Sunday, May 24, 2020

Race and Mass Incarceration,
in the time of COVID19
 Monday, May 25th 9-10:30pm ET; 6-7:30pm PT


"If you think a cruise ship is a dangerous place to be during a pandemic, consider America's jails and prisons.. .
it has become equally important for all of us to ask what steps are being taken to protect the health of people in jails and prisons, and the staff who work in them." Amanda Klonsky MARCH 16, 2020/NEW YORK TIMES
  

Sponsored by Liberation Road and CCDS Socislist Education Committee

Featuring Amanda Klonsky and Rafael Pizarro, interviewed by Bill Fletcher, Jr.

Rafael Pizarro, Co Chair CCDS. 
Rafael is a long time activist and labor organizer.  Presently he is heavily involved in his community of New Bedford, MA with Bristol County for Correctional Justice (BCCJ) fighting for justice forimmigrant detainees and decarceration during this time of COVID 19.  He and BCCJ Have involved in tremendous and hard work and have had some victories.  





Amanda Klonsky Ed.LD., MSW
Dr. Amanda Klonsky has worked as an educator in jails and prisons for more than 15 years and speaks widely on issues of education and incarceration. Her work focuses on expanding access to education for people who are impacted by mass incarceration. More recently, Amanda has been engaged in the efforts to respond to the crisis of COVID-19 in jails and prisons, contributing editorials and commenting in media venues including The New York Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and PBS News Hour.
Amanda earned a Doctorate in Education Leadership at Harvard University (2018) and her Masters in Social Work from the University of Chicago (2011). Her doctoral thesis traces the stories of young men in Chicago who were detained in the Cook County Jail during the period of emerging adulthood.
Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Bill Fletcher Jr has been an activist since his teen years. Upon graduating from college he went to work as a welder in a shipyard, thereby entering the labor movement. Over the years he has been active in workplace and community struggles as well as electoral campaigns. He has worked for several labor unions in addition to serving as a senior staffperson in the national AFL-CIO.
Fletcher is the former president of TransAfrica Forum; a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies; an editorial board member of BlackCommentator.com; and in the leadership of several other projects. Fletcher is the co-author (with Peter Agard) of "The Indispensable Ally: Black Workers and the Formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1934-1941";the co-author ( with Dr. Fernando Gapasin)  "Solidarity Divided: The crisis in organized labor and a new path toward social justice"; and "'They're Bankrupting Us'-and 20 other myths about unions".  Fletcher is a syndicated columnist and regular media commentator on television, radio, and the Web.



Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 832 4962 9096
One tap mobile
Dial by your location
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbBnvTysTh 




ccds-buttonThe Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism is a national organization, united by a common commitment to struggle for democracy and socialism. CCDS embodies the legacy of the great social movements for peace, freedom, and democracy led by the working class, and racially and nationally oppressed people. CCDS carries forward the courageous traditions of the democratic socialist and left leaders and activists of the USA." CCDS Goals and Principles
The Mobilizer is the newsletter of the CCDS and the above spirit should be reflected in it. It is a great tool for communication within our organization and it is hoped that we can put this out more frequently. We will use this to share reports from the NCC meetings. But we want this to be a two way street and want to hear from you. We encourage you to share what is going on in your area whether it be a mass action or study group, etc. One thing we often hear from members is wanting to know more about what is going on in other areas. Writing up your experiences also a good way to reflect on it and sum it up. 
We encourage a broad sharing of ideas. You are encouraged to also send comments of other articles written. So let us hear from you. Material can be sent to Janet Tucker at jlynjenks@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Anti-viral drug remdesivir effective against coronavirus, study finds

