On the ground account account of destabilization in Venezuela

Padraic O'Brien is a student activist at the University of Guelph, currently in Venezuela.

Spread widely! Apparently the message in mainstream media isn't quite the same as what I'm finding on the ground here...

The recent chain of events in Venezuela since the electoral results came out last Sunday contain very troubling aspects which need to be brought to the light. I am presently in Guacas de Rivera, in the state of Apure, where elections took place normally and no act of violence was committed. But people here are worried about the way things are going.

The scenario we are seeing develop was foreseen by many people who had been anticipating a destabilization attempt against the government by the opposition in order to pave the way for a coup. This prediction was reinforced by the fact that opposition candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski never said he would accept the vote -- although his organization officially recognizes the impartiality and competence of the national electoral council, whose work has been deemed impeccable in the past by international observers.

Here is what happened so far.

First, despite the polarization of the debate and accusations both parties have been throwing at one another, the elections went smoothly across the country.  Chavista supporters in the area waited anxiously the results until around midnight, results which made Maduro winner with the slimmest margin ever registered by the revolutionary movement, less than 2%.

Immediately after Maduro's speech, his opponent Capriles stated the results were false and demanded a recount, while saying there were no doubts he had won the elections. Maduro later replied that a recount and audit were reasonable, as allowed for under electoral procedures, but saw in Capriles' actions nothing but maneuvers aimed at engendering a climate of instability in the country. The events from last night reinforce this accusation.

During the day, Capriles maintained his accusations against the revolutionary side, calling his supporters to take the streets with pots and pans to put pressure on the government. Meanwhile, the director of the national electoral council announced the final results and certified their validity, officially awarding victory to Maduro.

Later in the day, many governments congratulated him for his victory, such as those of Argentina, Chile,Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico, while other such as the United States and Spain took position in favour of a recount and did not recognize Maduro's victory. The Inter-American Organization meanwhile gave its approval to the electoral process and declared its results valid.

During the evening, Capriles supporters took the streets in many cities across the country. In Guacas de Rivera, Chavista supporters celebrated victory with loud music and dancing, and decided not to parade in the streets to avoid fighting. There was a pots and pans march in the neighbouring town of El Cantón but without any violence. There is the suspicion, however, that a 2 hour power outage was caused by sabotage.

Around 9pm, news starting coming out from the rest of the country about violence. Here is what we know so far.

In the largest cities of the country, such as Caracas, San Cristóbal, Mérida, Maracaibo, Barquisimeto, Maracay, Baruta, Barcelona, Maturín, Barinas and San Fernando de Apure, Capriles supporters rioted and attacked state institutions associated to Chávez, Socialist Party offices and even residencies of party officials and of the electoral council's director.

At least seven people, including four members of the PSUV, were murdered. In Maturín, in the state of Monagas, the rioters took over the electoral council's office, but were then taken out by the JCV -- the Communist Youth of Venezuela.

The most troubling aspects however were the attacks against public hospitals, in the cities of Maracaibo and Valencia. In Maracaibo, they were triggered after opposition figure Nelson Bocaranga -- notorious for spreading false rumours in the past about Chávez's health status -- tweeted that voting booths were being stored in those public hospitals under the care of Cuban doctors.

Capriles' supporters went out to damage 11 hospitals, but of course found no evidence of this pure lie. Other regime opponents also spread photos from 2008 and 2010 elections to base their claims about electoral mischief. And public kindergartens and subsidized food stores were also attacked. Yes, you read that right...

Violent acts were also committed in smaller towns, which is cause for worry. For example, in the small, remote Andean town of Pregonero, in the state of Táchira, and in the town of Achaguas, in the state of Apure, rioters tried to burn down community radio stations. These towns are located in traditionally strong Chavista territory, and close to the Colombian border, a strategic area. In fact, the border state of Táchira, an opposition stronghold,seems to have been particularly hit hard by violence, not only in its capital San Cristóbal, but also in many smaller towns. Táchira happens to be the doorway to Colombia...

