Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitism

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. Michael Bakunin 1814-1876

In response to Warren Kinsella who maintains the myth that criticism of the State of Israel is Anti-Semitism. And to other critics of my articles:

Warren Kinsella moves Right
&
Lies of Our Times

Bakunin’s denunciation of Nationalism and the State led him to denouncing Polish Nationalism in favour of Pan-Slavism. At the same time Bakunin denounced the Zionism of Herzl, who wanted Jews in Russia to leave for a new utopia, rather than to fight against the Tsarist Pogroms and for a social revolution. Anarchism opposes nationalism and the Nationalist State in all its forms.

Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl

(1860-1904)

“In Basle I founded the Jewish state . . . Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.”

The Jewish State
Theodor Herzl
1896

"Anti-Semitic behavior is generated in situations where blinded men robbed of their subjectivity are set loose as subjects. For those involved, their actions are murderous and therefore senseless reflexes, as behaviorists note -- without providing an interpretation. Anti-Semitism is a deeply imprinted schema, a ritual of civilization; the pogroms are the true ritual murders. They demonstrate the impotence of sense, significance, and ultimately of truth -- which might hold them within bounds . . . Action becomes an autonomous end in itself and disguises its own purposelessness." Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment trans. John Cumming (New York, 1972), pgs. 171-2.

JEWISH CRITICISM OF ZIONISM

Edward C. Corrigan

Mr. Corrigan has a law degree from the University of Windsor and a Master's in political science from the University of Western Ontario. He advises the reader: "This article is not intended to be a comprehensive study of Jewish criticism of Zionism but only an introductory survey. The author owes a debt to many people in the Jewish community for assistance and would like to thank David Finkel and especially Harriet Karchmer for her help with the material on Orthodox Jews. The writer, of course, bears all responsibility for the material and any errors or omissions."

The Palestinian uprising or intifada and the Israeli campaign to suppress it have caused considerable anguish for many Jews around the world. A large number of Jews have even begun to reassess their support for Israel and critically analyze the ideology of Zionism which legitimates the Jewish state. One example of this phenomenon is a statement that appeared in The Nation on February 3, 1988. It was endorsed by 18 prominent American Jews.

The advertisement called upon American Jews to "dissociate from Israel." It expressed the concern that "the close identification in the public mind between Israel and Jews -- an equation vigorously fostered by both the Zionist movement and the American Jewish lobby, which has come under its control -- threatens to stigmatize Jews everywhere." The ad called for a two-state solution and for negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The statement also discussed past discrimination against the Jews and the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust adding:

How tragic that in our own time the very state established by Jews in the aftermath of this evil has become a place where racialism, religious discrimination, militarism and injustice prevail; and that Israel itself has become a pariah state within the world community. Events taking place today are all too reminiscent of the pogroms from which our own forefathers fled two and three generations ago -- but this time those in authority are Jews and the victims are Moslems and Christian Palestinians.

Those endorsing The Nation statement included Professor Yigal Arens, the son of Moshe Arens; Mark Bruzonsky, former Washington Associate, World Jewish Congress, who now serves as chairperson for the organization; Professor Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor MIT; Rabbi Susan Einbinder, Colgate University; Jane Hunter, publisher of Israeli Foreign Affairs; Jeremy Levin, former CNN Beirut Bureau Chief and former hostage in Lebanon; Professor Don Peretz, Department of Political Science, SUNY; and Henry Schwarzschild, of the American Civil Liberties Union. The subsequent organization they formed, the Jewish Committee on the Middle East (JCOME), has, in the short time that it has existed, attracted well over a thousand signatures endorsing their statement. These include academics at 125 U.S. universities.

JCOME has challenged pro-Israeli American Jewish leaders to conduct a joint poll to see what American Jews really think about Israel and the Palestinians. To back up their challenge JCOME cited evidence which suggests that there is a divergence of opinion between American Jews and the pronouncements of their "official" leadership. As one example of a difference in opinion JCOME pointed to a poll which showed that 29 percent of American Jews favor negotiations with the PLO. However, while this new organization is important, Jewish criticism of Israel's policies and Zionism is not new. They both have deep roots within the Jewish community.

It is clear that the ideology of Zionism has had a profound impact on Jews. Today most Western Jews support its objective of establishing and securing a Jewish state in the territory formerly known as Palestine, even though the majority do not follow its precepts and immigrate to Israel. Historically Zionism was the subject of intense debate. Zionism has always meant different things to different people. It could be interpreted in a religious, political, national or racial light depending upon the circumstances. For some, Zionism was a solution for the age-old problem of anti-Semitism, while for others merely an excuse for getting rid of the Jews. As Hannah Arendt explained, "The Zionist Organization had developed a genius for not answering, or answering ambiguously, all questions of political consequence. Everyone was free to interpret Zionism as he pleased . . . ."

Zionist leaders have put off indefinitely the attempt to resolve the resulting conflicts and even contradictions generated by different interpretations of Zionism. This explains why the "Jewish state" has no constitution and why many fundamental questions about the nature of Israel remain undefined. The avoidance of a battle over conflicting definitions of what is a Jewish state is one of the reasons why Israel has a vested interest in maintaining the state of war in the Middle East. This interest has been openly acknowledged by a former president of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann:

On the day when peace comes, the leftist movement will undoubtedly be very strong in Israel, and it will be anti-Orthodox. A great cultural battle will then break out which, like Ben Gurion, I want to avoid at this moment: as long as war prevails, that kind of internal struggle would be terribly dangerous. But after the hostilities the first thing to do will be to separate religion and state. Today we confine ourselves to telling the leftists: "Don't make a fuss on this question, you will be obstructing our defence policy, which requires national unity" -- and the leftists, being good patriots, give way. But after the peace they will resume the debate.

Prior to World War II the majority of Jews were non-Zionist, and a large number were openly hostile to Zionism. As Nahum Goldmann wrote, "When Zionism first appeared on the world scene most Jews opposed it and scoffed at it. Herzl was only supported by a small minority." It was not until the full horror of the Holocaust was realized that the great bulk of the Jewish community came to support Zionism.

Jewish history is rich in its diversity of ideas and ethical dissent. Many of the Hebrew prophets were "solitary voices" who criticized their people for betraying the great principles of their faith. The prophet Amos, for example, advanced a new interpretation of the "Chosen People" thesis. He wrote: "From all the families of the earth I have chosen you alone; for that very reason I will punish you for all your iniquities." Amos' concept of "chosen" did "not imply the assurance of victory or prosperity" but rather that of "the burden of more severe punishment for 'normal' unrighteousness."

Amos was even more revolutionary in reinterpreting the meaning of the "Promised Land." To quote Hans Kohn:

Through his mouth the Lord proclaimed that the children of Israel were unto Him no better than the children of the Ethiopians. True, God had brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt; but equally He brought the Philistines (then Israel's hereditary enemies) from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir, guiding each one into its land.

In Amos' view all peoples were entitled to the land they occupied in a spirit of equality and sharing. No one people had special God-given rights.

One of the most critical moments in ancient Jewish history was when Jochanan ben Zakkai, the leading representative of Judaism in his day and the disciple of Hillel, "abandoned the cause of the Jewish state." At the time, the city of Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans and heroically defended by the zealots. Zakkai escaped from the city by a ruse, and with the agreement of the Roman commander, established a Jewish academy at Jabne. Judaism survived while the Jewish state was destroyed.

In the more recent period, Ahad Ha-am (Hebrew for "One of the People" and the pen name for Asher Ginzberg), one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of this century, was also highly critical of Zionism.10 He drew attention to the fundamental and neglected ethical dilemma of Zionism, namely the presence of the Arabs. In his 1891 report, The Truth from Palestine, he pointed out that "there was little untilled soil in Palestine, except for stony hills and sand dunes." Ahad Ha-am also warned the Jewish settlers against arousing the wrath of the large native Arab population:

Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in freedom, and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.

Ahad Ha-am wrote this statement when Zionist settlers formed only a tiny portion of the population of Palestine. He also gave the following warning: "We think. . . that the Arabs are all savages who live like animals and do not understand what is happening around. This is, however, a great error."

Ahad Ha-am worked tirelessly for an intellectual and spiritual revival of the Jewish people. His belief in Zion was of a spiritual and prophetic nature. In 1913 he attacked the Zionist labor movement's racial boycott of Arab labor:

Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to men of another people; and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve "at the end of time" power in Eretz Israel? If this be the "Messiah," I do not wish to see his coming.

Israel Zangwill, one of Herzl's earliest and strongest supporters, eventually turned against the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Ironically it was Zangwill who coined the phrase "a land without a people for a people without a land." It was this phrase that became the potent rallying call for Zionist settlement in Palestine.

It was not until 1904 that Zangwill realized that there was a fundamental problem with the Zionist program. In a speech given in New York in that year he explained:

There is. . . a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan.. . . This is an infinitely graver difficulty than the stock anti-Zionist taunt that nobody would go to Palestine if we got it. . . .

Zangwill and many other leading Zionists split from the movement in 1905 when the Zionist Organization turned down the British offer to settle Jews in Uganda. Incidently, this proposal was supported by Herzl. The dissidents set up the Jewish Territorial Organization to pursue alternative settlement proposals. Zangwill was elected leader of the new body. The organization was, however, dissolved in 1925.

Sir Edwin Montagu, the only Jewish member of Lloyd George's cabinet when Great Britain first threw its weight behind Zionism in 1917, was also adamantly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. He attacked the Balfour Declaration and Zionism because he believed they were anti-Semitic. Montagu based his argument on the fact that both Zionism and anti-Semitism were based on the premise that Jews and non-Jews could not co-exist. He was also afraid that a Jewish state would undermine the security of Jews in other countries. Montagu's opposition to Zionism was supported by the leading representative bodies of Anglo-Jewry, the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association, and in particular, by Claude Montefibre, David Alexander and Lucien Wolf.

