Sunday, October 21, 2007

Battleship Potemkin

A new restored version of the famous Russian film Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein has been released and will be playing on Turner Classic Movies, TONIGHT for those of you who have either Star Choice of Bell Satellite TV.

If you have never seen this revolutionary movie it is not only revolutionary for it's content but for its approach to cinema. It was the first Docu-Drama ever made, covering the Russian Revolutionary uprising of 1905.

1905 was the year the 2oth Century came into being and it was the birth of modernism which would result in WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution.

Independent filmmakers, restricted to limited exhibition outlets in a world of media conglomeration, can take heart from the fact that Battleship Potemkin, one of the most renowned films in the history of cinema and containing perhaps the best known sequence in the medium's entire history, was initially seen only by small audiences of film society aficionados and trade unionists. In this sense, it represents one of the most successful instances of niche marketing the world has ever seen.

The stories of its circulation are almost as mythical as its subject matter: it was banned as subversive in England and its circulation was highly restricted in the US, even before the implementation of the Hays Code. In the US, it was seen by small groups of filmmakers and critics, and in one enticing account of a screening in the New York apartment of Gloria Swanson, it was projected onto one of Gloria's satin sheets, when the absence of an available screen threatened to disappoint the eager but select audience.

At such a screening, David O. Selznick saw the film and wrote with great enthusiasm to his boss at MGM that a print should be obtained because it would be "very advantageous to have the organisation view it in the same way that a group of artists might study a Rubens or a Raphael". It was, he thought, "unquestionably one of the greatest motion pictures ever made" (this in 1926!) and the firm "might well consider securing the man responsible for it".

Battleship Potemkin is the film which brought Eisenstein, always a citizen of the world, to world attention. This fame both protected him - up to a point - and brought him to the constant attention of the authorities, involving him in a cat and mouse game for his entire professional life.

Although it has become an orthodoxy in the West to emphasise the repressive conditions under which artists, writers and filmmakers worked in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, it is worth remembering that Eisenstein's experiences in the West were equally, if not more, frustrating creatively. Unfruitful episodes in Hollywood & Mexico left Eisenstein back in the Soviet Union with a nervous breakdown and a damaged reputation.

http://www.adliterate.com/archives/potemkin.jpg


Battleship Potemkin overcomes its ideological constraints and uses its abstract form to produce at least one scene of unquestionable power. Sergei Eisenstein’s own comparison of his style to a "kino-fist" is an apt one; the film assaults the viewer’s sensibilities with forceful melodrama and rhythmic editing. Many scenes are calculated to elicit specific responses and, in fact, succeed, but this creates a certain feeling of manipulation because of the film’s overt polemic. Obviously, political concerns of a now defunct nation from over seventy years ago are not going to hold up well. The fact that the film remains effective on some levels is impressive and testifies to Eisenstein’s influential ideas about cinema. His principles of montage were vital to the development of film language and to cinema’s separation from other art forms into its own realm. A film based largely on these editing principles sacrifices some narrative concerns and tends to distance the viewer if not continuously providing ‘attractions’ or ‘stimuli’. Despite claims mentioned by some critics about the film’s perfect and concise example of film structure, Potemkin can be an uneven viewing experience.

Eisenstein freely admitted the influence of D.W. Griffith’s movies, particularly Intolerance, in his work and in the development of Soviet montage. It is not difficult to see the links between the rapid cutting in that film’s conclusion to the kinetic editing of Potemkin. For example, the numerous cuts in the Odessa steps sequence build the individual moments of terror into an almost unbearable emotional climax. Of course, Eisenstein expanded greatly on montage theory to not only build rhythm or suspense but to form intellectual concepts and associations. The dynamic editing of three lion statues to show the awakening of anger and rebellion is a simple but memorable instance of this metaphorical juxtaposition. Another apparent influence from Griffith would be the melodramatic elements that facilitate the film’s political goals. The tsarist forces are completely evil, and sympathy is evoked for the noble revolutionaries and their supporters; issues and characters are simplified for maximum emotional impact. The officers on the ship are given titles such as, roughly, "I’ll shoot them down like dogs!" when dealing with the disobedient sailors. All of the focused victims of the shocking violence on the Odessa steps are women or children. The idea of typage, casting often non-professional actors based on their physical resemblance to a character type, allows the film to forgo character development and individuality. The ship’s priest looks like a prophet from the pages of the Old Testament transplanted into the 20th Century. Additionally, the absence of a main character, except that of the collective Russian people, corresponds to the Marxist principles of the film; one of the only possible protagonists, Vakulinchuk, dies early in the film for the revolutionary cause. This aspect also is reminiscent of Intolerance’s undermining of audience identification through its large number of characters and shifting focus.

Historical Narrative in The Battleship Potemkin

"What are a few maggots?" asks Richard Hough in his book, The Potemkin Mutiny. He answers with the powerful story of the 1905 mutiny of the sailors of the Potemkin in their struggle against the repressive officers of the Russian Imperial Navy. In 1925, the Soviet government commissioned Sergei Eisenstein to direct a film commemorating the events of the 1905 revolution. Due to time constraints, he had to limit his film to just the Potemkin mutiny. His depiction of these events, in his film The Battleship Potemkin, has many significant differences with the historian's perspective that Hough offers in his book. Contrary to the belief of many modern critics, the actual historical events and details are impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt, but "there is no dispute on the main events, and their sequence." However, although Hough and Eisenstein differ, they both offer legitimate perspectives. Even if the events are agreed upon, "one and the same event may be incorporated in a work...in different guises: in the form of a dispassionate statement or in that of a pathetic hymn." Eisenstein is creating a narrative film, and Hough purports to write a history, but both are stories of the event with an intended audience and an intended effect. The small differences between the two perspectives offered by Hough and Eisenstein is significant and colors what the audience thinks of the mutiny and how they identify with it.