EXPECT GILEAD SHARES TO RISE 

Remdesivir, injected intravenously daily for 10 days, accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a study f
Remdesivir, injected intravenously daily for 10 days, accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a study found
Anti-viral drug remdesivir cuts recovery times in coronavirus patients, according to the full results of a trial published Friday night, three weeks after America's top infectious diseases expert said the study showed the medication has "clear-cut" benefits.
Complete results from the research, which was carried out by US government agency the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), were published by leading medical periodical the New England Journal of Medicine.
The United States authorized the emergency use of remdesivir in hospitals on May 1, followed by Japan, while Europe is considering following suit.
The study found that remdesivir, injected intravenously daily for 10 days, accelerated the recovery of hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to a placebo in clinical tests on just over a thousand patients across 10 countries.
On April 29, NIAID director Anthony Fauci, who has become the US government's trusted face on the coronavirus pandemic, said preliminary evidence indicated remdesivir had a "clear-cut, significant and  in diminishing the time to recovery."
The National Institutes of Health, of which the NIAID is a part, said Friday in a statement online that investigators found "remdesivir was most beneficial for hospitalized patients with severe disease who required ."
But the authors of the trial wrote that the drug did not prevent all deaths.
"Given high mortality despite the use of remdesivir, it is clear that treatment with an anti-viral drug alone is not likely to be sufficient," they said.
About 7.1 percent of patients given  in the trial group died within 14 days—compared with 11.9 percent in the placebo group.
However, the result is just below the statistical reliability threshold, meaning it could be down to chance rather than the capability of the .Follow the latest news on the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak
More information: John H. Beigel et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19—Preliminary Report, New England Journal of Medicine (2020). DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764
Journal information: New England Journal of Medicine © 2020 AFP


Alberta unions urge Kenney government to delay re-opening the economy by one month

Before the government’s announcement Wednesday, public and private-sector union presidents voted to send a letter to the premier and Labour Minister Jason Copping saying that more needs to be done to guarantee the safety of workers and patrons in Alberta workplaces. The AFL is saying the government needs to embrace the Precautionary Principle, which is the foundation of workplace health and safety best practice. The Precautionary Principle stipulates that when lives are on the line, we should err on the side of caution.  Read our news release.
The government’s “guidance for employers on the subject of reopening the economy is weak, vague and often unclear,” said AFL president Gil McGowan. Read news story

Where’s the proof that UCP-approved masks will actually keep Albertans safe?

Health and safety advocates are worried that UCP Labour Minister Jason Copping is potentially putting Albertans at risk by using his emergency powers to unilaterally amend the Occupational Health and Safety Code to allow employers to use masks that have not been properly vetted or approved.
In a letter to Minister Copping on Tuesday,  Alberta Federation of Labour president Gil McGowan expressed grave concerns about Copping’s Ministerial Order, which was quietly released on May 3, 2020 without notice to media or consultation with stakeholders. Read our news release.
And just yesterday, Health Canada has issued a recall of KN95 respirators manufactured by dozens of Chinese companies because they "pose a health and safety risk to end users."  Read news story.

Tell Kenney to STOP firing workers and start helping to save Albertans’ lives

Kenney and the UCP government are planning to continue cutting public schools and services. Use our email tool to tell Kenney to STOP firing workers and start helping to save Albertans’ lives.  If you haven't yet, sign up for our #KenneysCuts campaign to join the fight.