NON-RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION TO ZIONISM

Not only Orthodox and Reform Jews were opposed to Zionism. In March 1919 United States Congressman Julius Kahn presented an anti-Zionist petition to President Woodrow Wilson as he was leaving for the Paris Peace Conference. The petition was signed by 31 prominent American Jews. These included Henry Morgenthau, Sr., ex-ambassador to Turkey; Simon W. Rosendale, ex-attorney general of New York; Mayor L. H. Kampner of Galveston, Texas; E. M. Baker, from Cleveland and president of the Stock Exchange; R. H. Macy's Jesse I. Straus; New York Times publisher Adolph S. Ochs; and Judge M. C. Sloss of San Francisco.

The petition read in part:

. . . we protest against the political segregation of the Jews and the re-establishment in Palestine of a distinctively Jewish State as utterly opposed to the principles of democracy which it is the avowed purpose of the World's Peace Conference to establish.

Whether the Jews be regarded as a "race" or as a "religion," it is contrary to the democratic principles for which the world war was waged to found a nation on either or both of these bases.

Albert Einstein was also anti-Zionist. He made a presentation to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, which was examining the Palestine issue in January 1946 and argued against the creation of a Jewish state. Einstein also later turned down the presidency of the state of Israel. In 1950 Einstein published the following statement on the question of Zionism.

I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state.

Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook, Hannah Arendt and twenty-five other prominent Jews, in a letter to The New York Times (December 4, 1948), condemned Menachem Begin's and Yitzhak Shamir's Likud party as "fascist" and espousing "an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority." The same theme is echoed in William Zukerman's 1934 article in The Nation, "The Menace of Jewish Fascism. "58 This is also the premise of Michael Selzer's book, The Aryanization of the Jewish State.

For most Western Jews and many other people, the connection of Zionism to fascism and racism is odious and inappropriate. However, this theme is a recurrent motif in the debate on Zionism within the Jewish community. Even David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding father and first prime minister, wrote an article in 1933 entitled, "Jabotinsky in the Footsteps of Hitler."60 Vladimir Jabotinsky was the founder of Revisionist Zionism and the mentor of Menachem Begin.

Professor Richard Arens, the late brother of Moshe Arens, the Israeli defense minister and leading figure in the Likud party, has also equated Israeli policies towards the Palestinians with the Nazi persecution of the Jews.61 Hannah Arendt, when writing about the trial of Adolph Eichmann, pointed out the irony of attacking the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws of 1935 when certain laws in Israel regarding the personal status of Jews were identical to the infamous Nazi code. Morris Raphael Cohen, the distinguished philosopher, went so far as to argue that "Zionists fundamentally accept the racial ideology of anti-Semites, but draw different conclusions. Instead of the Teuton, it is the Jew that is the pure or superior race."

Other leading Jewish intellectuals who opposed Zionism include Louis D. Brandeis (see Menuhin, Jewish Critics of Zionism), Martin Buber (coauthor, with J.L. Magnes and E. Simon, of Towards Union in Palestine: Essay on Zionism and Jewish-Arab Cooperation, 1947), Isaac Deutscher ("The Non-Jewish Jew," in The Non-Jewish Jew and Other Essays, 1968), Simon Dubnow (Nationalism and History: Essays on Old and New Judaism, edited by Koppel S. Pinson, 1961), Morris Jastrow (Zionism and the Future of Palestine, the Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism, 1919), Emile Marmorstein ("A Bout of Agony," The Guardian, April 1974), Moshe Menuhin (father of Sir Yehudi Menuhin and author of The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time), Claude Montefiore ("Nation or Religious Community?" reprinted in Selzer, Zionism Reconsidered), Jakob I. Petuchowski (Zion Reconsidered, 1966), and Franz Rosenzweig. Hans Kohn, who was one of the world's leading authorities on nationalism, posed the following questions on the issue.

Might not perhaps the "abnormal" existence of the Jews represent a higher form of historical development than territorial nationalism? Has not the diaspora been an essential part of Jewish existence? Did it not secure Jewish survival better than the state could do?

Erich Fromm, the eminent scholar, also was critical of Zionism. He stated that the Arabs in Israel had a much more legitimate claim to citizenship than the Jews. Fromm also wrote:

The claim of the Jews to the Land of Israel cannot be a realistic political claim. If all nations would suddenly claim territories in which their forefathers lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse.

"One Man, One Vote, One State"

Israel Shamir, a leading Russian Israeli writer, is a champion of the "One Man, One Vote, One State" solution seeking to unite Palestine & Israel in one democratic state. Shamir's work and that of his contributors speaks to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians seeking an end to the bloodshed, true democracy and lasting peace.
In the midst of the endless talk of a "Two State solution", Shamir, along with Edward Said, has become a leading champion of the "One Man, One Vote, One State" solution in all of Palestine/Israel. His most recent essays have been circulating widely on the Internet and are now posted on many prominent media sites. With every new article, Shamir is establishing himself as a journalist whose work speaks to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Zionism as Jewish National Socialism
Lasse Wilhelmson - 31.08.2004 11:55

The Jewish colonization of Palestine under the Zionist slogan "the land without people to the people without a land" started almost a hundred years ago and reached its first climax with the proclamation of The Jewish State of Israel in 1948. A second climax is now in the offing through the ongoing colonization of the West Bank and Gaza.

Moses Hess converted Karl Marx to Communism, yet advocated National Socialism for Jews; Shlomo Avineri on the Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State- Selections by Peter Myers. Date November 14, 2000; update August 17, 2004.

Kibbutz Reshafim

After growing up in the antisemitic 1930's in Eastern Europe and escaping the Holocaust by hair's breadth, it is no wonder that many Jews, the founders of Kibbutz Reshafim among them, became fervent Zionists. The fact that of the famous saying "A country without people for a people without country" only the second part was correct, didn't escape members of the Hashomer Hatzair Movement, who favoured the creation of a bi-national state in Palestine. It didn't work out that way, and during the War of Independence in 1948 many Palestinian communities were displaced. (A list of abandoned Arab villages in the Beit Shean Valley). A number of kibbutzim and moshavim (another form of cooperative agricultural settlement) were founded and populated by refugees and olim² from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Socialism in all its forms was immensely popular in the 30's (as were the variants of Fascism). Its aim in those days was not just the economic betterment of the working class, but the creation of a new, more humane society and a new man to go with it. The kibbutzim were to serve as a model for this revolution. They were the proletarian vanguard, and much admired for it.
Even if quite a few of the founding members considered Stalin to be the epitome of human endeavour and mourned his (long overdue) passing on, they never adopted his policies of proletarian dictatureship. Decisions were made by a democratic show of hands, and there was quite a bit of pressure on those black sheep who wouldn't accept majority rule.

Eyal's Radical Corner

Class War in Palestine

The Zionist Scourge

We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai."

—David Ben-Gurion, prime-minister of the provisional government of Israel, speaking before the IMF general staff during the 1948 war

The Birth of Zionism

With the onset of industrial Capitalism in Europe in the 19th century, the ruling classes took advantage of ethnic divisions in the European population to vent the masses' anger at them, incurred by deteriorating living standards and intensified exploitation. One of the immediate and easiest targets were the Jews, who, due to various factors (not the least of which being religion-inspired separatism, often even xenophobia) had failed, in many areas in Europe, to harmonize themselves with the rest of the population, and many of then had found refuge, for the previous several centuries, under the protection of the nobility and the monarchy, as petit-bourgeois tradesmen, artisans, scribes, lawyers, etc. Now their former benefactors were inciting the more violent non-Jews even to harm Jewish people physically in the infamous 'pogroms' (which were, by the way, not only inspired but often actually organized by the national governments).

So, basically, the Jews had two options: the first, to seek unity with the peasants and the workers, forsaking the landed nobility and the the bourgeoisie; the second, to look to the masters for solutions.

Many Jews opted for something which was a mix of these two - immigration to the more advanced Capitalistic countries: the western European countries and the USA.

Of those who did not immigrate, the more progressive Jews (probably the poorer ones, the workers, the peasents, and some of the landless petit-bourgeois) came to adopt a Socialist perspective, understanding that racism and nationalism to be by-products of the Capitalistic class society, and must therefore be resisted by joining forces with the radical forces in combating the exploiters. Many of the influential agitators and organizers struggling for social change in Europe were Jews. And, of course, the 'Algemeiner Yidisher Arbayterbund' cannot go unmentioned here...

The Jews more closely tied to the ruling classes, those who were service-renderers to the rich and powerful and dependent upon their wealth for a living, saw things differently, of course. Theodore Herzl, the 'founding father' of political Zionism, an Austrian playwright, journalist and outspoken admirer of the policies of the Imperialist European governments, decided that what the Jews needed was a nationalistic movement of their own. The idea was not to remove the causes of ethnic strife, but rather find a place where Jews could be the ones holding the economic, military and political power, and therefore the on the attacking side of ethnic confrontations (which, claimed the Zionists, were completely unavoidable, since Jews and non-Jews are 'incompatible').

Zionism was a part of a wider current in European political thought, and it seems to have been inspired by Sorelianism (e.g. purification by violence and nationalist revision of Socialism), de-Man's Planism and other pre-Fascist thinkers. With it, world Imperialism acquired its foremost champion in its unfolding war against the toiling masses of this region.

A Deal

The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American [King-Crane] Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

—British Lord Arthur Balfur, two years after issuing the 'Balfur Declaration' (supportive a 'National Home' for Jews in Palestine)

So imagine you're a prominent Jewish businessman or intellectual in the 1880's. Given the facts that:

1. You're all buddy-buddies with the political leadership and the economic elite of Europe, which is at the height of its colonialist period
2. You want 'save the Jewish people' (the same ones you'd do everything to distance yourself from, and didley-squat for their protection from the almost-officially-mandated violence)

What's more natural than to offer up the Jews as harbingers of European rule to the countries of the 'uncivilized barbarians'?

So the Zionists came to the German Kaiser, and the Russian Tsar, the British and other governments (all of them anti-Semitic to some degree or another, obviously) and proposed the following deal: "we'll get all the Jews out of your sight and render you further economic and military services abroad, providing you find us a country in which to settle them all and to rule."