It seems like some violence was still going on during the day. I was told that in Barinas, opponents are still electrified in the streets, and police are using tear gas. Closer to here, in the district capital Guasdualito, both groups faced off in the streets. The smaller opposition group was only able to stay for an hour, and Chavista groups will remain vigilant tonight to protect important buildings. National Guards were present to avoid fighting, but the people were generally disciplined.

Word goes around to not respond to any sort of provocation. Many rumours are flying around, like one that says that Capriles, Bocaranga and other opposition figures have sent their families outside the country. In his first public appearance since the violence, Capriles blamed responsibility over violence to Maduro, and called for other marches tonight. But he withdrew his call to march to the central electoral office in Caracas tomorrow.

The situation in the country remains critical. It is important to spread around this information. The scenario is eerily similar to that of the 2002 coup attempt, and not entirely dissimilar from what happened more recently in Libya and Syria. Let's all remain vigilant, and demonstrate our support of Venezuelan sovereignty and democracy at the nearest Venezuelan embassies and consulates!

The case for eliminating tuition fees

The following document, produced by the Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario, outlines how free education could be achieved in that province. 

The flyer outlines long-standing government commitments for free education, as well as how it could be funded through existing programmes and progressive taxation. 

It makes for an interesting contrast with something RY magazine put online last summer: a document the Quebec-based IRIS think-tank group produced, arguing the same idea. For easy comparison, their leaflet is also below.

Technical note -- You can click on the bottom left icon to view the files in full screen: 

 

Free post-secondary education in Ontario: the case for eliminating tuition fees

IRIS - the case for Free Education

Steven Harper Hates You...

50 'classic' Stephen Harper Quotes
These quotes should be read in the context of Harper's rule -- the attack on EI users in Atlantic Canada, budget cuts and privitization of medicare, the current government's role in Libya, Mali and perhaps Syria... RY readers will recognize a few of these items from when we profiled Harper as our Class Enemy of the Month a few issues ago. We have highlighted some of the best for you skim readers out there on the internets.


"Canada is a vast and empty country." - 2006 Leaders' Debate, December 15, 2005

"There is a continental culture. There is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders." - Report Newsmagazine January 7, 2002

“Let me repeat a message I have already delivered to Atlantic Canadians. I do not believe that the Liberals have ever been committed to the Atlantic Accords. You will recall the reluctance of the Prime Minister to fulfill his election commitments. You know about the subsequent delay in tabling implementation legislation. To finally bring it forward in a bill with ‘poison pill’ provisions such as the stealth carbon tax is further evidence of bad faith. I will continue to warn Atlantic Canadians that a Liberal majority government would never have signed, and will never honour, the substance of the Atlantic Accords.” (Stephen Harper, Open letter to Premier Hamm and Premier Williams, March 30, 2005)

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism," (Stephen Harper, CBC News, May 30, 2002)

"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. …Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country." (Stephen Harper, New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, May 29, 2002)

"There's unfortunately a view of too many people in Atlantic Canada that it's only through government favours that there's going to be economic progress, or that's what you look to …That kind of can't-do attitude is a problem in this country but it's obviously more serious in regions that have had have-not status for a long time." (Stephen Harper, Toronto Sun, May 31, 2002)

[Alliance] leadership race. I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went, including in the Maritime provinces on several occasions, about the spirit of defeatism in the country and what drives it and how we have to address it.” (Stephen Harper, National Post, May 31, 2002)

“As prime minister, I will take up this issue [fiscal imbalance]…I will not try to fix this with another one-off, side-deal with this or any other province. I will bring the provinces together so we can achieve real, substantial, and I might add final, progress on this matter. And I mean final. When we reach agreement, [it] will commit more dollars to the provinces through a comprehensive review of spending and taxing powers.” (Stephen Harper, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce Speaking Notes, April 15, 2005)