Home

French environmental activist Nicolas Hulot gives a speech in 2015. Image: Fondation Nicolas Hulot pour la Nature et l'Homme/ Flickr
An important body of thought warns us what to expect as the coronavirus pandemic fades from view: After a crisis, a bad situation gets worse. 
The captains of corporate globalization turn the screws on workers, shred remaining environmental protections and play the political system to their advantage.
In a body of work, Philip Mirowski has explained how neoliberalism turns changed circumstances into new opportunities for capital. 
Shoshana Zuboff, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, captures how neoliberalism is getting hyped up to cement class divides and exclude citizens from essential services. 
In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein detailed how capitalists take advantage of crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nicolas Hulot -- the prominent French environmental activist who was appointed minister of ecological and solidary transition by President Emmanuel Macron in 2017, only to resign 15 months later -- adopts a different approach. He wants good to follow bad. 
On a bilingual website, Hulot presents 100 principles the world should adopt now to reorganize itself politically, socially and economically to deal with the climate emergency and remedy the economic failures exposed by the coronavirus epidemic.
Hulot comes across as an over-the-top optimist. For instance, the first of his five immediate policy proposals -- the creation of a "European recovery and ecological transformation fund of several thousand billions of euros" -- looks impossible to be adopted since it requires approval from a backward European Council and unheard of sums of money. 
But before rejecting Hulot as an out-of-touch dreamer, it is worth considering where he comes from and what he has in mind. 
Speaking with C politique, a Sunday night French television program, Hulot pointed out that we have known for decades that corporations have been protecting humongous taxable revenues from national treasuries through financial trickery and the use of tax havens. 
In other words, political parties of all stripes and governments have been complicit in a gigantic rip-off that continues today, and costs thousands of billions of dollars or euros that could be redirected to a recovery and ecological fund.
In the world Hulot -- like Klein, Zuboff and Mirowski -- describes, the biggest prevailing untruth is that capitalism serves the common good because it enriches society. 
Yes, capitalism is better than what preceded it, feudalism. 
More to the point, society subsidizes capitalism through underpaid and unpaid labour; socializing corporate losses and environmental destruction; educating and keeping healthy workers and consumers; providing public contracts; and direct subsidies.
For fossil fuels alone, the IMF projected worldwide public subsidies in 2017 to total $5.2 trillion!   
Putting a stop to thievery on a mass scale by companies pirating private information, desecrating the environment, endangering survival of the species and corrupting public life will take a revolution, which is what Hulot is proposing.
Call it as he does an amicable revolution -- or a peaceful revolution -- Hulot argues a major transformation of society is an idea whose time has come.
No revolution is possible without ideals. The 100 principles Hulot puts forward are assembled to inspire a democratic makeover of political life and an integration of the economic into an ecological worldview.  
More importantly, as Greta Thunberg has said, for several months now the world has been a living example of how seriously world carbon footprints can change in response to scientific reasoning.
Physical distancing, school and commercial closures, self-isolation, and attention to personal hygiene took over most of the world in order to avoid immediate danger from the spreading infection. 
By governments' responses to the pandemic, people have seen that living differently must be possible, since they have been doing it.
A move from very bad living for precarious workers and the poor to an ecologically sustainable existence for all needs new thinking about what paths lead to the common good.
To reject a total change in the way public affairs are run means either to see no future for emancipatory politics, or to deny the true state of the world today.
Hulot is undoubtedly an idealist. Like Klein, Zuboff and Mirowski, he sees how things have gone wrong. By announcing an amicable revolution, Hulot is appealing to the better side of human nature: The educated, reasoning capacity that co-exists with the nasty, dangerous side of human nature, dominated by passions without judgement.
Hulot speaks to both hearts and minds: calling out to us to seize the moment, marshal everything we know and have learned makes sense, and act together now, to make a better world.
Duncan Cameron is president emeritus of rabble.ca and writes a weekly column on politics and current affairs.
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

As pandemic restrictions ease, Canada should replace its capitalist system with a Scandinavian-style alternative

A streetcar passes through a suburb of Stockholm, Sweden. Image: La Citta Vita/Flickr
Ed Finn grew up in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, where he worked as a printer's apprentice, reporter, columnist and editor of that city's daily newspaper, the Western Star. His career as a journalist included 14 years as a labour relations columnist for the Toronto Star. He was part of the world of politics between 1959 and 1962, serving as the first provincial leader of the NDP in Newfoundland. He worked closely with Tommy Douglas for some years and helped defend and promote medicare legislation in Saskatchewan. The post originally appeared on Ed's personal blog.
As some Canadian provinces (and American states) prepare to relax their pandemic-driven social and economic constraints, many thousands of hitherto housebound citizens are flocking to stores, playgrounds and beaches.
Governments are urging these suddenly mobile people to maintain their self-distancing and keep wearing masks in crowded assemblies. But the enforcement of such restrictions is clearly impossible. Now, free from weeks of home confinement, many -- perhaps even the majority -- will be inclined to gleefully mingle and frolic.
This reduction in anti-virus safety measures, of course, is much too premature, as is the outburst of glee by the pleasure-seekers. With thousands still dying from the pestilence, and millions more infected, COVID-19 is far from being overcome. The provinces and states that are "opening up" their economies because the virus has so far killed relatively few of their citizens are risking a new and deadlier wave in the future.
Looking at the overall situation from a climatic rather than human standpoint, the likelihood of such an ongoing plague has some redeeming features. As is now evident, the sharp reduction in air, water and soil contamination induced by COVID-19 has cleansed the atmosphere and temporarily reduced global-warming oil and gas development.
Also curtailed has been the dominant global economic system, and with it capitalism's further infliction of poverty, inequality, ill-health, greed, pollution and planet-wrecking climate change. These, too, appear to be the outcome of a return to a pandemic-free capitalist economy.