It took a few years of convincing, but the Imperialists couldn't resist an offer of erecting "a bastion of Europe against Asia" (to quote Herzl), not to mention a chance to drive out Millions of members of an ethnic group highly prone to Socialism and other 'destructive' and 'harmful' notions.

"Ok," says Britain (who ended up being the main supported or political Zionism) "How's about you take Uganda?"

"Hmmm... let us think..." say the Zionists. "Naah, we want Palestine. We need the sound basis of crackpot religious myths to bring together diverse religious groups to form a single national entity. We'll call it 'a land without a people for a people without a land'. It'll work out great! ... The only problem is pushing the Turks around some and we're set!"

Colonization

Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because the geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single site built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.

—Moshe Dayan, addressing the Technion, Haifa (reported in Haaretz, April 4th, 1969)

"But what about the Palestinian Arabs?" you would ask. And so did Max Nordau, another famous Zionist leader. This question brought about (not immediately, but soon enough) the great split in political Zionism - the split between the so-called-left (supposedly-Socialist, to some extent) Zionism - and the more overtly Fascist Zionism.

The 'left' surmised that "for now, we'll just concentrate on getting as many Jews as possible to settle in Palestine and we won't talk about what's to happen eventually - we'll tell everyone we're just trying to evade persecution, or to bring progress to an under-developed region, or to carry out a social experiment, or to create a Jewish worker's society or some other fibs" ; the right-wing, who were less ashamed of their racism and felt no need to identify themselves with the masses struggling for freedom and equality, said openly: "Fuck the Arabs. Not with words but with blood and iron shall a nation be molded - their blood, our Iron. We'll take control of the entire land and they'll either accept us as absolute masters, be driven out or die at our hands."

But such distinctions were hardly relevant when it came to practical action. Once the first world war was over and the British assumed control of the country, wave after wave of Jewish immigrants began flooding Palestine. There was hardly a peasant among them and not too many manual laborers... but they did bring on a steady stream of investment capital, and the technical expertise to use it. The pseudo-feudal, agricultural, semi-theocratic Palestinian society did not stand a chance. It gradually began to fray and eventually disintegrate in an alarming rate, as more and more agricultural land was bought by Jews and an increasing number of Palestinians sought employ with the Jews. Even the local elites, the more powerful 'hamula' structures, where overwhelmed and didn't put up much of a fight.

A great backlash against this process took place between 1936 and 1939 in the form of a mass strike followed by an armed rebellion, but it was doomed to fail, both because the Palestinian working class was weak in number and the peasantry disorganized (or rather mis-organized), with its leadership fearing the rebellion and aiding its diffusion, and because the British were bringing in massive troop reinforcements (rumor equates the number of British soldiers in Palestine during the rebellion to their numbers in India, but I haven't confirmed that) and did not hesitate to resort to house demolitions, mass arrests, numerous executions and assassinations.

The Zionist leadership, tightly controlling the Jewish workers, teamed up with the colonial ruler to violently suppress the rebelling natives by force.

Anarchy in Yiddish: Famous Jewish Anarchists from Emma Goldman to Noam Chomsky

Anti-semitism, argued anarchists such as Voline, had evolved as a sort of safety valve that the wealthy and powerful could use to control working class anger – people who were conscious of being cheated and misused could be persuaded to attack the Jews rather than their rulers or their employers. As everyone from the Czars to Hitler discovered, Jews make excellent scapegoats. To really permanently destroy anti-semitism, anarchists argued, we have to attack the root of the problem: the conditions of exploitation and injustice that Jew-hating serves as a distraction from. Thus, Voline wrote that only

the complete destruction of present-day society and its reorganization on a completely different social basis which will lead to the definitive disappearance of the nationalist plague, and with it, of antisemitism. It will disappear when the vast human masses, at the end of their sufferings and misfortunes, and at the price of atrocious experiences, comprehend, finally, that humanity must, on pain of death, organize its life on the sane and natural basis of cooperation, material and moral, fraternal and just, that is to say, on a truly human basis. (“Antisemitisme,” Encyc. Anarchiste)

Jewish anarchists took this a step further by beginning the battle against anti-semitism in the present. Samuel Schwartzbard didn’t stop at his personal revenge for the pogroms; he founded an organization called the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism. In exile from the U.S., Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman investigated and reported back on the condition of the Russian Jews in the early years of the Soviet Union. Leah Feldman rode with Nestor Makhno’s army against the pogromchiks. One way or another, Jewish anarchists fought back – as Jews, as anarchists, as human beings rising against their oppressors.

At the same time, they didn’t always have an easy time getting along with other Jews. Religion was a particular sticking point. Proudhon and Bakunin had defined anarchism as the revolt against all forms of human enslavement, physical and mental – and religion they counted as a form of mental slavery, noting that the Church had always bolstered the State, and that poor people were always told to wait for their reward in heaven rather than seeking justice on earth. Jewish anarchists frequently took up this wholesale attack on religion; in her famous manifesto, Emma Goldman wrote of “religion” as “the dominion of the human mind” (AOE 53):

The primitive man, unable to understand his being . . . felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready to mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious concepts of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior powers on high, who can only be appeased by complete surrender. All the . . . biblical tales dealing with the relation of man to God, to the State, to society . . . [express] the same motif, man is nothing, the powers are everything. Thus Jehovah would only endure man on condition of complete surrender. Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself . . .

Religion! How it dominates man’s mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress. (51, 53)

Now, in light of this kind of pronounced atheism emanating from the anarchist quarters, it’s no wonder rabbis in New York and London saw the Jewish anarchists as a threat to their traditions, their communities – and their own rabbinical authority. In 1888, the “clerical and lay leaders” of London’s Jewish community “set out to destroy” the Yiddish-language anarchist newspaper, the Arbeter Fraint. According to Fishman, “The back page of every issue carried the appeal in heavy type: ‘Workers, do your duty. Spread the Arbeter Fraint!’” The typesetter was bribed, and issue number 26 appeared with the wording of the ad slightly changed: “Workers, do your duty. Destroy the Arbeter Fraint!” The typesetter promptly disappeared, fleeing the wrath of the editors; then, after that, they bribed the printer (155). By 1904, they were hiring “gangs of thugs (schlogers) . . . to break up Anarchist and Social Democrat meetings” (259).

Anarchists didn’t take all this lying down, needless to say – nor did they fail to provoke it. When the Arbeter Fraint started up again, it featured a full-bore attack on orthodox Judaism, including parodies of the Passover seder and the Lamentations (155). In the late 1880s, a group of Jewish anarchists on the Lower East Side organized as a club called “The Pioneers of Freedom,” which “distributed Yiddish parodies of penitential prayers, mocking the traditions of Yom Kippur,” and organized “Yom Kippur Balls held on Kol Nidre night” (Kolel) In 1889, they leafleted to “[invite] Jewish workers to spend Kol Nidre evening at the Clarendon Hall on Thirtieth Street” – causing a “near-riot” when the proprietor, “under political pressure,” tried to call it off. In 1890, in Brooklyn, they threw a “Grand Yom Kippur Ball with theater” on the Day of Atonement (“A Life Apart: The Treyfe Medina”), advertising their celebration as “Arranged with the consent of all new rabbis of Liberty . . . Kol Nidre, music, dancing, buffet; Marseillaise and other hymns.” This spectacle, which more than once provoked actual street fracases between believers and non-believers, was duplicated in London and in Philadelphia (Kolel) – although on at least one occasion, in 1890, the Russian-Jewish anarchists of Philadelphia actually called off their Yom Kippur Ball – which was to feature “pork-eating” – out of respect for the role played by the city’s orthodox rabbi, Sabato Morais, in mediating a crucial strike of cloakmakers that year (“Morais”). In London in the 1890s, Rudolf Rocker was asked to comment on the habit of some Jewish anarchists of demonstrating “provocative behaviour” in front of the Brick Lane synagogue on Shabbat. He answered that “the place for believers was the house of worship, and the place for non-believers was the radical meeting” (Ward). Which, if you think about it, is a peculiarly rabbinical sort of exchange – it’s just the sort of question young men used to ask rabbis to answer: Rabbi, are the comrades right to demonstrate in front of the synagogue on the Sabbath? No wonder Sam Dreen said “Rocker was our rabbi!” (qtd. in Fishman 254).

The Jewish Question from the Left

Persistent Memories of the German Revolution the Jewish Activists of 1919

Stephen Eric Bronner

[New Politics, vol. 5, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 18, Winter 1995]

Netanyahu and the Palestinians

Adam Keller

[New Politics, vol. 6, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 22, Winter 1997]

The Life and Death of Socialist Zionism

Jason Schulman

[New Politics, vol. 9, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 35, Summer 2003]

Intellectuals and Anti-Fascism: For a Critical Historization

Enzo Traverso

[New Politics, vol. 9, no. 4 (new series), whole no. 36, Winter 2004]

The Silence of the Vatican and the Plight of the Jews

H. Brand

[New Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 30, Winter 2001]

Demonizing the Germans:
A New Mythology of Collective Guilt

Horst Brand

[New Politics, vol. 6, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 23, Summer 1997]

The First Neoconservative

Herman Wouk, the Americanization of the Holocaust, and the Rise of Neoconservatism

Joel Brodkin

New Politics, Vol. X, No. 3

No Symmetry:
Notes From Israel & "Palestine"

Mark Dow

[New Politics, vol. 9, no. 1 (new series), whole no. 33, Summer 2002]

The Struggle for Palestine

Barry Finger

[New Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 30, Winter 2001]

Standing Fast Julius Jacobson (1922-2003)

Barry Finger

[New Politics, vol. 9, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 35, Summer 2003]

The Al Aqsa Intifada: Taking Off the Masks

Tikva Honig-Parnass

[New Politics, vol. 8, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 30, Winter 2001]

Warren Kinsella Moves Right

The right wing in Canada has a new cheerleader, it's none other than the last Chretienite left standing; Warren Kinsella.

In his latest blog attack on the current Liberal Party Regime, he loves to hate; the Martinistas, he gives former Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish a backhaded compliment. While commenting on the sudden change on her home page where comments bashing the Martinistas were removed he takes umberage at her comments on Israel.