"It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction." (Stephen Harper, National Post, January 24, 2001)

“If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… This is one more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. …Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task …Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home – a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn. What Albertans should take from this example is to become “maitres chez nous”. (Stephen Harper, National Post, December 8, 2000)

"The only way we will ever get positive constitutional change is when these people are confronted, defeated, and then work constructively within federation." (BC Report Magazine, September 29, 1997)

"We have in this country a federal government that increasingly is engaged in trying to determine which business, which regions, which industries will succeed, which will not through a whole range of economic development, regional development corporate subsidization programs. I believe that in the next election we got to propose a radical departure from this." (Stephen Harper, Global News, February 24, 2002)

"It [referring to calling a Minister "Idiot"] was probably not an appropriate term, but we support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win." - Montreal Gazette, April 2003

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." - Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters." - Canadian Press Newswire, April 11, 2003

"On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." - Maclean’s, August, 25, 2003

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of public opinion… In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade." - Hansard, January 29, 2003

"When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly," (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

"I believe that all taxes are bad." - CTV.ca news, December 1, 2005, "Tory tax cut promise dominates campaign"

"I will strive to make this not the highest-spending country in the world, but instead the lowest taxing one." (Stephen Harper, Conservative Leadership Convention, March 19, 2004)

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." - The Star, January 30, 2007

“Let’s forget about this unworkable treaty…. Kyoto’s never going to be passed.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, June 10, 2004)

“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.” (Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2002)

“No, what I am supportive of is, frankly, not ratifying the Kyoto agreement and not implementing it.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News, September 6, 2002)

“Kyoto [is] the worst international agreement this country has ever signed and I don't think they have the guts to implement it because it would have severe impacts on the economy and on the ordinary people from coast-to-coast.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News, September 4, 2002)

When Harper was asked in a news conference how he can reconcile using the courts—on the one hand—to oppose a bill passed by Parliament [Gag Law – 3rd party election spending]; and then making the case that the courts have had too much say on the same-sex issue, he said: “Well quite easily, because the right of free speech and right of religion are in the constitution. Sexual orientation is not.” (Stephen Harper, CBC Newsworld, September 4, 2003)

“The Liberals may blather about protecting cultural minorities, but the fact is that undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, February 18, 2005)

“Liberals may talk about minorities. But undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country.'' (Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 9, 2005)

“I'm telling you, what I'm telling you is I don't see [the notwithstanding clause] as an issue here. The issue is simple. Which definition of marriage does Parliament want to enact, and I don't think that's, I don't think it's a complicated legal question, I think it's a simple act of political judgment and will.” (Stephen Harper, CTV Question Period, December 26, 2004)

“I do not support the special legal recognition of same-sex relationships, the compulsory provision of marital benefits to same sex couples, or a number of other possible implications of such legislation.” (Stephen Harper, Letter to the Editor, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1994)
Harper has said he opposes a “new deal” for municipalities: “That the federal government should have its own "New Deal" with municipalities is not a view I would subscribe to.” (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, June 24, 2003)

“If Ottawa begins transferring cash directly to municipalities don’t be surprised to see "national standards" and other mandates imposed on cities in pretty short order.” (Stephen Harper, Address to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, June 2, 2003)

“[W]hat we clearly need is experimentation - with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level.” (Stephen Harper, Speech in Charlottetown, June 27, 2001)

"One of the things that we suggested specifically was that the Alberta Government take on the Canada Health Act." (Stephen Harper, CBC Newsworld, December 4, 2001)

“Monopolies in the public sector are just as objectionable as monopolies in the private sector. It should not matter who delivers health care, whether it is private, for profit, not for profit or public institutions, as long as Canadians have access to it regardless of their financial means.” (Stephen Harper, Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, Oct. 1, 2002)

