Struggle and demands for "fundamental transformation" surround Harper's meeting with First Nations

Rebel Youth

Responding to the popular pressure of the Idle No More movement as well as the hunger strike of Chief Spence, Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper has finally agreed to meet with First Nations leaders.

According to the Globe and Mail, however, a agenda released by the Prime Minister's Office this afternoon says Harper would only attend the opening half hour and the final hour. Cabinet ministers would attend working sessions in between.

"Unfortunately, the prime minister has been very dictatorial and unrelenting in his position to control and set the agenda for this meeting" a release stated, from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak and Southern Chiefs Organization. "This clearly demonstrates that the Government of Canada does not have any iota of concern or respect for the rights of the Indigenous people of this country."

Chief Spence and the First Nations leadership from across the country want Prime Minister Harper and the Governor General David Johnston, as the viceregal representative of the British crown, to meet at the Delta Hotel in Ottawa.  Harper, however, is not allowing the Governor General's presence and insisting on a smaller meeting in his personal offices at the old Langevin Block by Parliament Hill.

Meanwhile, Chief Spence is continuing her hunger strike on only fish broth and medicinal teas. The grass roots Idle No More movement continues to gather popular support and has not demobilized, remaining essentially vigilant and on-alert.

Speaking of the Idle No More movement Derek Nepinak, grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said today that the protests have enough strength to "bring the Canadian economy to its knees."

"It can stop Prime Minister Harper's resource development plan and his billion-dollar plan to develop resources in our ancestral territories. We have the warriors that are standing up now that are willing to go that far. So we're not here to make requests. We're here to demand attention and to demand an end to 140 years of colonial rule," CBC news quoted him as saying.

Also today at a press conference in Ottawa, Saskatchewan Regional Chief Perry Bellegarde told journalists that “The treaties were about peaceful coexistence and sharing the lands and the resources, not exploitation. The treaties were not meant to make us poor in our homelands, but that is what you see.”

Chief Bellegarde appeared alongside Shawn A-in-chut Atleo, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and B.C. Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould at a news conference in Ottawa.  The full video by the Canadian Press is below and contains powerful statements the leaders on the necessity for real changes.

“The demands of our people of the First Nations is the need for fundamental transformation in our relationship with the government of Canada, now,” Atelo was quoted by Macleans Magazine as saying.

“Generations of our leaders have delivered the same message to successive federal governments for over a century... From the battle against the destructive federal government white paper back in 1969 to the struggles to win section 35 in the Constitution in ’80, to the Charlottetown debates in the 90s, to our efforts to make effective the recommendations of the royal commission 16 years ago, we have never wavered. Our voices have always been clear. Continuing attempts to undermine our resolve, to divide our people, have and always will fail,” Atelo said.


According to the Toronto Star the “high-level commitments” the chiefs will be seeking from the Harper Conservative government include:


 •  a new institution through the PMO or the Privy Council Office to look at the implementation and enforcement of treaties;

 •  designating a minister, possibly Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, to bring together First Nations and provincial premiers to figure out how they can share revenues from resource development;

 •  a new “fiscal relationship” that would allow federal funding to increase with inflation and be based on total population living both on and off reserves;

 •  a public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women;

 •  ensuring there is a school in every aboriginal community;

 •  reviewing the sections of recently passed omnibus budget implementation bills that have to do with environmental oversight to see if the Conservative government complied with its duty to consult First Nations;

 •  setting up a process to ensure that every piece of proposed federal legislation complies with Section 35 of the Constitution, which protects aboriginal and treaty rights;

 •  support for nation-building efforts when First Nations are “ready, willing and able to move beyond the Indian Act.”


Watch the full video here:

 

What if Mother Nature had rights? She does in Ecuador

Quito, Ecuador

David Suzuki

In some of the poorest countries of Latin America, one can find a refreshing (and radical) departure from the conventional economic thinking entrenched in Canada and around the world.

It’s not often that people look to countries such as Ecuador or Bolivia as examples that might have something to teach Canada. And yet, when it comes to finding new forms of economic development that pay serious attention to the environment, this is exactly the case. And at a time when Canada’s oil sands production continues to grow despite climate science predicting even more alarming consequences, it’s high time we had a look at what’s going on in the Andes. As part of a documentary production for The Nature of Things, that’s exactly what I did.

And I was amazed.

Both Ecuador and Bolivia are embarking on new paths of social and economic development toward what they call “sumak kawsay,” or “living well.” This indigenous concept stands in contrast to the neo-liberal model of development that’s always about growth. The mantra is more productivity, more growth, more consumption of resources, ad infinitum. Ad nauseam!

In contrast, “living well” is about developing in harmony with nature, meeting human rights and satisfying basic needs for all, and living in balance.

Sure, it sounds nice on paper, but what does it mean in practice?

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa told me that one example of this new vision of development is the fact that his country’s constitution is the first in the world to give rights to nature. In other words, trees, animals, rivers – entire ecosystems – have the constitutional right to exist and flourish. It’s a far cry from Canada’s “Ministry of the Environment,” which is more about managing human use of the environment than about Mother Nature herself.

In 2010, two American residents of Ecuador were the first to go to court on behalf of nature, over damage to a river caused by a provincial government road construction crew. The case was a first for Ecuador and the world, establishing a legal precedent we can only hope spreads around the globe.

Mr. Correa also told me that Ecuador’s attempt to marry ecology and economy has led to a radical proposal to not exploit 20 per cent of the country’s untapped oil reserves. Those reserves happen to lie under Yasuní National Park – a jewel of the Amazon rain forest thought to harbour the highest level of biodiversity on Earth. Scientists have found more species of trees in one hectare of this forest than there are in all of North America from Alaska to Mexico.

Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT initiative promises to leave that oil in the ground, to help combat climate change, but asks the global community to be “co-responsible” and contribute half of the profits the country would be giving up: $3.6-billion. So far, they’ve raised $300-million.

For a country whose economy depends on oil to propose such an initiative is remarkable. Nearly 30 per cent of Ecuadoreans live below the poverty line, yet the country is wildly supportive of the initiative. What’s Canada’s excuse? Surely we could afford to do something similar with the oil sands.

Another lesson Canada could learn takes place high in the Andes mountains, in Bolivia’s Uyuni salt flats. The flats are the fossil remnant of an ancient seabed containing more than half of the world’s lithium deposits. (Lithium is much in demand, and electric cars using lithium batteries are expected to play an increasing role in reducing our carbon footprint.) Heavy hitters such as China, Japan and the European Union are seeking new sources of lithium. But instead of exporting raw lithium to these industrialized nations for them to make the batteries, Bolivia plans to make the batteries itself and thus realize the real economic benefits of value-added products. There’s no doubt this is an ambitious gamble that could fail.

Yet, in Canada, we continue being “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” as we ship raw logs and raw bitumen elsewhere. At least in this respect, Canada could learn from Bolivia.

Of course, we’re not saying that Bolivia and Ecuador have all the answers, or that they don’t have environmental and economic contradictions to sort out. But they’re grappling with these issues and forging new paths toward a different kind of growth that’s attuned with nature – and that’s what makes them such exciting models. Which is more than anyone can say for Canada these days.

David Suzuki’s Andean Adventure airs on The Nature of Things, Jan. 10, at 8 p.m. on CBC-TV.

Reprinted from The Globe and Mail

Movie review: Skyfall

Directed by Sam Mendes, cast including Albert Finney, Ben Whishaw, Berenice Marlohe, Daniel Craig, Helen McCrory, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Naomie Harris, Ola Rapace, Ralph Fiennes, Rory Kinnear, 143 minutes

Review by Glen Truax

Yes, I watched Skyfall. No, I didn’t pay for it.

The Bond film series that appears to be bulletproof, a franchise that has been running strong for decades (despite the glitch caused by Timothy Dalton in the eighties), continues to draw in boatloads of money at the box office. Every trope remains in place: gambling, oceans of alcohol consumption, beautiful women who show up only to get killed 20 minutes later – the template set by Connery back in the halcyon days of the sixties.

This doesn’t mean that Skyfall is terrible. It’s slick, it’s easy to forget that the film is over two hours long. There’s very little in the way of padding; in every other Bond film, there are at least 30 minutes of flab, and that doesn’t seem to be the case here. There are few moments of wasted screen time.

It’s still a little hard to take Skyfall at face value however. It’s difficult to forget the ludicrous opening ceremonies of the London 2012 Olympics, in which Daniel Craig personally parachutes his way into the thick of things. (It’s also hard to believe that the director of 28 Days Later and Trainspotting directed the opening sequence, but that’s another matter.). Also, viewers know in their hearts that life will eventually return to a state of grace, with James and Company alive and well to do battle with “evil” in the next episode, so emotional stakes are rather low.

What’s more important is the subtext in every James Bond film, where villainy is always cast in a very zeitgeist-y way. Whatever happens to be grabbing headlines during the course of shooting the film can be expected to rear its ugly head in the finished product. In Skyfall, the bogeyman is the grim spectre of WikiLeaks, which the film takes pains to explain is entirely evil (along with Julian Assange and the Anonymous internet collective). These entities exist to blow the cover of good, hard-working spooks all over the world, seemingly without any purpose other than petty warfare with power structures.  This is completely unambiguous – ratting on agents is evil, pure and simple, with Javier Bardem stepping up to the plate as the face of pesky civilians who actually want transparency.

There are certainly worse ways to while away an afternoon. Anti-WikiLeaks undertone aside, the film delivers relentless action, with little CGI or noticeable electronic gimmickry getting in the way of a good punch up. It’s pure entertainment, not enlightenment, and the cast is uniformly strong. The viewer may want to wait until it comes to cable however – dropping 15 dollars minimum on a suspect action flick seems a little steep.

The attack on teachers is an attack on all working people

People's Voice Ontario Bureau

     If the basis of all real wealth - the real economy, past, present and future - is the application of human labour‑power to material from the natural environment, why has the most draconian use of state power been summoned up as a weapon against the Ontario Teachers Unions? Most people would argue that teachers do not produce wealth. In fact, in the anti‑teacher propaganda blasted by the capitalist media and whispered in a thousand dark corridors, this slander against an honoured profession is perpetrated: why should people who are essentially a drain on the public purse be compensated so generously?

     What is it about this area of collective bargaining that would cause the ruling elite to instruct their political lackeys to suspend parliament, to violate constitutional law and go to direct one party rule?

     The capitalist state has undemocratically dispensed with parliament in Ontario, to launch an unhindered attack on the teachers' unions and their ability to exercise collective bargaining. The instrument of direct class intervention is the Ontario Liberal Party, with the Tories trying to be even more hawkish, and the NDP sitting on their hands.

     Now the silk gloves have been shed for the naked fist, dispelling any illusion that these three parties protect parliamentary democracy. If the NDP had called for massive public resistance, they could have done a service to all working people, especially if the trade union leaders who belong to the NDP had organized labour unity across the board with the Teachers.

     Any Marxist will see immediately the relationship of teachers to the real economy. Their vital role to the ability of capitalism to create and expropriate surplus value is the reproduction of labour-power, the primary human ingredient in the creation of wealth. The scientific and technological revolution demands an ever higher level of education and training for working people. This is about productivity and the rate of exploitation. This is about the uncountable wealth of the one percent.

     No educated person (the product of teachers) would vulgarize the value of the teaching profession as only an instrument to maintain and expand the parasite role of the one percent. But we live in a class society. The historic service of teachers against the mental pauperization of capitalism, their resistance to the increasing demand to produce literate industrial and social drones, instead of people armed with a sense of themselves and a demand for a better future, is a direct threat to the one percent.

     It is also no accident that generations of women have dominated and transformed the profession. Witness the power of their efforts embodied in the courage and unity of the Quebec student's strike. Witness the threat to the capitalist state when student activists are a major part in the defeat of a governing political party. You cannot separate teachers from students, from the awareness of the Occupy movement, from the mental hunger and sense of wrongness and violation that is surging through our youth and through the indigenous people.

     The viciousness of the attempted destruction of collective bargaining in Ontario can only be understood clearly with a world view of the antagonism between the capitalist class in the advanced stages of imperialist decline, and the possessors of labour‑power, the global working class. Teachers worldwide develop a consciousness that makes their students much more than units of labour power, an awareness of self that will become an awareness of class, an awareness that labour power is also the essential ingredient in building the shared wealth of a non‑exploiting socialist alternative.

     The crisis of capitalism will continue to destroy whatever stands in the way of its drive to buy more life for an obsolete and historically unnecessary system, at war with its own productive forces. In the crosshairs everywhere are those who teach our children and youth, those who preserve and pass on knowledge. The capitalists cannot dispense with teachers, but they seek to break their relative independence and their dedication to humanity. They want to turn teachers into trainers who prepare our young for more efficient and profitable exploitation. This struggle is about much more than sick days, wages or classroom size. These issues might be the field of battle, but the stakes are much higher.

     The Ontario Teachers are on the front line of defending labour rights. They will decide on the extent of their resistance, on their tactics, where to attack and where to retreat. The Communist Party calls for one hundred percent support, now and in the future.

The class question and the democratic question

This article is part of an seven-part series of short quotes Rebel Youth is issuing about class struggle, revolution, civil-war, and parliamentary democracy. See also: Lenin on elections; the Communist Party of Canada on a counter-offensive against capitalism; Engels on voting and street fighting; Lenin on Democracy and Class struggle; Communist and Worker's parties on the struggle for socialism; and Lenin on tactics and guerilla war; theCommunist Party of Canada on force, and a peaceful transition to socialism.

The right to divorce, by Lenin
August-October, 1916

[...] This question of divorce is a striking illustration of the fact that one cannot be a democrat and a socialist without immediately demanding full freedom of divorce, for the absence of such freedom is an additional burden on the oppressed sex, woman--although it is not at all difficult to understand that the recognition of the right of women to leave their husbands is not an invitation to all wives to do so! [...] Under capitalism it is usually the case, and not the exception, that the oppressed classes cannot "exercise" their democratic rights. In most cases the right to divorce is not exercised under capitalism, because the oppressed sex is crushed economically; because, no matter how democratic the state may be, the woman remains a "domestic slave" under capitalism, a slave of the bedroom, nursery and kitchen. The right to elect "our" judges, public officials, teachers, jurors, etc., cannot be exercised under capitalism, in the majority of cases, because the workers and peasants are economically downtrodden. The same is true of a democratic republic. Our programme "proclaims" the republic as "the sovereignty of the people" although every Social-Democrat knows perfectly well that under capitalism the most democratic republic leads merely to the bribery of the officials by the bourgeoisie and to an alliance between the Stock Exchange and the government.

Only those who are totally incapable of thinking, or those who are entirely unfamiliar with Marxism, will conclude that, therefore, a republic is of no use, that freedom of divorce is of no use, that democracy is of no use, that self-determination of nations is of no use! Marxists know that democracy does not abolish class oppression, but only makes the class struggle clearer, broader, more open and sharper; and this is what we want. The more complete freedom of divorce is, the clearer will it be to the woman that the source of her "domestic slavery" is not the lack of rights, but capitalism. The more democratic the system of government is, the clearer it will be to the workers that the root of the evil is not the lack of rights, but capitalism. The more complete national equality is (and it is not complete without freedom of secession), the clearer will it be to the workers of the oppressed nation that it is not a question of lack of rights, but of capitalism. And so on. [...]

[T]he right to divorce, like all democratic rights under capitalism without exception, is difficult to exercise, is conventional, restricted, formal and narrow. Nevertheless, no respectable Social-Democrat would consider any one who repudiated this right a democrat, let alone a socialist. This is the whole point. "Democracy" is nothing but the proclaiming and exercising of "rights" that are very little and very conventionally exercised under capitalism. But unless these rights are proclaimed, unless a struggle for immediate rights is waged, unless the masses are educated in the spirit of such a struggle, socialism is impossible.

Discussion questions

1. What are Lenin's main point or points in this short quote? What do you think of the claim that just because we call for the right of something, does not mean we necessarily advocate for it?

2. In the past the Young Communist League has divided its educational work into two parts: the class question and the democratic question. What would be examples of "class questions"? what about "democratic questions"? How are they related and/or separate? Could they be opposites? Could they be connected?

3. Lenin claims that without a struggle for immediate rights and democracy being waged, socialism is impossible. Why do you think he makes this claim? What do you think? Is the argument correct or mistaken? How?


Reading more

You can find the original full statement by Lenin From A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism.

The topic of capitalist democracy is also discussed by Lenin in Chapter 7, "Should we participate in bourgeoisie parliaments?", of his book Left-wing Communism an Infantile disorder.

The connection between democracy and economic struggle, which can be read as a direct comparison with the above article on divorce is found in another short work by Lenin, "Reply to P. Kievsky," especially the section from paragraph 9 "Imperialism is highly developed..." to the end of paragraph 14 "...surrender to opportunism."

The YCL-LJC Canada, "Youth and the Trans-Canada fightback," in the 24th Central Convention Documents of the YCL uses this perspective and connects it with the struggle for reform and revolution. Another Rebel Youth article similar to this theme is Building broad and powerful youth struggles, which we ran back in 2011.

Another good read is State and Revolution by Lenin, particularly Chapter 1 and Chapter 4, section 5.

Political parties and student struggle

Jean Chrétien, Liberal Prime Minister
of Canada from 1993-2003 

Commentary
By Rebel Youth

Other articles and series on this theme: the student fight back and struggle today; our coverage of the Quebec Student Strike; Students of Canada Rise Up; YCLer Marianne Breton Fontaine speaks on Student Solidarity tour; Call to 2013 YCL student conference.

Can elections be used as markers in time and struggle? Perhaps only with the full knowledge that, as Marxists understand, history is not made by the comings and goings of bourgeois political parties in polite rotation through their bourgeois parliaments, like so many characters in a Swiss Cuckoo Clock -- but by the struggles of the masses.

Still, the Canadian federal election in October 1993 is significant moment to tag. The outcome shaped the terrain of struggle of the youth and student movement in many new ways. The unpopular Conservative government (formerly led by Brian Mulroney) was swept out of office in crushing defeat -- reduced from 156 seats to just two, it lost official party status. The landslide victory of Jean Chretien's Liberals began thirteen years of that party's rule.

Swept to office on somewhat vague promises of change and anti-Free Trade sentiment, the Liberal's quickly dropped their proposals like renegotiating NAFTA and made their true colours clear to all by shifting attention towards balancing the budget -- ie. paying back the big capitalist creditors. Still in their honeymoon period, the Liberal's announced that all of Canada's social programs would be reviewed with sweeping and significant changes likely to come. Cut backs would be deep.