Reflections on the Middle East-Carolyn Parrish Independent MP

Warren Kinsella in his blog comments on July 26 says he disagrees with Carolyn. She's ok in his book's for attacking Paul Martin, but and it's a big but,
" but I don't agree that an MP who accuses Israel of "crimes against humanity" should be invited back into the Liberal caucus." says Warren.

And who does Warren link to in his denouncing Parrish, why David Frum, ex- Canadian speech writer for George Bush II, in his column in the far right National Review.

Warren are you saying the 'Anschluss' of Palestine by the Zionists and their campaign of 'Lebensraum' into the West Bank and Gaza Strip is Ok, is defensible? Even though it has been denouced by Amnesty International, the International Court of Justice in the Hauge, the UN and every civilized country around the world. With the exception of the Americans who supply Israel with its weapons, and funds, and have David Frum spin their Axis of Evil rhetoric. Are you saying that you prefer right wing nut Frum over liberal Parrish? Apparently.

What Parrish said in her report linked above is:

"the occupation, with its brutality, destruction, humiliation and human rights violations, must end. The policy of defending Israel through military siege of Palestinian towns must also end. The collective and random punishment of Palestinian civilians must end and access to basic human rights and the necessities of life must be re-established wherever Palestinians reside. “The Wall” must continually be attacked. The world cheered when the Berlin wall was toppled. Why does it sit silently by while this monstrosity consumes land and destroys people’s lives?"

Apparently in Frum and Kinsellas world defending Palestine means being anti-Israel. Tell that to the Israeli left who have been saying the same things for years. Or the Arab Israelis who say it too.

As for Warren who has written a book on the far right in Canada to defend the far right in Israel who currently run the country, well that's a bit much.

And to play Liberal party do gooder, about welcoming Parrish back into the fold, when at least 34 members of the Party are aligned to the right wing in Canada, with their positions on gay marriage, it is amazing to hear this from Liberal Warren. But then he is a minority and an outsider in the party as well being the last Chretienite on deck.

Coincidentaly his denounciation of Carolyn appeared and the next day the right wing NCC also denounced her.

"NCC Urging Liberals to Keep Parrish Out

"(Toronto July 27, 2005) The National Citizens Coalition says it may run a media campaign urging Prime Minister Paul Martin to keep Carolyn Parrish out of the Liberal caucus.

"'Prime Minister Martin kicked Parrish out of his caucus because her behaviour was intolerably crude and crass,' says NCC vice president Gerry Nicholls. 'Her recent attack on General Rick Hillier indicates that she has not changed. Allowing her back into the governing party would be bad for Canada.'

So was Warren giving aid to the enemy by helping kick off the Anti-Parrish campaign?

Well he has been sucking up to Paul Wells at Macleans, maybe he is hoping to get a column.

Wells is a long time pal of Ken Whyte who was National Post Editor and now Editor of Macleans. Whyte began his journalism career at the right wing Alberta Report.

David Frum is also a former associate of Wells both worked at the National Pest. A paper that does not distinquish between hard news and political propaganda.

But what happens when attitude — traditionally the purview of columnists — starts seeping into straight news copy.The National Post has begun moving columnists to the front page to analyze the hard news stories running alongside their columns, as they did for their October 13, 1999 coverage of the Speech from the Throne. Paul Wells’s view of the proceedings snuggled against Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife’s blow-by-blow account of the details. The danger is bedding opinion with hard news reporting is that it can taint the assumption of objectivity.
Thunderbird Magazine, UBC Journalism Review.

Warren did get published in the National Pest recently and he has been saying nice things about Stephen Harper lately. He gets praise from the right wing bloggers. A Conservative Life blogs:

A respectable Liberal

I've never "mixed it up" with Warran Kinsella. I'm probably too insignificant for him to even notice if I tried. His latest publication in the National Post reveals that he, like the subject of his article, is a man of character. Liberals have done their best to convince Canadians that Stephen Harper is "scary" or even "evil". It is good to know that some Liberals aren't willing to slander someone for the sake of political gain. Some excerpts from Mr. Kinsella's article...Advice for a nice guy

"I am a Liberal, and liberal, but I like Stephen Harper.

The main reason for liking him is personal. When my Dad died, a year ago last week, Mr. Harper called me and my Mom to express condolences. He talked about meeting my Dad once, and he talked at length about his own father, who had passed away not long before."

Warren's blog is full of how nice these guys all are now that is on the outs with the PMO. Mainstream media commentators who of course are all anti-Paul Martin. But once you bed down the enemy of your enemy that leaves you with fleas.

July 20
"The corporate MSM ones tend to be a bit colourless - with the notable exceptions of Wells, Zerb and Gunter, naturally."

Lets see Wells a centre right liberal; pal with a former Alberta Report gunsel. Gunter is a former Alberta Report gunsel, Whyte and Gunter are both journalists schooled in the Byfield school of right wing blather. Zerb is a liberal. Two rights and a liberal.

Maybe all that punk music Warren listens to has finally adled his senses. I would suspect that his days in the Liberals under his arch nemesis Paul Martin are numbered and he is sucking up to the right for a job.

Then he can join the NCC and the likes of Ezra Levant and David Frum in denouncing Parrish. And like Frum he can finally call her an anti-semite, which is the real subtext of his accusation that she is Anti-Israel.

Of course she is nothing of the kind, but Warren equates reactionary Zionist leadership in Israel with the people of Israel, and any criticism of Israel is verboten by the pro-Israel lobby in Canada. Boy he actually is begining to sound like Stockwell Day...scary....Warren...scary. To think some people actually think Warren is a progressive. That's even scarier.

It's A Family Thing

I recently wrote here about Link Byfield's outrageous historical revisionism

Well not to be out done by hubby, his wife Joanne Byfield is no stranger to the over the top rhetoric of the right wing. Joanne is active in the anti-choice movement and Real Women. No mere foot soldier, she is in fact a leader in the anti-choice, anti-feminist, anti gay movement on the Right in Canada.

See my article Right To Life = Right To Work

Like the whole clan, Father and Mother in Law, Ted and Virgina Byfield, and brother in law Michael Byfield, whose personal publishing empire was the Alberta Report, they are prone to hysterical rhetoric and over generalizations. Their comments border on what some would call hate speech at worst , and racist, mysoginist and homophobic at best.

In Alberta such speech is 'protected' by the right wing who loudly denounce anyone who challenges them as being opponents of 'Free Speech'. It is promoted in the Sun and Hollinger newspapers, usually disguised as comment columns. Lorne Gunter who used to work at Albewrta Report has a regular column in the Edmonton Journal. Ted and Link have columns in the Edmonton and Calgary Sun. These right wing whiners, still have a forum for their hateful speech.

Here is one of Joannes stupid hateful comments from the now defunct Alberta Report Magazine.

"Public opinion is far less influential in shaping public policy than special interest groups, especially groups favoured and funded by the federal government. These are many and diverse: feminists, homosexuals, criminals, environmentalists, multiculturalists and minority-language groups."
Joanne Byfield, March 2003

Deconstructing Joanne:
By criminals she means that the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies get federal funding, but criminals sounds so much better doesn't it. Multiculturalists does not mean Germans or Ukrainians (Ukraiaians were the major group who pused the Trudeau Liberals to fund multiculturalism back in the early seventies). It means coloured folks of East Indian, East Asian origin.
Minority Language groups means of course those folks who speak French, one of the two founding nations in Canada.

Lump them altogether with each other throw in the term criminal and this sounds well horrorfying, eh. Except once you do lump all these groups together the only 'public' Joanne can be refering to is WASPS, and the occasional Catholic, who are not a majority in Canada anymore, which is what really gets her and the rest of the Byfield clan's goat.

And by the by the Alberta Report was taken to the Alberta Human Rights Commisision over anti-semitic statements made in an article by Michael Link her brother in law. They ruled that the Alberta Report and the article were in violation of the Provincial and Federal Human Rights act. Surpirze, Surprize.

This raises the old debate of nature or nurture. Is right wing idiocy the Byfield clan collectively suffers from genetic or environmental. Hmm? Or perhaps it's just a case of birds of a feather flock together.

The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
Commission Panel Decisions 2002

Finding
The Panel finds that beyond the words of the Article, the message contains a very powerful image or caricature that amounts to a negative stereotype of Jewish people, more specifically of Jewish businessmen. Simply put, the Article is a report of a failed business deal. However, the message contained in it goes far beyond the purpose.

This Panel finds that the Article published or caused to be published by the respondents, The Alberta Report, Michael Byfield and Link Byfield is in contravention of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The caricature contained in the Article indicates discrimination against Jewish people.

The Panel has carefully balanced the interests of freedom from discrimination and that of the freedom of expression in its consideration of Section 2. The Panel concludes that the Act, and in particular Section 2(1), is directed towards achieving such pressing and sufficiently important objectives that it warrants limiting freedom of expression in this case.

In this case, the limitation on expression required involves not including the last quotation in this report on the failed business deal. The Panel is satisfied that this is such a minimal interference with the freedom of expression that it is justified in these circumstances. The only thing the anonymous quote adds to the Article is the discriminatory message. The removal of the quote in no way detracts from the business purpose.

IN THE MATTER OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURALISM ACT
R.S.A. 1980, C. H-11.7 (AS AMENDED)

AND IN THE MATTER of a Complaint before
The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission
Complaint No. S9805008

BETWEEN:
HARVEY KANE and
THE JEWISH DEFENCE LEAGUE OF CANADA
COMPLAINANT

AND

ALBERTA REPORT, LINK BYFIELD
MICHAEL BYFIELD and TED BYFIELD
RESPONDENT

This is Class War

The Only Labour Relations between Workers and Bosses is Class War!

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

It is time for the Labour Movement in Canada to grow a backbone and JUST SAY NO! to working with or obeying Labour Relations Boards and their rulings.

In Alberta we have recently had rulings against unions, including a ruling on Finning which found that when it outsources its work to the rat union CLAC plant that this did not violate Labour Relations law. The fact that Jim Dinning who hopes to replace Ralph as Premier of Alberta is on the Finning Board probably influenced this decision against the IAMAW whose members are having their jobs contracted out.