“Harper also believes that our health care will continue to deteriorate unless Ottawa overhauls the Canada Health Act to allow the provinces to experiment with market reforms and private health care delivery options. He is prepared to take tough positions including experimenting with private delivery in the public system.” (Stephen Harper, Leadership Campaign Policy Statement, www.harperforleader.com, February 2002)

“So why is the federal government going to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to run an inquiry into the health care system? The answer is likely so that it can insist upon finding a "national solution" - precisely the opposite of what the system needs. … Given such a challenge, what we clearly need is experimentation - with market reforms and private delivery options within the public system. And it is only logical that, in a federal state where the provinces operate the public health care systems and regulate private services, that experimentation should occur at the provincial level.” (Speech in Charlottetown, June 27, 2001)

“We do not think this government or any government should be in charge of raising our children. We see what happens over there when government is in charge of raising children.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 6, 2004)

“[T]he solution that we need to this problem is not a high spending solution, it's a low-tax solution…I believe it involves giving money directly to parents to make child care choices and not creating expensive bureaucracies that are subjected to inter-government wrangling.'' (Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, February 11, 2005)

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

“[T]his country cannot enhance its cherished place in this world by losing its special position on this continent. We cannot let our military sovereignty in NORAD wither away. We cannot watch our economic security in NAFTA weaken. So I tell you that on our common interests with the United States, including on missile defence, our Conservative government will take Canada back to the table.” (Stephen Harper, 2005 Conservative Convention Speech Speaking Notes, March 18, 2005)

“…we must take seriously our own and continental security, rather than just push the entire burden on to the United States. We need to engage actively in the continental missile defence program to ensure Canada has a voice in its own air security.” (Stephen Harper, National Post, May 23, 2003)
“After all, enforced national bilingualism in this country isn’t mere policy. It has attained the status of a religion. It’s a dogma which one is supposed to accept without question. … [M]ake no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been...As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Stephen Harper, Calgary Sun, May 6, 2001)

"Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." (Stephen Harper, BC Report, January 11, 1999)

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party…” (Stephen Harper, Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994)

"It's actually not a label I love…I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

“But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people.” (Stephen Harper, National Post, March 6, 2004)

Economic conservatism, Harper says during an interview in his Calgary office, is libertarian in nature, emphasizing markets and choice. Libertarian conservatives work to dismantle the remaining elements of the interventionist state and move towards “a market society for the 21st century.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, April 6, 1997)

"You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, The Report newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

"I think people should elect a cat person. If you elect a dog person, you elect someone who wants to be loved. If you elect a cat person, you elect someone who wants to serve." (Stephen Harper, Interview with Kevin Newman, Global National April 5th, 2006)

Originally from this site.

Korean Peninsula - who is being 'bellicose' and 'provocative'?

Winner of the 26th Mangyongdae Prize Marathon women's race in DPRK

From The Guardian, weekly of the Communist Party of Australia, April 10, 2013

"Bellicose" and "provocative" - those are the words used over and over by the capitalist media to describe the actions the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and statements by its leadership in recent times. Scarcely any context is given to explain developments in the strained relationship between the DPRK, its South Korean neighbour and the USA. What little that is provided amounts to speculation about what might be in the mind of the new leader of the country, Kim Jong‑un. "Maybe the young leader is trying to assert his authority in the eyes of the military." "Maybe he wants to distract the population from the economic problems of the DPRK," and so on, and so forth without any reference to facts.

     The corporate media can always be relied on to stoke the fires of hatred. Items carrying unconvincing claims of camps containing hundreds of thousands of starved and tortured political prisoners are being published again. Reports about parents eating their children in a supposedly ongoing famine have resurfaced. The notion that Communists eat babies was first trotted out at the time of the Russian Revolution and has never completely been retired. And, of course, the country is "isolated", "paranoid" and "Stalinist" in the eyes of an increasing tabloid‑style corporate media.