Contemplating a perilous future

Replacing a virus that kills hundreds of thousands of people with a catastrophic business system that impoverishes and kills millions -- and, left unchecked, will eventually destroy most sentient life on the planet -- surely can't be considered a worthwhile prospect.
The pandemic has bankrupted many thousands of small and medium-sized business firms, but the big banks and other large corporations, although their profits have been trimmed, remain as powerful and influential as ever. They patiently await the waning of the coronavirus so they can resume their voracious consumption of Earth's non-renewable resources.
There may well be further waves of COVID-19 before an effective vaccine is discovered, but the cohorts of capitalism will ride them out, as they have the current outburst.
If we had a sane society, the many economic crises triggered by neoliberal capitalism would by now have exposed its devastation and lunacy, and prompted its abandonment. Instead, as Guardian columnist George Monbiot has pointed out, "The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatize remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens."
COVID-19 has temporarily interrupted capitalism's reign of terror, but the reprieve is already being impaired. Probably well before the end of this year, the corporations will again be free to run amok -- to pursue economic growth and profits by any means they choose.

Profits at any price

Anything that can be developed, produced and sold for a profit keeps getting produced and sold, regardless of the ruinous long-term consequences. On the other hand, if something is actually needed to enhance public welfare, but would not be profitable, it doesn't get produced.
In such a ruthless capitalist system:
  • Extracting and selling global-warming fossil fuels is profitable.
  • Pillaging non-renewable resources is profitable.
  • Deforestation is profitable.
  • War, and the manufacture of tanks, warships and military hardware is profitable.
  • Offshore tax havens are profitable.
  • Poverty and inequality are profitable, at least for the millionaires and billionaires.
  • Ill-health is profitable for the big pharmaceutical companies.
  • Hooking kids on junk food is profitable.
  • Low wages and unsafe workplaces are profitable.
  • Purchasing politicians is very profitable.
Conversely, anything that would benefit most people, but be unprofitable or less profitable, is seldom undertaken. Reducing the high rates of disease caused by poverty and malnutrition, for example, would lower health-care costs, but would not be nearly as profitable as waiting for people to become ill so they can be treated with expensive and often debilitating drugs.

A grossly inequitable world

This is the pernicious and grossly inequitable world we are now forced to live in. It is a world in which billions of people suffer in abject poverty and squalor. It is a world in which millions are compelled to earn their living as employees of the planet-wrecking business barons. They have no choice if they want to keep feeding their families.
Most of them would much prefer to earn a living that doesn't involve extracting more climate-heating oil, more deforestation, more air and ocean pollution. But a pernicious global economy ruled by autocratic capitalists obsessed with aggrandizing their wealth and power does not offer them such benign and constructive employment.
Workers in the public sector, too, don't like helping their political bosses help the corporate marauders. But all these workers -- and their unions -- are hostages to a destructive international economic system. They see no better alternative than capitalism, and accept its blights of poverty and inequality as unavoidable.
They remain unaware that a much more benign and progressive economic and social form of governance has prevailed in the three Scandinavian countries plus Finland for decades. The citizens of these countries enjoy a fair distribution of income, completely full and free health-care, month-long annual vacations and a substantial guaranteed pension. Their living conditions may not be idyllic, but are far, far superior to those in other countries, including Canada.
Maybe, while waiting for the pandemic to subside, Canadians with an open mind may take a more critical look at the horrific capitalist system that afflicts them in so many ways. They could seriously explore its replacement with the kind of equitable, first-rate economic system that the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes and Finlanders have enjoyed for so long.
Of course, that also entails the replacement of our current decadent capitalist political system with a Scandinavian-style alternative.
Okay, so I'm dreaming in technicolour. But, occasionally, if rarely, some dreams do come true.
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Home