The new release of the DVD will be on Tuesday at stores like HMV. If you can't get it locally try Amazon.

No customer reviews yet. Be the first.
List Price: CDN$ 34.95
Price: CDN$ 24.47 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over CDN$ 39. Details
You Save: CDN$ 10.48 (30%)

Pre-order Price Guarantee

Availability: This title will be released on October 23, 2007. Pre-order now! Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.



Sunday, October 21,2007 12:00 AM

The Battleship Potemkin
TCM is pleased to present the U.S. broadcast premiere of the 2005 restoration of Sergei Eisenstein’s The Battleship Potemkin (1925), accompanied by a new arrangement of Edmund Meisel’s orchestral score, which Eisenstein himself authorized for the film’s Berlin premiere in 1926. This same version will be released on DVD by Kino in a 2-disc special edition.

The Battleship Potemkin was recognized from the start as a landmark work both for its innovative use of montage and for its sheer power as propaganda. In particular, the “Odessa steps” sequence is arguably the single most famous and widely quoted passage in the history of film. But in a sense The Battleship Potemkin has been the victim of its own effectiveness. Reissued over the years in various censored and reedited versions, Eisenstein’s great vision has not been seen for several decades in anything like what the director likely intended. This new version, overseen by the film archivist and historian Enno Patalas, attempts to reconstruct, as closely as possible, the film as it was presented in Moscow during its initial release.

THE FILM AND ITS CONTEXT

The Soviets were inordinately fond of jubilees, so it was only fitting that for his second feature film Sergei Eisenstein would be commissioned to direct a multi-episode series marking the twentieth anniversary of the 1905 revolution in Russia. The first episode was originally intended to focus mainly on the strike that took place in St. Petersburg in October 1905, with the June 1905 mutiny aboard the battleship Potemkin to serve as a prologue. However, bad weather and logistical difficulties compelled Eisenstein and his crew to relocate to Odessa, and the Potemkin mutiny expanded into a full-fledged feature in its own right. (See Richard Taylor’s meticulously researched book The Battleship Potemkin: The Film Companion (2000) for further information on the film’s production history and critical reception.)

While Eisenstein’s debut feature Strike (1924) still dazzles through its sheer stylistic daring, in The Battleship Potemkin he consolidated his skills as a total filmmaker, demonstrating greater control over narrative structure and pacing. The film is divided into five acts--“Men and Worms,” “Drama on the Quarterdeck” “An Appeal from the Dead,” “The Odessa Steps” and “Meeting the Squadron”--its structure deliberately recalling classical tragedy.

While Eisenstein was always interested more in creating an effective and well-constructed film than in being literally faithful to the historical record, many of the key images in the script were in fact inspired by actual events associated with the Potemkin mutiny: the sailors’ refusal to eat borsch made from maggot-infested meat; the revolutionary activists Matyshenko and Vakulenchuk (spelled Vakulinchuk in the film) using that incident as a pretext to incite the other sailors to mutiny; the arrival of the battleship into the Odessa port with a red flag; the throngs of townspeople lining up to view Vakulenchuk’s corpse; and the Potemkin being greeted by cheering sailors on another ship. There was even a massacre of civilians by police on the famed steps leading down to Odessa’s port, though that was just one part of the civil strikes that occurred throughout the city and the resulting crackdown by the police and Cossacks. It should be noted that Eisenstein didn’t include at least one very significant event: the massive fire that devastated the Odessa port during the strike and claimed many lives. Neal Bascomb provides a compelling and detailed account of the mutiny in his recently published book Red Mutiny: Eleven Fateful Days on the Battleship Potemkin (2007).

In addition to its innovative and much-analyzed photography and editing, the film was noteworthy for its unusual mix of professional and non-professional actors, based on the principle of typage or casting primarily according to physical types. Eisenstein’s assistant Grigori Aleksandrov played Gilyarovsky. The role of Vakulenchuk was filled by Aleksandr Antonov, a member of the Proletkult theater troupe in which Eisenstein had worked before moving into cinema. The film director Vladimir Barsky, an important figure in early Soviet cinema, played the role of Captain Golikov. Eisenstein also challenged the norms of commercial cinema by not relying on a single protagonist or romantic coupling to shape the narrative, emphasizing the notion of a “mass protagonist” instead.

The Battleship Potemkin premiered at the Bolshoi Theater in December 1925 and was released in Moscow in January 1926. Barely completed in time for the premiere, it was initially more of a rough cut, as Richard Taylor has pointed out. The orchestral accompaniment, as was common practice at the time, was culled from pre-existing works in the classical repertoire. At its two main Moscow engagements, the theater exteriors were decorated to resemble battleships, and the staff were dressed in sailors’ outfits. Posters touted it as “the pride of Soviet cinema,” boasting of 300,000 admissions in the first three weeks alone.

POTEMKIN IN BERLIN

What really sealed the film’s success, however, was the sensational reception at its April 1926 Berlin premiere. The Soviet authorities actually sold the original negative to the Germans--a move that seems inconceivable today--but they retained the right to request new prints from it. Fearing a threat to “the public order,” the German censors initially banned the film outright but later demanded a number of cuts, mainly due to violent imagery. These included some of the shots depicting the body of young boy trampled on the Odessa steps. The film director Piel Jutzi was brought in to adapt the film for German audiences; among other things, he divided it into six parts instead of five.

