that this was merely the prelude to a broader tarnishing of the Australian brand of exceptionalism: first, comes the Voice, then the Treaty process, then the “truth telling” to be divulged over national reconciliation processes.

The first of these was always unlikely to carry much weight.  Even if any parliamentary decision to ignore advice from the Voice would ever go to court, it would never survive the holy supremacy of Parliament in the Westminster model of government.  What Parliament says in the Anglo-Australian orbit of constitutional doctrine tends to be near unquestionable writ.  No court would ever say otherwise.

The second concern was probably more on point, insofar as the Voice would act as a spur in the constitutional system, one to build upon in the broader journey of reconciliation.  But the No casers here, with former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer being fairly typical of this, regard matters such as treaty and truth-telling commissions as divisive and best scotched.  “The most destructive feature of failed societies is that they are divided on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion,” he wrote this month.  For Downer and his ilk, Australia remains a pleasant land – not exactly verdant, but pleasant nonetheless – where Jerusalem was built; don’t let any uppity First Nations advocate tell you otherwise.

The procedurally minded and pragmatic sort – which count themselves amongst the majority of Australian voters, were always concerned about how the advisory body would be constituted.  Any new creature born from political initiative will always risk falling into the clutches of political intriguers in the government of the day, vulnerable to the puppeteering of the establishment.  In Australian elections, where pragmatism is elevated to the level of a questioning, punishing God, the question of the “how” soon leads to the question of “how much”.  The Voice would ultimately have to face the invoice.

Another, equally persuasive criticism of the Voice came from what might be loosely described as the Black Sovereignty movement, led by such representatives as independent Senator Lidia Thorpe.  From that perspective, the Voice is only a ceremonial sham, a bauble, tinsel cover that, while finding form in the Constitution, would have meant little.  “This referendum, portrayed by the government as the solution to bringing justice to First Peoples in this country,” she opines, “has instead divided and hurt us.”

Precisely because it would not bind elected members, it had no powers to compel the members of parliament to necessarily follow their guidance.  “The supremacy of the colonial parliament over ‘our Voice’,” Thorpe goes on to stress, “is a continuation of the oppression of our people, and the writing of our people into the colonial Constitution is another step in their ongoing attempt to assimilate us.”  This would make the body a pantomime of policy making, with its membership respectfully listened to even if they could be ultimately ignored.  Impotence, and the effective extinguishment of indigenous sovereignty, would be affirmed.

Among some undecided voters lay an agonising prospect, notably for those who felt that this was yet another measure that, while well-meant in spirit, was yet another on the potted road of failures.  The indigenous activist Celeste Liddle represents an aspect of such a view, one of dissatisfaction, stung by broken promises.  Her view is one of morose, inconsolable scepticism.  “I’m at a time in my life,” she writes in Arena, “where I have seen a lot of promises, a lot of lies, a lot of attacks on Indigenous communities, and not a lot of change.  I therefore lack faith in the current political system and its ability to ever be that agent of change.”  That’s an almost dead certifiable “No”, then.

The sinking of the Yes measure need not kill off the program for improving and ameliorating the condition of First Nations people in Australia.  But for those seeking a triumphant Yes vote, the lesson was always threatening: no measure will ever pass the hurdle of the double majority in a majority of states if it does not have near uniform approval from the outset.  It never has.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Corporate Thievery in America’s Mobile Home Parks

BY JIM HIGHTOWER

 OCTOBER 16, 2023

Over time, words with beautiful meanings occasionally get degraded into ugliness. “Gentle,” for example.

Originally meaning good natured and kindly, it was twisted into “gentry” in the Middle Ages by very un-gentle land barons seeking a patina of refinement. Then it became a pretentious verb — to “gentrify” — meaning to make something common appear upscale.

And now the word has devolved to “gentrification,” describing the greed of developers and speculators who oust middle-and-low-income families from their communities to create trendy enclaves for the rich.

The latest move by these profiteers is their meanest yet, targeting families with the most tenuous hold on affordable shelter: People living in mobile home parks. Some 20 million Americans — especially vulnerable senior citizens, veterans, the disabled, and immigrant workers — make their homes in these inexpensive parks.

Well, “inexpensive” until the vultures sweep in, including multi-billion-dollar Wall Street powerhouses like Blackstone Group, Apollo Global Management, and Carlyle Group that are buying up hundreds of trailer parks across the country.

These are easy for unprincipled speculators to grab — while tenants might own their mobile home, they rent the lots, and the first sign that a huckster has taken over a neighborhood park is an unwarranted spike in everyone’s rent.

Residents are captive tenants, for these homes are not really mobile — and even if one can be moved, the cost can top $10,000. New Yorker magazine notes that today’s typical mobile-home park has been called “a Waffle House where customers are chained to their booths.”

Corporate predators can collect ever-rising rents and fees while cutting amenities, steadily driving out lower-income families. Then the business model can switch to gentrification, remaking the parks to attract more upscale owners.

And where do former tenants go? Away. Out of sight, out of mind.

James Hightower is an American syndicated columnist, progressive political activist, and author.