A disputes inquiry is being held into the Lakeside Packers strike, effectively ending the strike for 60 days, but with no guarantee of binding arbitration. After the union requested binding arbitration and the Minister of Labour never responded.

For a dozen years, Ralph says his government won't pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Then, late Tuesday, the Klein Tories pick a winner and a loser.

They use the heavy hammer of Big Government and call off a legal strike at Lakeside Packers in Brooks, a walkout slated to commence early yesterday morning.

Winner. Lakeside Packers, a slaughterhouse owned by the world's biggest meat merchant, Tyson Foods of the U.S. of A.

Losers. The employees at Lakeside Packers.

Tyson is happy. Their plant is operating. Reports surface of supervisors telling employees the union is powerless.

Doug is left to calm down his members, more than half are new Canadians and most are from Sudan, fleeing from a full-scale human slaughter by a dictatorship bent on genocide.

They don't understand what is happening. Why is the government in this democratic land not protecting them? They are also angry with the union for not fighting, not realizing the union has no choice with the province playing favourites.

Doug advises them to obey the law and go to work. The union asks Cardinal to address the rank and file. He passes.

Then O'Halloran speaks words no one with any sense of fair play wants to hear.

"I think they screwed us," he says, of the province.

Ralph Screws Workers Calgary Sun Cries Foul

"Where is the government all this time?" Ringe Lual, a trimmer of the plant, said of the lengthy negotiations that led to Wednesday's strike deadline. "Why they step in at [the] last minute? Where are they all this time?"

What a Friend Tysons has in Ralph

Mason urges arbitration to resolve Lakeside dispute
Says appointment of a Disputes Inquiry Board favours Tyson over workers
NDP Opposition Leader Brian Mason today sent a letter to Human Resources and Employment Minister Mike Cardinal condemning the government’s deliberate use of labour legislation to favour Tyson Foods over unionized workers at its Lakeside plant near Brooks.

Government 'dirty tricks' in Lakeside dispute? Would 'impartial umpire' choose sides? Asks AFL

While unions have representatives on the LRB so do the bosses and the government picks who it wants as chair.

In this case the chair is a management lawyer representing the anti-union Construction Industry Merit Shops who have sweetheart contracts with CLAC. He was appointed by the Klein Government after they fired the pro-labour Chair when they didn't like one of his rulings in favour of the union.

There is no fair or level playing field for workers in Alberta labour relations. The game is rigged in favour of the bosses.

The Faces of Labour Relations in AlbertaAUPE President Dan MacLennan and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein chat during the premier’s Klondike Day’s breakfast July 26 on the Legislature grounds in Edmonton. The annual event was attended by thousands of AUPE members. ( they are golf pals too. ep)

And now we have Telus getting support from the Canadian Industrial Labour Relations Board and the Supreme Court of B.C. If this isn't enough to ring the clarion bell of class war I don't know what will.

Telus wins injunction against striking workers
Phone company Telus has won an injunction barring striking union members from blocking access to company premises in British Columbia.
The B.C. Supreme Court granted the injunction Friday, a day after the Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU) went on strike."This is a very broad and positive ruling that gives Telus the ability we need to ensure our team members can safely come to work and serve our customers," Audrey Ho, the company's vice-president of legal services, said in a statement Saturday. The decision also bars the TWU from picketing at or near customers' premises, the company said.

New contract implemented by Telus
Labour board doesn't stop unilateral move
A major work stoppage at Telus Corp. entered its second day yesterday as the company went ahead and unilaterally implemented a contract offer that its main union has spurned.
Vancouver-based Telus essentially got the green light to proceed on Thursday evening. That's when the Canada Industrial Relations Board issued a key decision that didn't order the removal of lockout measures introduced in April. This has allowed Telus to continue with plans announced last week to implement the contract yesterday. “It's an endorsement of what we've been going through,” Telus vice-president of corporate affairs Drew McArthur said yesterday. “The CIRB has found that we're well within our rights to take the approach that we have.”

Unions in Canada believe the contract is sacred, they actually believe in contract law. And they abide by it. While the employers know contracts are made to be broken, and will find away around the contract anyway they can.

A hostile legal and regulatory climate explains much of the disjuncture between provincial macroeconomic success, and the ho-hum economic condition of Alberta' workforce. Rules regarding union organising, certification, strikes, and picketing are the toughest in Canada. This is at least as important as the much-vaunted "free enterprise" culture of the province in explaining the low level of unionisation. Alberta's low provincial minimum wage also helps keep wages from getting out of hand.

In this context, economic progress for working people will not descend upon their hands like manna from the free-market heavens. Workers will get what they demand and what they fight for. All of which brings us to the Herald strike.

It's no accident that this bitter strike is occurring in Alberta. The issues being confronted by the strikers will rear their heads across the country, as the Southam chain is restructured and reoriented. Indeed, if the strikers lose, the employees of newspapers elsewhere in Canada can expect to face demands for the elimination of seniority protection and other concessions. Calgary is a great place for Southam's management to test-drive its new policies.

In this sense, then, Alberta's anti-union institutions clearly promote the sorts of bitter conflicts that they are purportedly designed to prevent. A tilted playing field does not stop workers from fighting for their rights; it only makes those struggles more difficult and violent than they need to be. The determination of the Herald strikers is simply more evidence of that historical finding.

The Alberta Disadvantage By Jim Stanford, Parkland Post Winter 2000

But playing on the reformist ideals of the trade union movement, that it is a partner in capitalism, the state and the bosses created Labour Relations Boards and the Labour Relations Industry. A whole new profession for left leaning progressive lawyers and members of the NDP.

It is the Management’s Rights clause, the recognition that Capital dominates the workplace and is the owner of the means of production that solidified the AFL/CIO industrial unions, as the handmaidens of capitalist production in the post war era. Workers Power was now not a revolutionary power to overthrow the capitalist system, but a form of fixed capital to be bargained with for the crumbs of an expanding capitalist system.

The strength of the IWW was its refusal to give up the right to wobble the job, no contract was signed that ever gave up the right to walk off the job over grievances. This development of the Management’s rights clause is key to the development of a whole legal, labour industry of paid reps, service or insurance model unions, labour and employer lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, all the functionaries of the state. The growth of the labour law industry and labour relations boards, etc necessitates the unions and management being part of the capitalist state. On the shop floor the post WWIi unions bargained away their members rights for a guaranty of increasing wages and benefits, while at the same time the unions recognized the State as arbitrator of the social contract, one which created a tripartite relationship between the state, capital and labour. This social contract was the realization of the dreams of the second international, social peace replaced class war.

Unions, the State and Capital
Unpublished Paper by Eugene Plawiuk, 2003

By giving up the right to take direct action on the job, that is to 'wobble' the job over grievances, leads unions into the morass of labour relations games.

The idea of eliminating the management rights clause in collective agreements was raised not by radical syndicalists, but by the outgoing chair of the Industrial Relations Society in the UK in the 1990's.

A learned judge he saw management's rights as the clause which not only limits union’s abilities to represent their members but restricts union members from getting immediate satisfaction over their grievances. There is no level playing field for workers with collective agreements that allow for management rights and for a grievance arbitration procedure.

There is no justice in the courts or the labour relations tribunals. They are there to enforce LAW AND ORDER. To make sure production is not disrupted by strikes. Even short two hour strikes that would resolve an immediate grievance on the shop floor.

They exist to limit, restrict and make illegal direct action by workers. And to have our unions sit on these boards, and play tripartite footsie with the bosses is what drives workers mad, as in angry. Cause we always lose.

Alberta Workers Angry at Government and Union

The process of grievance arbitration is long and drawn out, and can take years to resolve. And if it is a case of being unjustly fired from a job, the cash you get will be far less than the non-union worker who can take the issue to court under common law as constructive dismissal and get a settlement for more money faster.

Business Unions act on behalf of the company, not on behalf of their members. They promise to make their workers tow the line; they act as agents of Law and Order on the shop floor. What’s good for GM is good for CAW.

It is only when workers strike and run their own strike committees, can workers take power over their lives and away from the union hacks.

Canfor workers back on the job in Prince George after wildcat strike

A case in point is the Lakeside Packers strike, the workers were ready to strike, but were stopped not by a government order but by the capitulation of their well paid UFCW union boss Doug O'Hallaron. Cause he didn't want to go to jail.

Doug is a deal maker, he wants a contract, he wants a deal, he's looking after his and UFCW's best interests. Yep but both he and UFCW don't care about their members interests. Because whatever happens they have a pool of dues paying members who fatten their bank accounts.

To what end? Well to buy a million dollar house as a retirement gift to their outgoing International President as they did in the 1990's.

You'd think with all their money and lawyers, UFCW and O'Halloran would have the guts to challenge an unfair anti-worker ruling on behalf of the folks who pay his lucrative salary. Nope, not a chance.

You would think that the labour movement, that so called house of labour would organize their members to join mass pickets during strikes. Instead they make a toke show on the picket line.

Telus picket line gets a boost

'Good turnout' includes support from B.C. and local unions

To really shut down Telus, right now would take thousands of workers marching the picket line in solidarity with TWU workers.

And is this likely to happen? Nope. Most unions are lucky to mobilize two or three well paid reps to attend the picket line. And they always have excuses. After all its summer time and the union reps are off on paid vacation leave.

UFCW INC. BUSINESS UNIONISM AS USUAL

The other excuse is that the strike is strictly the union’s affair. This is the biggest crock of BS ever. The strike is the weapon of the class; it is the fundamental tool of class war. Even the bosses know this. For a strike can be the match that lights the prairie fire of the General Strike. When a union wins a strike it is a victory for all working people when they lose it is a defeat for all working people. As Jim Stanford points out in the quote above, the Herald strike which was lost, was not just a loss for workers at the Calgary Herald, but for newspaper workers across the country.

A case in point is when UFCW struck Safeway’s in the early part of the 1990's they accepted a roll back in wages in particular for first time employees . UFCW is no small union, they are one of the largest private sector unions in Alberta and their acceptance of a roll back contract impacted the whole labour movement in the province.