Naum Kleiman, the foremost Eisenstein scholar, has speculated that Eisenstein’s trip to Germany before the premiere was in fact to oversee the film’s reediting, so he may well have had some input into the German distribution version. The director also guided Edmund Meisel’s work on the score, encouraging him to emphasize rhythm over melody. For instance, the music accompanying the battleship’s climactic meeting with the squadron has a mechanical quality that underscores the film’s ties with the Soviet artistic movement known as Constructivism.

Ultimately, cultural impact of The Battleship Potemkin in Germany cannot be overstated. Besides becoming a great popular success, it influenced artistic figures as ranging from Fritz Lang to Bertolt Brecht and the theater directors Erwin Piscator and Max Reinhardt. Not only did the film’s reputation in Germany help raise awareness of it in countries such as England and the United States, it even resulted in a second release of the film in the Soviet Union during the summer of 1926. However, the Soviet authorities’ decision to sell the negative to the Germans meant it would not survive in its original version.

THE RECONSTRUCTION

The pressures of censorship and the vagaries of distribution over the years have resulted in the situation that The Battleship Potemkin survives in several different versions, each with their own set of limitations. For many years the Museum of Modern Art circulated an English language version based on an authoritative print donated by the Eisenstein scholar Jay Leyda and supposedly provided by Eisenstein himself, but they altered the original intertitles, among other things making them longer and thus slowing the pace of the film. Another version with English titles was prepared by the British leftist filmmaker Ivor Montagu.

In 1950, the film was reissued in the Soviet Union in a version supervised by Grigori Aleksandrov and accompanied by a serviceable, if pedestrian, score by Nikolai Kryukov. According to Enno Patalas, this version was missing some seventy shots, suffered from substantially reworked intertitles, and even reordered some of the footage following earlier, similarly corrupted versions. For example, the visceral impact of the opening of the Odessa steps massacre--in which the title “And suddenly…” is followed by a series of jump cuts of a woman’s head jerking back--was blunted by preceding it with shots of the soldiers’ boots and rifles to provide more of a conventional cause-and-effect structure. This version also used step-printing (the repetition of individual frames) to slow the movement down for projection at sound speed.

In 1976, the Soviet filmmaker Sergei Yutkevitch, in collaboration with Naum Kleiman, created a new version that was the most complete and authentic to date, but its pacing was again compromised by the use of stretch printing, and it was still missing fifteen shots compared to the current reconstruction. Thus, while it contained fewer shots, at 74 minutes it still ran significantly longer than the 2005 reconstruction. Also, one could argue that the excerpts from the Shostakovich symphonies chosen to accompany the print added to its lugubrious atmosphere.

The 2005 reconstruction relies heavily on the Jay Leyda print and written recollections for its shot list, but whenever possible uses early generation prints held at the British Film Institute because of their superior photographic quality. (The original negative still exists at Gosfilmofond of Russia, though it bears the traces of German censorship and according to the archive is too fragile to use for printing, as Patalas related in a 2005 article in the Journal of Film Preservation.) The intertitles recreate the original text as closely as possible, including the restoration of a Trotsky quotation as the epigraph; predictably, it had been replaced by a Lenin quote when Trotsky fell out of favor. The length of the individual title cards is also now more in keeping with the film’s rhythm as a whole, which is no small point since Eisenstein viewed them as a crucial component of his montage aesthetic. Lastly, as Eisenstein intended from the start, this version uses hand-coloring to tint the Potemkin’s flag red during certain sequences.

In the documentary that accompanies Kino’s forthcoming DVD edition, Naum Kleiman sums up the difficult choices faced in reconstructing the film: “There being no absolutely exact film record from 1926, we cannot claim to have all the scenes in their full length. Often, what Patalas did was an extension of an already existing version, that is, of the censored version. Due to the disintegration of the film, or splices that have come apart, some parts had to be spliced together again. Some frames were lost in the process. Today it’s difficult to assess whether all that was added to the very last version changed the meaning of the film, or its rhythm, or whether it reinforced its visual quality. At any rate, we felt that we managed to approximate the original up to 99%, or even 99.5%.” Viewers already familiar with The Battleship Potemkin are likely to be struck with how much better the reconstruction flows as a film compared to previous versions. Combined with the superior detail and contrast of the new video transfer and the excitement of Meisel’s orchestral score, the reconstruction enables us to appreciate one of cinema’s greatest masterpieces in a fresh light.

FILM CREDITS

Producer: Yakov Bliokh
Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Script: Eisenstein, based on an idea by Nina Agadzhanova-Shutko
Assistant Director: Grigori Aleksandrov
Director of Photography: Eduard Tisse
Editing: Sergei Eisenstein
Cast: Aleksande Antonov (Vakulinchuk), Mikhail Gomorov (Matyushenko), Vladimir Barsky (Captain Golikov), Grigori Aleksandrov (Chief Officer Gilyarovsky), Aleksandr Levshin (Petty Officer), Beatrice Vitoldi (Woman on the Odessa Steps), N. Poltavtseva (Woman with the pince-nez), also Members of the Proletkult Theater, Sailors of the Black Sea Fleet, the Sebastopol Fisherman’s Union, and the Inhabitants of Odesssa.

RECONSTRUCTION CREDITS

Supervised by Enno Patalas in collaboration with Anna Bohn.
Produced by the Deutsche Kinemathek with the support of Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv, the British Film Institute, the Munich Filmmuseum, and Gosfilmofond of Russia.
Colorization by Gerhard Ullmann.
Musical score by Edmund Meisel (1926); adaptation and instrumentation by Helmut Imig.
Music performed by the Deutsches Filmorchestra Babelsberg, conducted by Helmut Imig.
BW-69m.

by James Steffen

The image “http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40324000/jpg/_40324011_potempkin203.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


The Pet Shop Boys will unveil their latest project - a soundtrack to the 1925 film Battleship Potemkin - at a free show in London's Trafalgar Square.