Why big tech won't solve our transit woes

Image: Boden Deplaedt/Unsplash
In 2018, Elon Musk logged onto Twitter to share his ambition for the future of L.A. transit: a network of underground tunnels buzzing with electric self-driving Tesla cars. The system would have thousands of "small stations the size of a single parking space that take you very close to your destination and blend seamlessly into the fabric of a city," he tweeted.
Critics inevitable rolled their eyes. "Every two or three weeks," a commentator pointed out, "a tech guy accidentally invents the concept of a city bus."
Yet public bus and train systems across North America are crumbling, while Tesla stocks have risen alongside the popularity of private ride-sharing apps. Between 2014 and 2017, bus ridership in the U.S. plummeted by 14 per cent. In New York alone, subway ridership dropped by almost 30 million rides between 2016 and 2017. In Washington, D.C., subway stations are literally catching on fire, and due to a lack of funding for maintenance, flames lick the tracks unattended until someone tweets about it.
James Wilt's rousing first book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars? Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk, maps out how we ended up in this situation and how we can get out of it. How have tech billionaires gotten a stranglehold on North America's transportation options, pushing electric and autonomous ride-sharing as the only desirable future of mobility? And how can our society take the reins over our collective fate and gain public control of transit, with a view to building a renewed democratic, equitable, and low-carbon world?
Wilt's central task is to dismantle what leading tech figures have touted as the inevitable "three revolutions" that will bring a new generation of cars: A proliferation of personal electric vehicles, then ride-hailing services, and eventually autonomous or self-driving vehicles.
These "three revolutions" are currently being sold as the inevitable way of the future and therefore used by austerity-minded politicians as an excuse to not invest in public transportation.  The result, Wilt argues, is a reduced ability to plan transit for the public good. For example, a commissioner for Michigan's Macomb County has argued that Detroit's transit system should be replaced by ride-hailing subsidies for low-income residents. And in South Florida, many decisions not to fund public transit are already being made on the promise that autonomous ridesharing vehicles will soon arrive on the scene.
We know that autonomous vehicles, if they ever arrive, may be decades away. Yet Wilt documents how many elected officials and decision-makers talk about them like they'll be on the roads tomorrow, as if that means we should rip up traditional transit systems.
Wilt argues that the supposed affordances of the "three revolutions" fall apart under scrutiny. Take the case of transit and the climate crisis. Electric vehicles, promoters say, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and sharing vehicles means fewer cars can transport more people. Autonomous technologies promise to nearly eliminate the need for parking spaces, opening up large portions of cities and towns for densified redevelopment that cuts down on the need for motor vehicle travel.
This is a promising vision, but according to Wilt it is built on fabrications. Given the incredible lobbying powers of private industry and its ability to dissolve regulation, the chances of best-case conditions are slim, and Do Androids Dream documents the historical evidence we have to be suspicious.
Even in its current underfunded state, transit remains far less polluting on a per-passenger basis than personal automobiles. It takes an estimated 100 personal electric vehicles, for example, to achieve the same "environmental relief" that a single sixty-foot electric bus provides. Thus a billion Teslas will not solve climate change, Wilt contends. Each of those cars has an enormous carbon footprint from the components mined from the earth and the energy-intensive processes needed to create it.
Beyond climate, Wilt dissects the empty promises for increased equality, safety, accessibility, privacy,and rural connectivity. He makes a convincing case for how how the "three revolutions" will only bring worsened inequality, more sprawl, dangerous streets, and even less accessibility for seniors, people with disabilities, women, and trans and gender non-conforming people.
In every instance, Wilt provides reams of evidence that public options better serve the most marginalized members of our society at a lower cost. Solutions are no easy task, however, and are contingent on hard-won political commitment and funding, fought for by organized transit workers and riders.
Due to its rich detail and accessible writing, Wilt's book should be of interest not only to transportation activists, but to anyone looking for the information necessary to resist more cars in cities, and to advocate for more free, reliable, accessible, and pleasurable public transportation.
In this world-historical moment, we have the opportunity to organize and radically re-think our cities to be more equitable, accessible, and low-carbon for all. Wilt's book is a shining beacon in this regard, even if it was written before the arrival of COVID-19.
At first glance, it would seem that fewer people would be willing to take public transportation in the wake of this pandemic, as close quarters in packed train cars or buses might raise our chances of catching a virus. However, Wilt's proposals for making public transport effective and democratic -- more frequent, dependable service at low or no cost -- might also lower chances of contagion, as crowds disperse into more and cleaner train cars and buses. SeattleLos Angeles, and Denver have led the way, making municipal bus travel free to help essential workers and protect bus drivers (since riders can enter through back doors).
We will have to fight for this spirit to continue once the pandemic subsides.
Malcolm Araros is a PhD student in sociology at New York University.
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