     Imperialism's media/industrial complex has no interest in informing the public to allow it to make considered judgements. It is partisan; its objective is to tarnish any alternative to capitalism in the eyes of exploited people and to justify the crushing of any successful attempt to break free of imperialism's grip. Invasions have been planned and tried but, short of military attack, socialist countries have always been subject to punishing trade and diplomatic restrictions. In some cases, such as Cuba and the DPRK, they have been extreme and deadly. The reaction to this aggression against these usually small states is then provided as evidence of "isolation" and "paranoia".

     The history of the DPRK is the classic example of a US‑led campaign to stand truth on its head. Despite the presence of tens of thousands of US troops on its borders with terrifying military equipment including nuclear weapons, despite regular, provocative joint military exercises with its South Korean client state, despite the vivid memory of the carpet bombing, napalming and germ warfare against the DPRK during the war of 1950-1953 and the loss of five million lives, the leadership of the country has consistently called for:

* A peace treaty to formally end the war
* Reunification of the country divided by the US in 1945
* An end to the US occupation of the south and the annual, month‑long joint military exercises
* Bilateral talks to ease tensions between the US and the DPRK

     These calls for peace have been persistently rejected. Fraught six‑party talks aimed at removing the DPRK's nuclear deterrent were imposed instead. The US/South Korean "war games" have become more and more threatening since the passing of late leader Kim Jong‑il.

     The change of posture also coincides with US President Obama's announcement of a military "pivot" towards Asia with its ultimate military objective of China. The latest manoeuvres included scenarios for the "pre‑emptive" invasion of the DPRK. Nuclear weapons capable B‑52s and the B‑2 stealth bombers have dropped inert bombs less than 30 kilometres away from the North/South border in mock bombing runs on the DPRK.

     This is the context of the DPRK's decision to deploy missiles, mobilise its troops, call for foreign diplomats to leave the country for their own safety and to cut communications with the South Korean government of President Park Geun‑hye, who just so happens to be daughter of General Park Chung‑hee, the late, ruthless dictator of South Korea. The defiant statements emanating from Pyongyang are being portrayed by many as the utterly unprovoked taunts of a "rogue" regime.

     It is worthwhile asking what the response would be if the situation were reversed - if a socialist country moved state of the art military equipment close to the borders of the US. The last time that happened - during the Cuban missile crisis - the US moved the planet as close to a nuclear winter as it has ever come. So, when the government of the DPRK issues strongly worded statements in response to the mobilisation of masses of troops and huge quantities of war‑fighting materiel right up to its border, it's worthwhile asking, who is really being "bellicose" and "provocative"? Who is really engaging in "sabre rattling"?

Quick facts on student debt

Education should be a human right, not a debt sentence says major Canadian union

Between 1990 and 2010, average tuition fees for post-secondary education in Canada increased four-fold from $1,271 to $5,139, the United Food and Commercial Worker's union (UFCW) said today.

By the end of September 2010, student debt exceeded nearly $15 billion and growing - higher than the debt of some provinces. The total cost of a post-secondary education - including tuition, school supplies, housing, and other expenses - is roughly $14,500 a year, or close to $60,000 for a four-year program. (Statistics Canada)

Average undergraduate tuition in Canada is $5,366. (Statistics Canada)

More than 60 percent of current post-secondary students will graduate with student debt.
A recent poll showed that 58 percent of post-secondary students who borrow to pay for their education expect to graduate with nearly $20,000 in debt while 21 per cent expect to owe more than $40,000.

The Canadian Federation of Students estimates that average student debt is almost $28,000. According to the Canada Student Loan Program, most students take 10 years to pay off their loans.
Students studying in the Maritimes have the highest average debt loads while those studying in Quebec have the lowest.

Student Debt by Province in 2011 dollars:

Alberta: $25,698

British Columbia: $29,497

Manitoba: $21,564

New Brunswick: $34,413

Newfoundland and Labrador: $35,703

Nova Scotia: $35,642

Ontario: $26,480

Prince Edward Island: $32,960

Quebec: $15,195

Saskatchewan: $31,061