The irony is that this propaganda film for the Bolshevik Revolution was made four years after the
Kronstadt rebellion occurred against the Bolshevik hegemonic state, by the same sailors.

The image “http://www.kronstadt-uprising.co.uk/images/art8.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The naval base of Kronstadt lies on Kotlin Island near the head of the Gulf of Finland. Peter the Great captured the island from the Swedes in 1703 and built it into a naval fortress to protect his new capital. The concentration of heavy armory and sailors on the small island made it a bulwark against foreign invasion, but also a tinderbox in times of internal unrest. During the stormy years 1905-1906 several mutinies broke out on Kronstadt. The sailors were important allies to the Bolsheviks after the February Revolution (1917), when the Kronstadt Soviet opposed the provisional government, declared a "Kronstadt Republic," and took part in the July 1917 mutiny. The famous cruiser Aurora, which had bombarded the Winter Palace on October 25, 1917 with its famous shot heard round the world, belonged to the Baltic Fleet based in Kronstadt.

It was a rude shock to the Bolsheviks when the red sailors of Kronstadt went into open rebellion in March 1921. The sailors saw themselves as loyal to the Soviet cause, if not to the Communist rulers. That bitter winter saw Kronstadt, like most other cities in Russia, hungry and discontented. Anger at material deprivations was compounded by the authoritarian regime the Bolsheviks were building, which seemed to violate the spirit of the revolution that the sailors had helped win. Popular unrest finally grew into strikes, which led to riots, lockouts, arrests. Finally on February 26, local Communist authorities declared martial law. A pattern of sharp protest and response escalated rapidly from here to a state of mutiny.

It is the source of the greatest political division on the left, between anarchists and Trotskyists, even to this day.

Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt By Leon Trotsky


SHAGYA BLOG: Kronstadt Izvestiia - " Four Legs Good "

The complete edition of
"Izvestiia of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee of Sailors, Soldiers and Workers of the town of Kronstadt"


Demands of the Kronstadt Insurgents, Expressed in the Resolution of the General Meeting of the Crews of the Ships of the Line

Kronstadt, 28 February I92I

Having heard the report of the representatives of the crews despatched by the General Meeting of the crews from the ships to Petrograd in order to learn the state of affairs in Petrograd, we decided:

  1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not represent the will of the workers and peasants, to re-elect the soviets immediately by secret voting, with free canvassing among all workers and peasants before the elections.
  2. Freedom of speech and press for workers, peasants, Anarchists and Left Socialist Parties.
  3. Freedom of meetings, trade unions and peasant associations.
  4. To convene, not later than 1 March I92I, a non-party conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd City, Kronstadt and Petrograd Province.
  5. To liberate all political prisoners of Socialist Parties, and also all workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors who have been imprisoned in connection with working-class and peasant movements.
  6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those who are imprisoned in jails and concentration camps.
  7. To abolish all Political Departments, because no single party may enjoy privileges in the propagation of its ideas and receive funds from the state for this purpose. Instead of these Departments, locally elected cultural-educational commissions must be established and supported by the state.
    ......................................
  8. To abolish all Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various Communist guards at factories. If such detachments and guards are needed they may be chosen from the companies in military units and in the factories according to the judgment of the workers.
  9. To grant the peasant full right to do what he sees fit with his land and also to possess cattle, which he must maintain and manage with his own strength, but without employing hired labour.
  10. To ask all military units and also our comrades, the military cadets, to associate themselves with our resolutions.
  11. We demand that all resolutions be widely published in the press.
    .....................................
  12. To permit free artisan production with individual labour.

The resolutions were adopted by the meeting unanimously, with two abstentions.

 President of the Meeting, PETRICHENKO.

Secretary, PEREPELKIN.



SEE

West Side Story

Brecht Meets Oscar

Battle of Algiers

Ennio Morricone A Fistful of Composer

The Many Faces of Solaris

V for Anarchy

SPECTRE

Dimiti Shostakovich 1906-2006

Censorship and Art

The Fifth International


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,, , , , , , ,


Saturday, October 20, 2007

Alberta Oil Royalty Sell Out

Looks like we will not be getting any real news about Farmer Ed's plans around oil royalties when he does his Ed TV program next week.

Alberta royalty details now expected by month end


Instead he spent this week spinning why he is not going to get tough on Big Oil, preparing us for lowered expectations regarding his royalty review.
Stelmach touts benefits of existing royalties


Having met with the oil boys in private and having his Energy Minister do the same they knew this was coming down the pike.

Royalty proposal 'overly aggressive': Panel member

A key member of the panel that recommended controversial increases to oil and gas royalties in Alberta has distanced herself from its conclusions, calling them "overly aggressive" and "dumb" in some cases.

Judith Dwarkin, chief economist at Ross Smith Energy Group Ltd., a top Calgary-based independent energy research firm, co-wrote a new report that criticizes the panel for lacking the "requisite industry expertise and time" to adequately make certain recommendations, resulting in flawed conclusions.

Ms. Dwarkin, who holds a doctorate in economics and at one time was responsible for evaluating Alberta's oil-and-gas royalty system for the Department of Energy, was seen as the most credible member of her six-person panel because of her extensive experience.

A report we have never seen because the Minister has kept it secret. She was the governments Big Oil ringer on the committee so this should come as no surprise.