Loblaws, a Canadian grocery and retail chain, opened Real Canadian Super Stores (RCSS) in Canada several years ago. RCSS combines food and discount retail under one roof, paying wages that are typical of the discount retail industry, as do Supercenters in the United States. RCSS entered the market in Alberta in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Safeway has been the primary unionized supermarket in Alberta for years, and Safeway wages in Alberta were considerably higher than RCSS. By the early 1990s, competition with the lower labor-cost RCSS began to have a dramatically negative impact on Safeway profits.

Safeway executives estimated that the wage gap between their employees and RCSS workers was between $8.00 and $12.00 per hour in Canadian dollars.10 In 1993, Safeway concluded it could no longer compete without drastically cutting pay and benefits. Management presented employees with two choices – either Safeway would cut its losses and leave the Alberta market, or cut pay and benefits by the equivalent of $5.00 per hour (Canadian). Eventually, the unionized employees agreed to the pay and benefit cuts. Safeway implemented the pay cuts both by reducing pay and benefits and by buying out the contracts of 4,000 experienced employees and replacing those workers with persons earning approximately $6.00 per hour with no benefits.11 In 1997, Safeway employees went on strike in an effort to restore wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement. The strike ended without the union regaining the wage and benefit concessions that were part of the 1993 agreement.

The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances
Examples Of The Labor Market Impact Of Wage Differentials – Cases From Canada

This allowed the Klein government to use this as an excuse to bring in wage roll backs for public sector workers. Klein cleverly pitted private sector workers against public sector workers, saying that what was happening at Safeways should apply across the province. He also had the NDP government in Ontario to use as an example of another provincial government trying to get public sector unions to accept roll backs.

Another case is when UFCW led their worker’s out on strike at Gainers, instead of occupying the plant, and demanding the plant be put under workers and farmer control. Since it was originally owned by the Alberta government. But it had been sold off to Burns, owned by Tory bagman Arthur E. Childes, at a fire sale price. Burns then sold it to Maple Leaf foods. Even the leadership of the Alberta Federation of Labour at the time called for the workers to occupy the plant. But that was never the plan anyways, because UFCW and Maple Leaf had other plans. UFCW came to a sweetheart arrangement with Maple Leaf to sacrifice Gainers in Edmonton and another Plant in Burlington if Maple Leaf Foods would open a new plant and hire its members in Brandon Manitoba.

All this was done under the leadership of Doug O'Halloran who speaks not in the interests of the workers but in the interests of UFCW Inc. And he cries crocodile tears when the government halts the Lakeside Packers strike. A strike he really didn't want anyways. You see for O'Halloran and UFCW the strike is the threat they use to get a collective agreement. It's all about the collective agreement and the Rand formula, it's never about what’s best for workers that is only incidental. Once UFCW gets a contract it gets dues. No matter how bad or good the contract is for the workers involved it is always good for UFCW Inc.

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF LABOUR

If the local labour councils and the Federations of Labour as well as the CLC is the so called house of labour, then it is a dilapidated slum. The leadership is terrified of losing their jobs. They suffer bureaucratic senility. They will always prefer the backroom deal with the bosses or the government to the idea that this is class war and that the purpose of unions is to overthrow capitalism. They oppose plant occupations because well they are illegal; they oppose the wildcat strike because it's illegal too. But isn't that why we have high priced labour lawyers, to get the leadership out of jail. Nope that can't be the real reason either. The reason is that these actions are taken by the rank and file 'out of the control' of the paid reps and leadership. And if such ideas spread, it might lead to, horror of horrors, a General Strike.

Even the most militant leader or leadership in the labour movement accepts their role in upholding Law, Order and Good Government. And once they do, it will always be the workers who get screwed.

The reason is simple workers who do take strike action realize they have given up all to win the fight. Including the fight over the day to day grievances that have usually piled up until the strike. Not so their leadership who see it as just another moment in collective bargaining. This is why workers on the line are always more militant than their union leadership.

Professional union reps and paid hacks are not capable of challenging the bosses or their government cause well they are paid not to. They can't organize the workers who pay their salaries; because they are out of touch with the rank and file. Or worse yet they are opposed to rank and file control because it threatens their job security.

They promote local union executives to political positions in their unions, offering them careers and lucrative jobs as reps, as long as they tow the line. They often take the best and brightest, activists who really care about workers interests and put them into the union machinery to become another cog in the wheel.

If workers organize themselves, the first to attempt to squash them aren't the politicians, or cops, or lawyers, it’s their own union leadership, fearful for their 'jobs'.

IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK OUR UNIONS

The only way this can change is if members of a union mobilize to take back their unions for themselves. To eliminate paid full time representatives who earn $100,000 salaries off the backs of part time workers who get $8.50 an hour.

Replace these reps and union business agents with elected rank and file reps who serve two year terms and are up for staggered election, with their pay and benefits being no more than the highest paid worker on the job.

Rank and File strike committees shall be directly elected by the members. These delegate committees during strikes are the only ones allowed to negotiate with the bosses, not the paid reps or union executive and leadership.

Union locals will have democratically elected executives and committees of members, and any regional, national, or international reps will answer to the local membership.

All union locals must be politically and economically autonomous from their national union.

Locals will not give up the right to strike in collective agreements, and in fact will further enforce this basic right with a further clause that states that members of the local will not cross other workers picket lines.

Unions will not participate in Labour Relations Boards, arbitration or Industrial Relations. Any action taken by the state whether it is an injunction, or attempts at arrest will be met with mass action not only by the union affected but by all unions in the region.

Fines against the union will NOT be paid to the state. If such fines occur it will abrogate the Rand Formula and the union will implement a direct dues collection off the shop floor.

Union locals will be autonomous and form not for profit societies to hold their funds in escrow in order to protect their autonomy.

Union locals will affiliate with whom they please in the labour movement. If their International or National organization fails to adapt to direct member democracy the local has the right to federate with whom it pleases according to a democratic vote of the members.

Union locals will form flying picket squads of all members, to make sure that all strikes or lock outs are kept short and effective. Based on the principle of An Injury to One is and Injury to All, and The Longer the Picket Line, the Shorter the Strike.

All grievances will be solved as quickly as possible on the shop floor, or in the institution where they occur by a meeting of the union steward and management. Should management not resolve the issue, workers have the right to walk off the job until there is a resolution to their satisfaction.

The union has the right to use any and all tactics to solve their grievances, these include the sit down strike, rotating strike, wildcat strike, and plant occupation the use of the standard strike tactic will be reserved as a weapon of last resort. If it is applied the union will mobilize for sympathy strikes, hot cargoing and building a call for a general strike.

These are just a few suggestions on how we can take back our unions from the labour hacks and well heeled, well paid bureaucrats. Who see the labour movement not as a class struggle but as their career opportunity, economically and politically.

A career they make off our backs.

The Revolving door at the National Pest

Les Pyette leaves the National Post after eight months at the helm

By GORDON PITTS

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Globe and Mail

The constantly swinging door out of the publisher's office at the National Post newspaper was in motion again yesterday, with the sudden departure of Les Pyette for what the paper described as “personal reasons.”

With Mr. Pyette's exit after just eight months as publisher, Gordon Fisher immediately becomes the Post's interim publisher, marking the eighth installation of a new top executive in the newspaper's 6½ year history.

Mr. Fisher, who has served in a number of executive capacities for the paper's owner, CanWest Global Communications Corp. of Winnipeg, is actually the seventh person in the job because this is his second time around in that position.

CanWest said in a statement that a search will be conducted for a successor to Mr. Pyette.

Ah the National Pest a money losing operation from day one. The only reason it was created was to give voice to the Right Wing in Canada. Remember them, the ones who dominate most of the columns in the private sector newspaper chains, folks who got their start in the infamous Byfield family business; The Alberta Report.

Today Lord Black's flagship of the right, is now David Asper.s flagship of the right of centre. And it is still flagging. Alberta Report collapsed in 2003, it is only a matter of time for the Pest to go the same way.

Black is facing criminal charges in the US and Canada for looting his companies for him and his wife Barbara Amiel ( a former right wing columnist for MacLeans and the Sun newspaper chain) to live like the aristocrats they always wanted to be.

The National Pest is the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada, formerly the Alliance, and Reform Parties. Like the Alberta Report whose ties were also with the Reform/Alliance parties, and with the Canadian Taxpayers Association. These media voices of the right, seem to suffer a problem, that they cannot make a go of it in the capitalist system. Alberta Report gave away more subscriptions than it ever sold, in order to cook the books for advertisers.

Lord Black dominated his editorial boards, introduced right wing columnists into the editorial mix some like Loren Gunter at the Edmonton Journal were former AR reporters. He launched the National Pest as much as a voice for the Fraser Institute, where his wife is a director, as he did it for the Reform/Allicance. But he could'nt make a financial go of it without gutting local newspapers in his Hollinger Chain.

But he set the agenda that Izzy Asper followed when he bought out Black, one of editorial interference by the publisher. To that end Lord Black got his way, but we may get the last laugh as his empire crumbles, he goes to jail, and the National Pest with its tired old right wing ideas finally sinks into the financial morass it came from.

" POINT OF VIEW
BY GILLIAN STEWARD
Revisioning Conrad
The once-mighty newspaper baron craved attention.
Now he's receiving it — but for all the wrong reasons
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS FALL 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4
As well, reporters were often instructed to write for the earlier Post deadlines so it could break the story. Thus, once-proud, and independent, local newspapers became little more than outlying bureaus for the National Post. This mattered little in downtown Toronto,
which was always the main battleground of this brief, but dirty, war. But what did it really
accomplish in the end? Are Canadian newspapers and (journalism in general) better off because of it? Or have they all been weakened by Black's self-indulgent spending spree? Will they be cutting back on budgets for years to come in order to recover from the binge? And what about the rest of the newspapers in the Southam/Hollinger/CanWest chain? Profits from newspapers such as the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald were poured into the Post instead of into their own operations.

And what about the Post itself? It may have been a dream newspaper for some journalists but
it has never attracted enough readers or, more importantly, advertisers, to make it financially
viable.And while there is obviously a segment of the population that likes the hard-right editorials, columns and story angles that are the Post's trademark, is that segment large enough to keep the paper going?