Home


Canadians of conscience should not be smeared as 'anti-Semites' for boycotting apartheid Israel

Palestinians crowd into checkpoint "cattle pen," Checkpoint 300, Bethlehem. Image: David Kattenburg
In the fight against anti-Semitism, no one enjoys greater influence than B'nai Brith Canada (BBC) and its League for Human Rights.
Each year, BBC and the league produce an audit of anti-Semitic incidents across Canada and the world. According to BBC, their annual audit gets "cited world-wide by government agencies, social policy planners and law enforcement bodies, and is considered the authoritative study on antisemitism in Canada."
No idle boast. BBC's most recent audit merited mention in one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's daily news briefings on the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2019 audit reports over 2,000 incidents of anti-Semitism -- over six every day -- including shocking accounts of racist violence, vandalism, desecration and Holocaust denial.
True, anti-Semitism is a scourge that cannot be denied. Unfortunately, though, there's a flaw in BBC's accounting procedure that calls its conclusions into question: It is based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's "Working Definition of Antisemitism" (IHRA-WDA). Of the 11 "illustrative examples" of anti-Semitism flagged by the IHRA-WDA, six involve criticism of Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism.
How can the IHRA-WDA -- and BB's 2019 audit -- be squared with the consensus about Israel among other, less parochial human rights groups? With its "grave violations" of human rights law (Amnesty International), its "severe and discriminatory" treatment of the Palestinian people (Human Rights Watch), and its "regime of occupation … inextricably bound up in human rights violations" (B'Tselem)?
B'nai Brith Canada doesn't attempt to do so. First and foremost, it is a "staunch defender of the State of Israel." Among the anti-Semitic acts swelling its 2019 audit: calling for the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails ("terrorists"), suggesting that Palestinians have been displaced or killed in the name of Zionism, that "Zionists control American politics" and all forms of "anti-Israel or anti-Zionist activism."
Nothing infuriates BBC more than the "antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement." On page 14 of its 2019 audit, BBC presents the image of a box of Israeli clementines on a Canadian store shelf, upon which a "Boycott Israeli Apartheid" sticker has been applied.
Is it anti-Semitic to say that Israel practises apartheid, or something akin to apartheid, and to call for a consumer boycott? To answer this question, one must define apartheid. The 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid defines apartheid as a system based on "policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination" similar to those practised in southern Africa, "committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."
Article 7(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as comprising various "inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
Further precision is provided in a 2013 article authored by former UN special rapporteur John Dugard (one of the leading South African jurists who opposed apartheid) and Irish academic John Reynolds. Dugard and Reynolds identify three "pillars" of the South African prototype that they say Israel reproduces: 1) "demarcation of distinct racial groups," 2) "territorial fragmentation and racial segregation," and 3) a "matrix of security laws and practices" aimed at suppressing opposition and buttressing "racial domination."
Sounds a lot like Israel today.
But what do we mean by "Israel"? Opponents of the Israeli apartheid idea invariably argue that Israel is fully democratic. What they call "Israel" is Israel "proper" -- its internationally recognized territory. A more accurate definition is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his constituency and a large swath of Israel's supporters around the world (including BBC) call the "Land of Israel." Namely, all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and from the northern tip of the Golan Heights down to the Red Sea. These are the lands Israel and its military exercise complete control over. In addition to Israel "proper," they comprise the West Bank, Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Gaza.
The "Land of Israel" is home to 14 million people belonging to two racial/ethnic groups -- a distinction codified in Israel's "Basic Laws" and 2018 Nation-State Law. Wherever they live (they do so everywhere except Gaza), Jews enjoy full citizenship and national rights and are governed by Israeli domestic law. Under the Nation-State Law, Jews have an exclusive right to self-determination. Non-Jews have no such right. Jews are free to own land and reside pretty much anywhere they please -- including Jewish settlements in the West Bank -- and to travel freely (except to those enclaves where Palestinians live). Any Jew anywhere in the world has the same right.