So what could we hear from Farmer Ed when it comes to royalties. Well not 20%, not 10% nope. Wait for it.....

Making the rounds in Calgary's financial community yesterday was speculation that the province has arrived at a decision to boost royalties on oilsands projects - but not as much as is currently discounted in stock prices.

The scenario - under which royalties would increase to 5% from 1% before project payout, and to 30% from 25% after investment is recovered, and also involves the scrapping of a proposal for a new super royalty - was seen as positive for Canadian oilsands players, whose stocks rallied as oil was rocketing higher.

Meanwhile despite all the doom and gloom being raised over the royalty report it has had little real impact on the industry.

Here is the stock chart for the year for one the oilsands giant; Suncor. And despite a blip in September, after the royalty review announcement the shares just keep going up, and up, and up....In fact they are doing better than they were last spring prior to the Royalty Review report.

Canadian stocks rally, led by energy and mining
Suncor Energy closes at all-time high







And as usual it had less to do with royalties than the oil and gas market.

Oil Slips

Crude oil fell 0.8 percent to $88.77 a barrel on speculation that U.S. supplies are sufficient to meet demand, after rising above $90 in New York for the first time,

EnCana Corp., the nation's largest natural-gas producer, fell C$2.60, or 4 percent, to C$62.85. Smaller rival Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. retreated C$2.96 to C$74.83. Suncor Energy, the world's second-largest oil-sands miner, dropped C$2.44 from a record to C$100.96.

A measure of energy shares, after gaining 4.1 percent this week before today as oil touched daily records, retreated 2.7 percent today. It helped the S&P/TSX climb 11 percent this year before today. Seven of the benchmark's 10 subgroups fell more than 2 percent today.


Don't Let Big Oil Set Our Royalty Rates make sure Ed hears from you


SEE:

Headline Says It All

Ohhh Pulllleeeaasse

Alberta Needs A Chavez

Albertans Are Simpletons Says Government

Royalty Is NOT A Tax

Fearless Prediction Confirmed

Morons

More Shills For Big Oil

Stelmach Sells Out

King Ralph Shills For Big Oil



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
,, , , , , , , , ,

Ezra Says Gay Bashers Are Muslims

So like Brave Sir Robin from Monty Python's Holy Grail, Ezra LeRant took on two women regarding 'reasonable accommodation' on CTV's the Verdict. As an aside like E Talk, and other CTV info-tainment shows this too is modeled on American TV with Paula Todd being a Canadian clone of CNN Headline News; Nancy Grace.

Ezra was the show's token bigot.

Muslim women are seen wearing a hijab. (AP /Anjum Naveed)

The Verdict: Oct. 18, 2007

Paula Todd and various guests looks at whether Canada is a country of bigots.

The Verdict: Oct. 18, 2007 18:30

A country of bigots? 9:42



Paula Todd proved herself an incompetent mediator let alone host. Unable to designate time to each speaker, she complained when her women visitors responded to Ezra, simultaneously from two different cities. Thus she ended up giving motor mouth LeRant more time than either of them.

What is interesting in this little discourse was that Ezra suddenly became the voice of liberal, feminist, gay, progressive values against the two women guests,
Shaina Siddiqui representing Canadian Muslim and a reporter Manon Cornellier from Le Devoir, whom he accused of being promoters of just the opposite.

Ezra whose Western Standard is the right whingnut voice of Social Conservative Christian, Homophobia, racism and sexism was saying we should not let Muslims into Canada because they come from countries that oppress women and gays.

Gays being male, you see as liberal as Ezra has become he made no reference to lesbians. Ezra stated that Muslims coming to Canada are rabidly anti-gay thus implying that they would not only oppose Gay rights, something he and his ilk do as well, but would promote violence against gay men.Funny thing is that gay bashers in Canada and the U.S. or those who kill gay men have not been Muslims but rather White male Christians.

When that tact didn't work he claimed that Muslims from Africa wanted to bring the tradition of female genital mutilation to this country.
The veil

18 Oct 2007
by Ezra Levant
I was on CTV's The Verdict tonight, talking about "reasonable accommodation". That debate is framed as a discussion about all immigrants but, as with so many other euphemisms, it's actually about Muslim immigrants

I would have liked to have had more time tonight, and our segment was difficult with three panelists in three different cities, but I enjoyed the chance to be the lone voice all night arguing against one-way multiculturalism, and I enjoyed trying to smoke out the facts beneath the euphemisms -- pressing on issues like women's rights, gay rights and freedom of speech, issues that were once the domain of liberals, liberals who now stand gagged by their own soft bigotry of low expectations of Muslims -- they refuse to call out racist, sexist, anti-gay Muslims where they're do so in a flash with white Christian men.

Shahina Saddiqui was the CAIR-CAN rep tonight -- she was the one who tried to get the Jews of Winnipeg charged with hate crimes last year for watching a movie about Muslim terrorism. Of course, the cops laughed Saddiqui out of the police station -- that sort of thing doesn't quite work in Canada, yet. Saddiqui's left quite a track record of illiberal statements out there, including one that she tried to disclaim on the air tonight -- a comment five years ago explaining away female genital mutilation.


Now Ezra's tactic was to slander his opponents, while trying to talk over them. It's an old tactic of his. Say something outrageous, over generalize, and keep talking.
Suddenly Ezra is a defender of women and gay rights. This is the latest tactic of the right when attacking Muslims, to appear to defend liberalism and pluralism, when in fact they hate gay rights and feminism. But hey any argument will do when you wish to attack and belittle your opponents with a straw man.