In fact, Black has made a mockery of much of what the Post did in its early days. It appeared to
be the official organ of the "unite-the-right movement" but Black told Cobb that he was never
that keen on using the newspaper to promote a new political party.He also regretted that the Post came to be perceived as pro-American and anti- Canadian. Trouble is, now that we know more about Black's alleged devious, self-serving ways, it's difficult to believe anything he says.

Clark Davey, former publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, and a fan of the Post in its early days,
thinks it is positioning itself outside the mainstream market. "It's right-wing edge has
gotten even harder," he says. "It's just full of outright support for (George) Bush and the
Republicans." Indeed, the Saturday after the Republicans' national convention in New York, the Post's main editorial page featured a hymn of praise to George Bush by columnist Andrew Coyne; Elizabeth Nickson's breathless paean to Fox News' coverage of the convention, especially when compared to the (sneering) CBC coverage; and a rant against all anti-Americans by Robert Fulford.

The rest of the newspaper doesn't offer much to leaven the hard-edged ideological rigidity. "It used to be an odd mix of the serious and the quirky," says Davey. "They used to actively recruit young, out-of-the-box writers, but I don't see that happening now." And with so many of the Post's stars — Christie Blatchford and Roy MacGregor to name but two — now writing for The Globe, The Star orMaclean's, the newspaper just doesn't have the draw it once had.

I can't help but think of Alberta Report, the notorious newsmagazine that tilted far right and
eventually went under. Like Conrad Black, Ted Byfield, the founder and hands-on editor of
Alberta Report, is a legendary, iconic figure. He didn't have the money Black has (or had), but he
stuck with the publication through years of tough sledding. And yet,Alberta Report could never rally enough subscribers and advertisers to make a go of it. Even in Alberta.


Since Black is so tied to the Post, even though he has nothing to do with it anymore, his legacy
may indeed be darker than originally envisioned. Will it ever be known as anything else but
Conrad's vanity project? Will it ever be able to shake the association with Black? Clark Davey says it probably doesn't much matter to the average newspaper reader. But a friend of mine — a news junkie, but not a journalist — says most people she knows still think Black owns the National Post. To them, it's Black's newspaper.

I can't help but think that in the long run we will look back on the great newspaper war as a
skirmish that did great damage to newspapers and journalism in Canada. Whether or not the
Post survives is the least of our worries.Whether Black's successors, the Asper family, can
reinvigorate the newspapers they bought from him also remains to be seen.But there's no question that Black's duplicitous ways will haunt the newspaper industry for some time to come.

Lies of Our Times

Ezra LeRant and the Big Lie

Colour of conflict-Rule of law separates Israel from Palestinians-By Ezra Levant -- Calgary Sun, Mon, July 18, 2005

How did I miss this hmm, must have been overwhelmed with the historical revisionism being spouted off in the Calgary Sun by that other right wing columnist; Dink Byfield.

And low and behold here is another case of historical revisionism, the big lie of Zionism being blathered about by LeRant. It's the lie we all grew up with after the 1948 annexation and occupation of Palestine. That the Arab section was a desert and the Zionists brought agriculture, irrigation and productivity to the land.

What they did was actually take over olive groves and orange groves that has been the source of Palistines wealth for hundreds of years. Agriculture in Palestine 1948

Learning their lessons from Goebbels the Zionists created the 'big lie' to justify their 'Anschluss' of Palestine from the British protectorate because they needed 'Lebensraum'. And this 'big lie' is repeated again in LeRant's cloumn.

'Most of Israel is a desert. But half of Israel is lush green. It wasn't always this way. When Zionists a century ago set about building modern Israel, they had to build irrigation projects. Millions of trees were planted. Now Israel is a large agricultural exporter; in the words of its former prime minister, David Ben Gurion, the desert was made to bloom. But the land is only green in the Jewish areas of the country; Arab villages, especially those areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, are brown and dead. It is possible to spot the border between Israel and Lebanon or Syria by looking to see where the green ends and the brown begins. It's the reason why the pre-1967 border between Israel and Jordan was known as the Green Line. Why is this? Many explanations, no doubt -- the Zionist ideology was rooted in the land. The Jews invested in developing irrigation and other agricultural technology. But the real reason is the same reason why Israel is a success and Arab nations -- and the would-be nation of Arab Palestine -- are failures. '

Gee, LeRant what could that be?

"The Arab world doesn't have rule of law, while the Jewish state does.".

Gee Ezra would that be Talamudic law? Since Isreal is a religious state. And gee Ezra thats a broad brush stroke to paint all Arabs with, including peoples of the Middle East who are not Jews but are also not Arabs.

Some are Muslims so they adhere to Muslim Shira law. Some are Christians and they abide by the Old and New Testament laws, some rooted in Judaism. Some are communists, and they follow the Labour Theory of Value, a law of economics. Some have gone to Oxford and Harvard and follow common law of English origin. Some follow Napoleanic Law. Some are Druze and have their own community laws they have followed for centuries.

Nope not to racist zionist Ezra, the "Arabs" are all primitive lawless peoples, despite many of them being of the same semitic root cultures as the Jews.

Some of the Palestinians are not even Arabs, just as Kurds are not Arabs, but with the broad racist brush of the Zionist apologists like LeRant, they all get lumped together.

There is a simple reason, to deny the real history of the Zionist State in Isreal.

That it was founded by Zionist terrorists who so terrified the British and the UN that they succumbed to them, allowing them territory in Palestine.

The Zionist state and its military machine then spent twenty years pushing the Palestinian and Isreali Arab community out. As they are doing today destroying Palestinatian villages, olive groves and orange groves, in order to build their new Berlin Wall, err security wall.

Irrigation was not a Zionist invention, contrary to LeRant, it was adapted by them for use in Palestine. Until then irrigation was based on artisian wells and troughing used by the Palistinians. The introduction of large scale irrigation coincided with the development of capitalist agribusiness, that is large scale farming for export. While the Palestinians were farming on a village basis.

The types of agriculture which take place in Palestine are annual and seasonal agricultures such as grains and vegetables, or lasting agricultures such as fruitful trees. Grain plantation was flourished in Marj ben Amer, Gaza Plain, Bier Sheba and some of the inside plains; and vegetable plantation was flourished in the coastal plain around Java and Ramlah and in the Jordan Valley. The most important kind of fruitful trees is the citrus trees which were planted by modern manner of plantation. At the beginning, only the Arabs planted this kind of trees which increased in the period between 1895 and 1915; the Planted area increased from (6.600) donums to (30.000) donums, and the production increased from (18.199) tons to (64.000) tons. Citrus trees concentrated in the coastal plain between Haifa and Gaza and in the Jordan River. The Java orange is one of the best kinds of the Palestinian orange due to the thickness of its peal, its nice aroma and to its relative freedom from seeds. This kind of orange was being exported to Damascus, East of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, England and France. The exported orange in the years 1913/1914 reached about (1.553.861) boxes. Agriculture in Palestine during the British Mandate

Until the Isreali invasion of 1967 both Palestinian and Isreali agriculture were on par. It was the direct result of the annexation and occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank by the Zionist State that destroyed their economic competitors. The destruction continues today with occupation troops, settlers , and Sharon's Berlin Wall being built through the agricultural lands of the Palestinians.

So congratulations for repeating the 'Big Lie' of Zionism and embellishing it with a racist generaliztion of the non-Zionist people of the middle east. You win the Goebbels award for journalism.

Impacts of Water and Export Market Restrictions on Palestinian Agriculture
Agriculture remains a dominant sector of the Palestinian economy. It represents a major component of the economy’s GDP, and employs a large fraction of the population. Furthermore, the agricultural sector is a major earner of foreign exchange and supplies the basic needs of the majority of the local population. In times of difficulty, the agricultural sector has acted as a buffer that absorbs large scores of unemployed people who lost their jobs in Israel or other local sectors of the economy. Palestinian agriculture is constrained by available land and water, as well as access to markets. These constraints have been the object of political conflict, as Israeli authorities have limited available land, water and markets.

In 1967, Palestinian agricultural production was almost identical to Israel's: tomatoes, cucumbers and melons were roughly half of Israel's crop; plums and grape production were equal to Israel's; and Palestinian production of olives, dates and almonds was higher. At that time, the West Bank exported 80% of the entire vegetable crop it produced, and 45% of total fruit production (Hazboun, S., 1986).

The agricultural sector was hit hard after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thereafter the sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the Palestinian Occupied Territories declined. Between 1968/1970 and 1983/1985 the percentage of agricultural contribution to the overall GDP in the West Bank fell from 37.4-53.5% to 18.5-25.4% (UNCTAD, 1990). The labour force employed in this sector has also declined. Between 1969 and 1985, the agricultural labour force, as a percentage of the total labour force, fell from 46 to 27.4% (Kahan, D., 1987).

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Harper

Stephen Harper defends his cowboy get-up, saying he can't please everyone

To see the funny picture of Harper go to: Harpers Tarnished Image

Sure he defends looking stupid, and as quick as he does his media flacks try instant makeover. They do this photo op and dress him up like a construction worker this weekend on the BBQ circuit in Ontario. But when it came to the walk about Reaction to the conservative leader Saturday appeared muted. Few people recognized him as he walked around the festivities in a blue dress shirt and dark grey slacks.

Opps maybe he should have worn his funny Stampede outfit.

Since we have a shortage of construction workers in Alberta and B.C. whats the subtext to this do ya think?


"Wot me Worry?
If they boot me out as party leader....
.... I can always get work up in Fort McMurray....
.....or maybe as a spokesman for Rona"

And still this hasn't helped the Harper or his party.

This poll has been on Canoe News for the past three days. And it shows what legitimate polls showed over the past two weeks, Harper is the albatross around the neck of the Conservative Party at best. Or a cartoon politcal characture;Wiley E. Harper, at worst.

What can the Tories do to close the popularity gap with the Liberals?

Elect a new leader. 47%
Alter political stances. 19%
Extreme makeover: Harper edition. 9%
Form a new party. 4%
Absolutely nothing. 21%

Total Votes for this Question: 10132

This is a non scientific poll.

I love the 21% who say do nothing, they must be from Calgary.

Like the nice Calgary folks now living in Ontario that want the Klein revolution for the rest of Canada and see the Harper as the Calgarian who can deliver it.

Kathie and Allan Anderson, who lived in Calgary for seven years, are rhyming off the glories of Alberta: charter schools, private liquor stores, private kiosks to dispense driver's licences. Mr. Harper, dressed in a golf shirt and dress slacks, approaches.

"I have to tell this story," Mr. Harper says.

"When I was 17, I worked at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario at Yonge and Eglinton. A woman walked up with a bottle of Baby Duck and asked: 'Sir, is there anything in this price range that tastes a bit better?' 'Yes, Ma'am,' the manager replied. 'Turpentine.'"

The guests laugh. Mr. Harper chuckles and adds: "Customer service."

This anecdote neatly packs in everything the leader of the Opposition wants to get across about himself while zipping around southern Ontario in a bright blue Chevy van emblazoned with "Stephen Harper Summer Tour 2005": (a) He's an Ontario boy, born and bred; (b) he's an ordinary guy who worked at the liquor store as a kid; (c) he likes to kick back and tell funny stories; and (d) having moved to Alberta in 1978, he wants to export that province's model, where government is minimal and private enterprise, that prerequisite for good customer service, is king.

'Real' Harper takes it on the road

To know him is to love him, his fans insist

But to other Canadians, those who live outside of Calgary, Mr. Harpers make over as social conservative has missed the boat.

"But among those who did, ( recognize Mr. Harper [ep] ) the response was as polarized as views on same-sex marriage. "He walked right past me and that's just fine,'' said Lori Mallory with a laugh. Another man, who would only identify himself as Daniel, shook his head and glared at Harper as the politician passed. He called Harper's same-sex marriage stance "offensive and divisive.His stance on the whole same-sex thing is problematic and not representative of a truly democratic society where you support all minorities,'' he said.

Harper is talking himself out of electoral success says Ottawa Sun columnist.

Ike Awgu Friday July 22, 2005

This man and his party desperately need a wake-up call -- someone needs to remind them that this is the 21st century and legislating like we still use horse-drawn chariots will not endear them to voters. I don't want to be overly critical, but I'm angry only because I care. How many nights however, have you spent awake at night wondering if you'll be able to pay your mortgage? Or your next month's rent? How about tuition for your kids? What on Earth ever happened to the Conservative Party talking about a serious decrease in taxes?

Gee, funny that, I just said the same thing here the other day.

In a book review of William Johnson's new political bio of Harper, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada,William Watson a conservative reviews the book for the right wing Financial Post.

While Johnson tries to make Harper into PET2 in his bio, Watson points out the difference between the Old Harper and the New Harper, is classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Is Harper our next Trudeau? William Watson, Financial Post
Friday, July 22, 2005

Johnson argues the old Stephen Harper still exists. But does he? The old Stephen Harper once voted with just 13% of Reformers who didn't want the party to take a position on the definition of marriage, arguing that such decisions should be personal, not partisan. But now the big plank in his platform seems to be same-sex marriage. (As explained by Johnson, Harper's current position is more subtle than he's usually given credit for: Although the courts knocked down a definition of marriage that had in fact been judge-created, they might show greater deference to a definition Parliament had provided.) The old Stephen Harper opposed business subsidies and wanted all provinces treated equally. But in our Gomery spring, as the Liberals pandered shamelessly, there seemed no pander the Harper conservatives wouldn't cover. They condemned the practice of bribing citizens with their own money but committed to carrying through on all the Liberal promises."

Oh and speaking of bribery how's this for justifying the unjustifiable?

Harper says bribery OK, Anne Dawson - Windsor Star - June 21, 2005
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continued on Monday to defend the actions of his MP Gurmant Grewal in the tape scandal, saying it is OK if someone attempts bribery but it is wrong for someone to take a bribe.

Not very Trudeau like, he would have just flipped them the bird and told them Fuddle Duddle.

Instead Harper construes that offering a bribe is less of an offense than accepting it. Hmmm that's NOT what the Criminal Code says:


119. (1) Every one who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly

(i) accepts or obtains,

(ii) agrees to accept, or

(iii) attempts to obtain,

any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or

(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Consent of Attorney General


(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 108.


Another Harper foot in mouth opps. While it may be common practice or accepted political practice in Grewal's former country of residence; Liberia, in Canada bribery is still against the law. And Harper, being Mr. Law and Order, should not have countenanced this no matter what. But that's the difference between the old Harper, Dr. Jekyl, and the new Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper who defends breaking the law by his rogue MP then turns around and attacks Canadians of unnamed 'ethnic backgrounds' as terrorists. He does this in the U.S. to announce that he wants to create a joint Homealnd Security program with the Americans. A FireWall North America like he once proposed for Alberta.

The Grewal affair occured in an ethnic community, and while it's a criminal affair of bribery, well thats excusable to Mr.Harper and he doesn't say that all Indo Canadians are criminals because of the Grewal affair.

But in the U.S. away from home he announces that some generic 'ethnic' community is full of terrorists and thats bad.

In Canada our experince of terrorist actions recently has been around Air India bombings, And this occured because of political conflicts in India that imapacted on a specific ethnic community in Vancouver, the same one that is now embroiled in the Grewal affair.

So what the hell is Harper really saying? That he wants security checks and ethnic profiling of Indo Canadians? No of course not, in his own inimical racist way he was refering to Muslim Canadians, aw shucks lets be clear he means anyone who isn't white. The term 'ethnic copmmunities' is right wing talk for communities of poeple of colour. Or as the right has always called them, coloured people.

Except he forgets that their are white muslims, and when he says 'ethnic communities' I don't think he is refering to Boznians.

Harper wants to be PM. William Johnson thinks he is the second coming of P. E. Trudeau, I think not.

Even his biographer admits Mr. Harper, is well a bit of a cold fish.

"Canadians," writes Montreal journalist William Johnson in in an otherwise flattering biography released this month, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, "sense in him the absence of a common touch, of humanity, and for that reason they have not warmed to him or developed trust, despite all his impressive qualities. He is someone you can admire without really liking."

Yeah if you are a conservative from Calgary. The once policy wonk Harper is a fish out of water, when it comes to populist politics he has become the hardliner Mr. Harper.

Poor Mr. Harper like Mr. Hyde is currently the bull in the china shop of Canadian politics and no makeover will help him out of this dellima. Mr. Harper suffers from being a born again social conservative,with a proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth a meglomaniac need to control the party, and poor photo ops.

Let US Prey

Pray: Canada's social conservatives are anxious to have their voices heard where it really counts in a democracy A Vancouver Sun Exclusive, July 23, 2005

Actually they should have spelled it 'Prey'.

And they aren't Canadian they are an American Religious Corporation.

Vancouver Sun -- The gay marriage debate is helping Canada's social conservative movement expand its reach and influence, although the so-called "sleeping giant" of Canadian politics has internal conflicts and is still at the toddler stage compared to the powerful U.S. religious right movement.

Good let's put them in public day care where they belong and teach them about the important values of pluralistic civil society that allows them their religious rights. A society that they hate and are attempting to return to a Medieval theocracy,or a mythical Puritan American society.

Welcome to the national headquarters of Focus on the Family Canada, an affiliate of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, perhaps the most powerful social conservative group in the U.S. The office of Focus Canada is far more modest than the American headquarters presided over by Dr. James Dobson, who since he began his folksy flagship radio show in 1977 has built a $150-million-a-year family values empire so influential that he has been called the religious right's new kingmaker and the pope of evangelical America.

That's because in the U.S. anyone can form a 'church" or religious organisation under their income tax act. Its the greatest single source of shysters and rip off artists pretending to be charities, when they are political lobbies. Remember the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker scandal, and all the other evangelical scandals of the late eighties.

Not that Focus Canada officials here mind: While the group is increasingly active in Canadian public policy debate -- it helped head the campaign against same-sex marriage legislation and is setting up an Ottawa-based family values policy think -ank -- Focus Canada prefers a low profile.

Low profile indeed, they are a secretive underground organization that threatens Canadian values. Sounds suspicous to me, wonder if CSIS is looking into them yet?

Focus Canada is wary of being depicted as the branch plant of a powerful American Christian right-wing group out to shape Canadian public policy. "We get a little discouraged when we see Focus Canada being portrayed as if Americans are attempting to bring their agenda into Canada," said Anna Marie White, the group's family policy director. "There is no agenda here. We have a group of very well-meaning Canadians here who have been working for over 20 years to bring good resources to Canadian parents and families."

That's because they are a branch plant of the extreme right in the U.S. (including people who kill doctors who perform abortions and condone gay bashing) and yes they have an agenda and it is to change Canadian pulbic policy.

Boy what hypocrites, let's see we are forming a public policy institute but we don't want to influence public policy. Do they think we are stupid or just American.

After all they are from the US home of right wing media that never challenge the right or its assumptions and PR.

And they are of course the kind of people that Monte Solberg, Conservative MP loves and defends. Being the 'America Good'/ 'Canada Bad' kinda guy he is.

Oh yes and the money to do all this political lobbying comes from where? From being a church that collects funds for charitable purposes. Much of this money is coming from their U.S. HQ of course. Supplemented by 'prayer offerings' from Canadian TV watchers. This is another of those TV/Radio evangelical churches that has no real estate, except that which it buys to sell for a profit.

As I have said before its time to tax the churches when they want to play in the area of politics and public policy. It's an idea whose time has come.

But what about free speech you ask.

This isn't free speech this is speech where money talks, cause its income tax free - speech. It's paid for by you and me cause our government allows them to exist tax free. It means they can dominate the discussion beyond the economic means of those they oppose. Nothing free about it.

Money Talks and this movement of the right walks, all over the rights of those they oppose by dominating the media.

They are of course 'shy' about actually talking to a reporter, cause they don't care about the media perse. They buy their media time to promote the message of their theology of intolerance.