Palestinian lives are entirely different. Between 1.5 and two million are Israeli citizens. They carry Israeli passports and can travel as they please, but they have no national rights. If they marry someone who isn't Jewish -- from the West Bank or Gaza or Canada or France, say -- their spouse cannot join them in Israel. A plethora of racially based laws and regulations limit their residency rights and access to public services. They can vote and run for political office, but no member of an "Arab" party will end up in government because "Arabs" are viewed by the political establishment with distrust and contempt.
All things considered, though, Israeli "Arabs" have it good. For the three million Palestinians living in the West Bank, the story is very different. They are stateless, with neither citizenship nor national rights. Most live in populated areas assigned to them under the 1994-95 Oslo Accords. In Oslo areas A and B (40 per cent of the West Bank), their lives are administered by the Palestinian Authority, but Israeli soldiers can seize and imprison them at any time. Their natural resources are controlled by Israel. They are not free to travel.
Another 200,000-300,000 Palestinians live in Oslo Area C, under full military occupation. Their homes can be demolished and their farmlands razed based on arbitrary military orders. They are subject to routine violence at the hands of Jewish colonists living in their midst, aided and abetted by the Israeli military. They can be arrested and forcibly transferred to prisons inside "Israel proper" (in breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Yet another 375,000 Palestinians reside in East Jerusalem, with neither citizenship nor national rights, and their residency rights can be revoked at a moment's notice. They are not allowed to build upon their property, as East Jerusalem's Jewish colonists can. If they do, their property can be demolished.
In the twilight zone of Israeli settler-colonialism and apartheid, several thousand Palestinians live in the "seam zone" between Israel's Separation Barrier and the Green Line. Among these, some are fully walled off and can only come and go through a gate controlled by Israeli soldiers.
Worst off are the Palestinians of Gaza, a 365-square kilometre sliver of land variously dubbed an "open air prison," "ghetto" or "concentration camp." Under Israeli siege for 13 years, Gaza's eastern border, coastline and airspace are under the complete control of the Israeli army, navy and air force.
What better term is there to describe the above geographical matrix than apartheid?
Back in 2014, the UN committee that oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights described Israel's "domestic legal framework" as a "three-tiered system of laws affording different civil status, rights and legal protection for Jewish Israeli citizens, Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem."
Sounds like apartheid.
The list of those who've used the A-word is lengthy: former UN special rapporteurs Richard Falk and John DugardDavid Harel (vice president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities), Jewish-Israeli journalists Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, veteran CBC correspondent Neil MacdonaldJohn KerryJimmy Carter, South African anti-apartheid activists Desmond Tutu and Denis Goldberg, Cameroonian academic Achille Mbembe, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) … the list goes on and on.
To call all these people anti-Semites would be preposterous. In the absence of a formal ruling by the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, the Israeli apartheid idea plainly falls within the bounds of reason. It logically follows that consumer boycotts of the sort illustrated in BBC's 2019 anti-Semitism audit are justified as well -- certainly not acts of anti-Semitism.
Arguably, they are a civic duty. Under the 1995 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the "Crime of Apartheid" is considered a "crime against humanity" -- one of 11 such crimes itemized in Article 7 (j) of the Rome Statute, to which Canada is a signatory. Canada has incorporated these into its own Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000). Why shouldn't Canadians of conscience be free to boycott "Israeli" clementines -- or wine, dates and cosmetic creams -- without being smeared as anti-Semites?  
By conflating boycotts and other pro-Palestinian activities with true Jew-hatred, as it does in its 2019 audit of anti-Semitic incidents, B'nai Brith Canada undermines the fight it claims to champion, not to mention the larger struggle for universal human rights and equality.
For B'nai Brith Canada, smearing and silencing Israel's critics seems to come first.
David Kattenburg is a Winnipeg-based science instructor, journalist and activist.
Image: David Kattenburg​
Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!