In fact Ezra was in good company this week when fellow travellers on the extreme right in Calgary protested Veiled Voting. And that is what has set off this latest round of phony debate. Just as dual citizenship was a phony issue used by the right to attack Lebanese Canadians the issue of veiled voting which is a non-issue is being used to smear those who immigrate here from Muslim countries.

All this was caused by the recent debate in Quebec, and Ontario, over reasonable accommodation. After failing to raise enough support for their racist campaign against dual citizenship after the Israeli attack on Lebanon, the right in Canada has embraced the cause of the little town of Herouxville as their own to attack Muslim immigrants.

Suddenly the very nature of Canada as a nation of immigrants is called into question by the Pure-Laine of English and French Canada, as if they too were not immigrants. This of course is the residue of being a colonial country founded by two imperialist powers, who now claim to be 'founding peoples'. Forgetting as Ezra and others on the right do, that in fact Western Canada existed as Native land whose take over was through immigration sponsored first by the Hudons Bay Company and then the CPR and the Canadian State.

Immigrants to Western Canada faced similar racist attacks at the turn of last century and the reasonable accommodation they were offered by the Canadian State was internment or the Head Tax.

And that is what this debate is all about; reasonable accommodation. As we accept more refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries with religious and social practices different from ours there is the need to adapt. It is not as Ezra and the right wing would define it as acceptance of illegal practices such as female genital mutilation, rather it is the right to have for instance in washrooms in public institutions foot baths for religious abulations. Or having food choices available at public institutions. But foot baths and food choices are less threatening and a rather benign request than using red herrings like female genital mutilation, or the fact that homosexuality is banned and punished by the death penalty in countries like Iran.

Of course homosexuality was also banned and punished by the death penalty in Christian countries until the end of the 19th Century. But that point is overlooked by Ezra and his ilk.
The earliest record of someone receiving the death penalty for homosexual acts in what would become a part of the United States was in St. Augustine, Florida in 1566 when a man was executed by the military. The United States maintained the death penalty for convicted "sodomites" until about 1779 when Thomas Jefferson proposed that Virginia drop the death penalty for the crime and replace it with castration. Some states have revised the punishment for sodomy over the years, and some states and localities have passed laws protecting those who commit homosexual acts. The Revolution in France brought an end to criminal laws regarding sexual activities in 1810 under the Napoleonic Code. England abolished the death penalty for acts of homosexuality in 1861.

In fact it is really rich of Ezra to defend homosexual rights while his publication and the organizations he associates with denounce the Homosexual Agenda in Canada. Ted Byfield is a regular columnist in the Western Standard and like the rest of his clan are active in opposing gay rights.

Reasonable accommodation is a legal term, which Paula Todd failed to explain fully to her audience before she began her interviews. And it is a Supreme Court ruling that came about due to Christian sects demanding the right not to work on Sunday/Saturday due to their religious beliefs. It arose out of a labour based grievance over work scheduling. It is now enshrined in labour as well as common law and says that there must be a reasonable attempt to accommodate workers due to religious beliefs, or due to disabilities, etc., as outlined in provincial and federal human rights acts.

The Supreme Court of Canada rules that Central Alberta Dairy Pool discriminated against Jim Christie by failing to accommodate his need to be absent from work on April 4, 1983 (Easter Monday) in order to respect his faith in the tenets of the World Wide Church of God.

Mr. Christie was an employee of the Dairy Pool who became a prospective member of the World Wide Church of God in 1983. The Church recognizes a Saturday sabbath and ten other holy days throughout the year. Members of the Church are expected not to work on these days. Mr. Christie asked his employer for permission to take unpaid leave on Tuesday, March 29 and on Monday, April 4, 1983, because both of these days were holy days in his Church. He was granted leave for the Tuesday but denied leave for the Monday because Mondays were especially busy days at the Dairy Pool. Milk that arrives at the Dairy Pool on weekends must be processed promptly on Mondays to prevent spoilage. When Jim Christie was absent on Monday, April 4, without permission, his employment was terminated.



Now one would think even Ezra the lawyer would know and understand that, but of course he only became a lawyer to become a politician, like Harper who is not much of economist, Levant is not much of a lawyer.

Ezra like his compatriots on the right ignore what reasonable accommodation really means in law, in order to continue to raise the fear of the other, in this case Muslims, overwhelming White Christian British/French Canada. In this he is no different from the fascist ilk like Paul Fromm.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, ,, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,, , ,
, , , ,





Friday, October 19, 2007

AFL Demo Falls Flat On Its Face

Ouch. Suppose we called a demonstration and no one came?

The majority of the 15 workers that did show up were probably Wobblies who have been active on every wildcat picket line over this last month. Dual carders, folks who belong to both the IWW and their regular trade union. The IWW has been gaining support amongst the building trades union rank and file pissed off at their union's lack of democracy.

While the union bosses couldn't organize a rally, demo, or meeting bigger than a gathering in a phone booth, cause they are pork choppers, far removed from the rank and file. And when they do organize rallies its the paid union staff that show up.

This is not only disappointing but shows that the real resistance of the workers in Alberta not only to our bad labour laws, but to the Oil royalty rip off will be led by rank and file militants not the labour bureaucracy. That was what made last months wildcat actions successful. But as soon as the labour bureaucrats joined in well it died.

While the Oil Bosses bused in their workers and paid them to attend their Anti-Royalty Rally at the Leg on Wednesday the AFL's excuse is that their demo was poorly attended cause it was payday. Well that was a brilliant move wasn't it. The pork choppers don't even know when pay day is up in Fort McMurray. Or when shift changes occur. Talk about being out of touch. They should have just organized a counter demo in Edmonton instead.

Unions drive message home despite poor turnout

By CAROL CHRISTIAN
Fort McMurray Today staff
Friday October 19, 2007

It may have been a tiny crowd at a royalty rally for oilsands workers Thursday night but that didn’t undermine their support for changes to the current royalty system.
About 15 people attended the rally hosted by the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL). Gil McGowan, AFL president, wasn’t really surprised at the turnout given it was payday, and shift change day so many workers had already left town.
He explained the AFL went ahead with the meeting because of concerns Premier Ed Stelmach was going to announce his decision on the royalty panel recommendations today. That didn’t happen at press time; the premier is rumoured to have television airtime booked next Wednesday.
McGowan presented his top 10 reasons why big business won’t leave Alberta even though companies are “rattling their sabres” and threatening to pull out of the province.
“The oil is here. They’re going to stay here because there’s money to be made and there’s nowhere else to go,” stated McGowan. Other reasons included that oil companies have always known the government has the right to unilaterally raise royalties and companies are not going to turn their backs on billions of dollars of investments already made here.
He mentioned other jurisdictions like Alaska and Britain have increased royalty rates by as much as 80 per cent yet it hasn’t scared off investment. The royalty review panel is recommending a 20 per cent increase for Alberta.
McGowan pointed out some of the same companies threatening to leave Alberta continue to invest in Venezuela where royalties are higher than here and profit margins lower.
“We don’t have to be intimidated by the scare tactics being employed by big oil,” said McGowan.

While the premier is talking tough, there’s still a concern about closed door meetings between government and big oil companies, he said. Believing the companies are trying to intimate the government McGowan is urging workers and Albertans to tell their MLAs not to lose their nerve.
“We have to help them get the backbone they need to stand up to big oil,” he stated. “The time for accepting bargain basement royalties is over.” If government cows to oil companies, McGowan added Albertans can show their displeasure at the ballot box.
Petition letters to the premier available at the rally said the royalty report should be seen as a bare minimum for action. Anything less than that is a failure by government to stand up for the best interests of Albertans.
“Any effort to water down the recommendations would be a unnecessary capitulation to big oil,” said McGowan.
The local rally was held for workers in contrast to the one the day before at the legislature in Edmonton organized by business. Referring to that rally as a “paid political commercial brought to you by ownership,” Barry Salmon, an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) official, said owners are more interested in their own bottom line than the best interests of Albertans.
Salmon said the panel came up with a mediocre report that was already a compromise favouring big oil.
This was intended to set a marker so when government introduces its decision, it will be seen as a compromise. “Albertans will believe its acceptable because they will be told it’s a compromise between the royalty recommendations and big oil demands.
“We’re being had,” he said, adding Albertans are now involved in a shell game with the government and big oil.
As part of their scare tactics, oil companies are threatening some 19,000 jobs, said Mel Kraley, IBEW assistant business manager. Yet, he noted, there some 21,000 temporary foreign workers in Alberta. McGowan believes the number of workers is closer to 60,000.
Several workers in attendance took the opportunity to express their concerns.
Ron Davidovich said the government should “feel ashamed” for finally asking for royalty review. “We’ve got billions of dollars lost in this province,” he added at a time when seniors can’t get the care they need and are struggling on fixed incomes. The extra $2 billion from increased royalties could help seniors among other things, he said.
“As soon as we encroach on them (oil companies) ... we hear some nice stories,” said Roland Lefort, an official with the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers union.
He added when the Kyoto Accord was first introduced, oil companies bemoaned the financial hardship it would cause. As a result, “Albertans believed Kyoto was going to destroy the economy.” The royalty review is no different, Lefort said.
Don't Let Big Oil Set Our Royalty Rates make sure Ed hears from you

See:

I Am Malcontent

Who Will Decide About Royalties

Alberta's Tar Sands Gamble

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
,, , , , ,

How Do You Spell Sell Out?

B U Z Z.

CAW shelves right to strike

In Alberta workers are fighting to change our regressive labour laws to allow the right to strike which was recognized this summer by the Supreme Court. In Ontario workers are being sold out by once progressive talking union leader Buzz Hargrove. All so he can increase his declining membership and assure his pork choppers their salaries. It is sending a chill through out the Canadian labour movement.

Hey maybe Buzz would like to move to Alberta, since the bosses here would love this kind of agreement. In fact thats why CLAC is so popular with employers out here. So what's the difference between CAW and the employee management consultants from CLAC....nothing.

If workers vote in favour of the CAW and the contract at their plant, any subsequent collective bargaining disputes would be resolved through binding arbitration rather than a walkout by the union or a lockout by the company.

The fundamental right to withdraw labour is a provision that unions have protected vigorously for decades as its only ultimate power against management.

But the CAW's decision to give up the right to strike triggered criticism from other labour leaders.

"It's a pretty drastic measure and ultimately is not good for workers because they no longer have the right to withdraw their labour," said Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

"It's pretty fundamental to the labour movement and collective bargaining. This is not good, especially if it's exchanged for voluntary recognition of the union. It certainly sets a precedent that working people need to be concerned about."

"Hargrove is creating CAW-employer associations," added Wayne Fraser, Ontario-Atlantic director of the United Steelworkers. "What's to stop other employers, especially Magna competitors, from rightfully asking the CAW for the same no-strike right."

Hargrove said it wouldn't be possible for other auto-parts companies with a union to demand the same provision. However, a non-union employer could get a similar arrangement, he said. "Invite us in."

Hargrove recognizes the need for his business union to adapt to modern business practices, mergers and acquisitions to expand the base of capital (union dues). This began when CAW raided SEIU for its members, claiming it was doing it in the name of democratic social unionism. Which got CAW temporarily removed from the CLC. AUPE in Alberta followed CAW's lead and left the AFL and CLC declaring itself an indepedent union, with support from Buzz.

Neither of these moves were not about democracy or workers rights, since both unions have hired staff and their own management structures. Rather it was about money. In the CAW's case busting a rival union and gaining its members, in AUPE's case retaining affiliation fees they could use themselves.

Now Buzz has gone even further with the potential of 20,000 dues paying workers with a forced dues check off, the Rand Formula, and no right to strike, he will be able to use those funds to balance the books as more attrition hits the auto sector and more of his members retire.

It's a cynical and shallow motive but one that should be expected by business unions that no longer see their purpose as overthrowing capitalism but as getting their members the best deal they can under capitalism.

Once upon a time unions like CAW and others called themselves Social Unions
somehow different from their American International business union counterparts. They were about fighting globalization and neo-liberalism. Buzz has repeatedly claimed he is left wing. Yep the left wing of capitalism.

Today the CAW as I predicted, is all about adapting to globalization and neo-liberalism in order to give Canadian corporations a fighting chance in the world market.



Oct 19, 2007 Sam Gindin The CAW and Magna: Disorganizing the Working Class
Through the 1980s and 1990s, as the attacks on past working class gains intensified, the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW) was widely recognized – not just in North America but abroad – as standing at the forefront of working class resistance. With the Magna-CAW Agreement signed on October 15, 2007, the CAW now seems at the forefront of working class desperation and defeat...


This is not unlike the recent mergers of the International Transportation and Steel unions and other international unions that are facing declining memberships and lack of bargaining power.

Once again the unions show they are merely an extension of capitalism not an alternative to it.

That alternative exists and it is Revolutionary Syndicalism that was birthed with the IWW over a hundred years ago.


The employing class and the working class have nothing in common."
Preamble to the IWW Constitution

"When the working class unites, there will be a lot of jobless labor leaders."
Eugene Debs, 1905 speech to the IWW Convention


See:


Unions the State and Capital

Global Labour in the Age of Empire


WHITHER SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?
THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM, LABOUR AND THE NDP

A SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE

Will Canadian Labour Accept Free Trade?

Business Unions Sell-out B.C. General Strike

Nationalism Will Not Stop North American Union

This is Class War

CAW To Leave CLC?

Sniveling NDP

Labour Abandons the NDP

Unite the Left

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
,
, ,

, , , , , , ,

Support Public Radio

CJSR is winding up its Fund Drive as CKUA launches there's.
And Both give you TAX Receipts for your $$$$$$$.

And they both offer you swag and prizes over and above that!!

And as an added incentive both the Alberta and Federal governments will top up them donations. So support YOUR radio. Public Radio for the People.

You can listen to both stations online via your computer so donations can come from anywhere in Alberta, Canada, around the world (no tax reciept for you though, bwaa)

FunDrive is on!

Just 23 hours and 52 minutes till Fundrive is over!
We're already 88.2% through it!
Fundrive is coming



If you are having difficulty viewing this email properly, please click here:
http://www.industrymailout.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=55012&q=46406350&qz=c08133

Campaign Starts Tomorrow!

Are you ready? We are!! A fantastic new phone system is in place, excellent volunteers are anxious for your calls, and all CKUA staff are ready to make this the BEST campaign yet!

The fun begins tomorrow at 6 AM! Make your pledge online or call in to speak to one of our awesome volunteers. While you are here - online, I mean - be sure to check out the fabulous prize line up...which do you want to win??

We wish you all the best of luck and thank you in advance for showing your support, and celebrating this amazing 80 year old radio station with us. With your support, we look forward to celebrating the next 80 years.

"Thank you so much for what you do. I love that I can listen to Canada (home) and the whole world on CKUA via the internet...you enrich and enliven me every day."
Connie - Eugene, Oregon


SEE:

CKUA: Ten Years After The Privatization Putsch

The End of Public ACCESS


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,

Burma's Blood Rubies

More than 90pc of the world's rubies come from Burma

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Nationalize The Oil Patch


Under workers control!

A publicly owned Petro-Alberta would have a democratically elected board of directors, including representatives of the workers, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and the public.

Share ownership by the public and the workers, union investment with profit sharing and public debentures.
The Stelmach government should tax energy companies' profits up to nearly 100 per cent and the government should take ownership of part of the oil sector, rather than adopt the tamer recommendations of the royalty review panel, an Edmonton-based think tank said today.

In stark contrast to the energy industry's complaints that the review's proposed hikes go way too far and would cripple the economy, The University of Alberta's Parkland Institute said Albertans deserve to capture at least 90 per cent of available economic rent on oilsands project.

The left-leaning institute also noted that the nationalized oil companies in Norway, China, Korea and Japan have taken stakes in Alberta's oilpatch, and that a predecessor to energy giant EnCana was once partly province-owned.

"Public ownership is the best way to capture royalties, as 100 per cent goes to the owners, the people of Alberta," the report says.

Parkland research director Diana Gibson says Albertans should expect the same kind of return on the province‘s resources as an oil and gas executive earning a multimillion-dollar paycheque would get for his shareholders.

Selling Albertans Short: Alberta's Royalty Review Panel fails the public interest by Diana Gibson, Parkland Institute October 17, 2007
Release View Executive Summary Download Report (pdf)


SEE:

It's Time to Take Back Our Oil and Gas

NDP And Workers Control

Nationalize the Oil Industry

I Am Malcontent

Who Will Decide About Royalties

The Myth of the NEP

Aren't you sorry you sold your shares

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,
, ,
, , ,
,, , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , ,