Category Archives: Uncategorized

Crazed anti-Palestinian Green adviser must be removed

Noah Zatzman adviser

The outpouring of Canadian support for the human rights of Palestinians has obviously unnerved some hardened Israeli nationalists. But who would have thought it could threaten the unity of the Green Party?

Party leader Annamie Paul’s senior adviser has threatened party MPs, gone against party policy and needs to be removed immediately. If Paul doesn’t remove Noah Zatzman and shift gears regarding Palestine it may spell the end of any chance she has for success as party leader.

Recently Zatzman posted a message to Facebook stating:

Shabbat shalom. I have never experienced more anti-Semitism and Jew hatred from people I thought I knew well, then I did this week. (This includes being on campus at York and Carleton in 2002-7 — not a walk in the park). The progressive and climate communities have displayed, at some points this week, overt and virulent anti-Jewish behavior.

“Appalling anti-Semitism and discrimination from a range of political actors beginning with Jagmeet Singh and Dimitri Lascaris and many Liberal, NDP and sadly Green MPs.

We will not accept an apology after you realize what you’ve done. We will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro-LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!! Am Israel chai [The people of Israel live].”

Zatzman’s statement is wild. Only hardened Israeli nationalists believe it is anti-Jewish to oppose Israel’s recent ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem, violent attacks on the Al-Aqsa mosque and killing of 63 children in Gaza. Certainly, smearing influential individuals and threatening to work to “defeat” sitting Green MPs doesn’t seem very strategic for a top adviser. Nor is it realistic to think it’s possible to create a climate and social justice coalition supportive of Israeli violence and ethnic cleansing. Whatever Zatzman may believe, there is a strong correlation between those who organize or attend climate or indigenous rights protests and those outraged at Israel’s actions.

But Zatzman has been shaped by intense Israeli nationalist institutional indoctrination. He graduated from Toronto’s TanenbaumCHAT high school, which organizes fundraisers for Israeli military initiatives and holds regular “IDF days.”He was also tied to Hillel and part of the Birthright Israel Alumni Community. Birthright offers young Jews free trips to Israel in the hopes of engendering Zionism and deterring them from marrying non-Jews.

Zatzman’s statement reflects deep-seated anti-Palestinianism and could cost Paul greatly. Already the Green party leader is in a battle with former leader Elizabeth May over party resources. Last month the manager of Paul’s unsuccessful Toronto Centre by-election, Sean Yo, implied the people around May were anti-Black and anti-Jewish in a story the Toronto Star headlined “Senior Green officials are sabotaging the first Black woman to lead a Canadian political party, ‘disgusted’ insiders say”. Since then, there have been a series of other leaks designed to embarrass May and her supporters. It seems foolhardy to simultaneously fight with May, threaten to defeat sitting Green MPs and battle members over Palestine.

After refusing to make a declaration for days Paul has released two statements on Israel’s recent violence. They are as bad or worse than what the Trudeau government has said. But all three Green MPs have released statements critical of Israeli actions and many members are angry Paul is ignoring official party policy, which is pretty good on Palestinian rights. In response to an action alert tweet titled “Write Annamie Paul and ask her where she stands on Palestine”, Green MP Jenica Atwin wrote, “I stand with Palestine! There are no two sides to this conflict, only human rights abuses! EndApartheid.”

It is unlikely that many Greens support Paul’s position on Palestine. Even fewer likely support Zatzman’s wild statement. Some pro-Palestinian NDP activists, bolstered by that party’s recent call for an arms embargo on Israel, have turned Zatzman’s statement into an opportunity to embarrass the Greens.

If Paul doesn’t immediately remove Zatzman it suggests she’s more committed to Israel’s ethnic cleansing and war crimes than her own career.

On Friday, May 21 at 7pm Yves Engler will be speaking at a Canadian Foreign Policy Institute event on “The Innumerable Ways Canada Supports Israeli Apartheid”

Comments Off on Crazed anti-Palestinian Green adviser must be removed

Filed under Uncategorized

Palestinian envoy fails to criticize Canada


With a representative like this Palestinians might be better off with no envoy in Canada. A recent profile of the Palestinian Authority’s agent in Ottawa confirms the PA is more a colonial tool than a voice for an oppressed people.

In the Hill Times interview Hala Abou-Hassira refuses to answer whether Canada’s anti-Palestinian voting record at the UN had harmed its bid for a seat on the Security Council. Abou-Hassira responded by saying she didn’t know how different member states voted but hoped Canada would win a seat in the future. She even refused to criticize the Canadian government for repeatedly isolating itself against world opinion on Palestinian rights. “Abou-Hassira didn’t offer a position on Canada’s voting record, instead saying Canada has taken ‘positive steps towards peace in the region’”, reported the Hill Times. “Our struggle at the United Nations is not an issue of counting votes, it is a struggle for freedom,” she said.

According to research compiled by Karen Rodman of Just Peace Advocates, since 2000 Canada voted against 166 General Assembly resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Canada’s competitors for the two Security Council seats, Ireland and Norway, didn’t vote against any of these resolutions. Additionally, Ireland and Norway voted yes 251 and 249 times respectively on resolutions related to Palestinian rights during this period. Canada managed 87 yes votes, but only two since 2010.

While the Palestinian Authority’s representative in Ottawa deemed it politically unwise to point out the obvious, a slew of officials and commentators have highlighted the importance of the Palestinian question in Canada’s loss. After the vote Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, told the Jerusalem Post, “we are disappointed that Canada didn’t make it, both because we have close ties with the country and because of the campaign that the Palestinians ran against Canada.” In “UN snub the latest in Liberals’ rancid record” Toronto Star columnist Rick Salutin noted that Canada’s Security Council defeat was all about Canada’s anti-Palestinian record. He wrote, “there is one and only one reason, IMO [in my opinion], for the resounding defeat of Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat at the UN: Palestine.”

Canada’s voting record at the UN was at the heart of the grassroots No Canada on the UN Security Council campaign. An open letter launching the campaign from the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute noted, “since coming to power the Trudeau government has voted against more than fifty UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights backed by the overwhelming majority of member states.” A subsequent open letter was signed by over 100 civil society groups and dozens of prominent individuals urging countries to vote against Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat due to its anti-Palestinian positions. That letter organized by Just Peace Advocates stated, “the Canadian government for at least a decade and a half has consistently isolated itself against world opinion on Palestinian rights at the UN. … Continuing this pattern, Canada ‘sided with Israel by voting No’ on most UN votes on the Question of Palestine in December. Three of these were Canada’s votes on Palestinian Refugees, on UNRWA and on illegal settlements, each distinguishing Canada as in direct opposition to the ‘Yes’ votes of Ireland and Norway.”

Just Peace Advocates organized 1,300 individuals to email all UN ambassadors asking them to vote for Ireland and Norway instead of Canada for the Security Council. In a sign of the campaign’s impact, Canada’s permanent representative to the UN Marc André Blanchard responded with a letter to all UN ambassadors defending Canada’s policy on Palestinian rights.

There’s no question that Canada’s anti-Palestinian voting record harmed its Security Council bid. The only serious question is how big of a role did it play. For their part, Palestinians have an interest in exaggerating, not downplaying, the impact Canada’s anti-Palestinian voting record had on its Security Council loss.

But the PA is highly dependent on Israel, the US, Canada, and other countries’ “aid”. Over the past decade tens (possibly hundreds) of millions of dollars in Canadian aid money has gone to training and supporting a Palestinian security force that serves as an arm of Israel’s occupation. The PA has been labeled the “subcontractor of the Occupation”.

Abou-Hassira’s refusal to criticize this country’s UN voting record should be viewed as a manifestation of Canada’s anti-Palestinianism. Ottawa has helped build a political apparatus so removed from the needs and desires of the long-colonized Palestinians that it is unable to criticize a country for repeatedly isolating itself against world opinion on largely symbolic UN votes.

Comments Off on Palestinian envoy fails to criticize Canada

Filed under Uncategorized

Former Israeli soldier sues pro-Palestinian Toronto restaurant


As part of a well-organized, multilayered, Israel nationalist lobby bid to bankrupt a small left-wing restaurant a prominent Toronto interior designer sued Kimberly Hawkins for $800,000. Shai DeLuca is claiming the Foodbendersowner libeled him.

The suit was filed by RE-LAW LLP and the US-based Lawfare Project which harasses pro-Palestinian activists. The Lawfare Project, reports Nora Barrows-Friedman, is “a pro-Israel group that works to silence activists by filing lawsuits against them and smearing supporters of Palestinian rights as anti-Semites.”

In a statement of claim DeLuca said two posts on Foodbenders’ Instagram account on July 6 defamed him. One of the posts was apparently a screenshot of DeLuca’s Instagram account with the comment, “he’s literally gathering his other whining Zionist friends to attack Palestinians and others in support of @foodbenders.” A second post, reported, featured the statement, “this guy is one of the people who was attacking @foodbenders. He’s an IDF [Israel Defense Forces] SOLDIER (aka terrorist) yet he’s using the BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement for likes. How can you sit there and post about BLM when you have your sniper rifle aimed at Palestinian Children.”

DeLuca’s statement of claim suggests Foodbenders’ statements were libelous. But, on Twitter DeLuca describes himself as an “IDF sergeant (ret)” and a quick Google search demonstrates that he is an aggressive proponent of Israeli military violence. DeLuca publicly defended Israel’s 2014 onslaught on Gaza that left more than 2,000 Palestinians dead and has spoken at a number of international events promoting the Israeli military. DeLuca even claims IDF experience helps with interior design!

(In recent years the Israeli military has bombed Syria on a weekly basis and has multiple boots on Palestinian necks. In his 2008 book Defending The Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security & Foreign Policy Zeev Maoz notes: “There was only one year out of 56 years of history in which Israel did not engage in acts involving the threat, display, or limited use of force with its neighbors. The only year in which Israel did not engage in a militarized conflict was 1988, when Israel was deeply immersed in fighting the Palestinian uprising, the intifada. So it is fair to say that during each and every year of its history Israel was engaged in violent military actions of some magnitude.” Maoz concludes: “None of the wars — with a possible exception of the 1948 war of Independence — was what Israel refers to as Milhemet Ein Brerah (‘war of necessity’). They were all wars of choice or wars of folly.”)

DeLuca works with the rabidly pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). Funded by Donald Trump mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, Seth Klarman and other anti-Palestinian billionaires, CAMERA regularly promotes the IDF and is “aligned with right-wing and hawkish political views”, reports the Jewish Forward.

In his statement of claim to the Ontario Court of appeal DeLuca presents his military service as simply a requirement that every Israeli must fulfill. “He grew up in the State of Israel where he served his compulsory term of military service as a sergeant in the Israel Defense Forces”, it notes. But, elsewhere DeLuca offers a more politicized depiction of his time in the IDF. Asked in 2018 by the Canadian Jewish NewsWhat shaped your strong connection with Israel?” DeLuca responded: “I grew up in an extremely Zionist family. The matriarch of my family, my grandma, and I had a very special relationship. She always said that if she’d had the opportunity, she would’ve gone to Israel. She talked a lot about the importance of defending our homeland. This was really strongly instilled in me. From the age of 15, I knew that, at 18, I’d go do my army service in Israel. I finished high school in Toronto and in November 1995, I went into the Israeli army.”

When speaking to a pro-Israel Canadian audience DeLuca promotes fighting in the IDF but when a social justice activist reframes his actions as a moral outrage against Palestinians he claims to have been duty bound and the victim of malice. DeLuca’s position is not unique. After pro-Palestinian activists protested a presentation by Israeli military reservists at York in November, those who brought the ‘terrorists’ to the university and in some cases assaulted the protesters claimed they were the victims. In 2018 a private Toronto school that flew an Israeli flag and promoted its military also claimed “anti-Semitism” when pro-Palestinian graffiti was scrawled on its walls.

To get a sense of DeLuca’s extreme anti-Palestinian ideology, last week he retweeted ethnic cleansing denial, claiming Israel merely occupied mosquito infested lands. “The only ones that Zionism displaced were mosquitos,” he messaged. “The lands Zionists acquired to establish themselves were malaria ridden, and they reclaimed those lands.” This, of course, is complete nonsense.

It requires chutzpah to join a brutal occupation force halfway across the world, spend years promoting it and when called on it claim you are the victim. DeLuca should either stop promoting a violent foreign military or accept that people are going to criticize him for doing so.


For those interested in supporting Foodbenders please email: PALILEGALFUND@GMAIL.COM


Please email Cityline TV ( to say Shai DeLuca, who is a contributor, promotes a violent foreign army and denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.



Comments Off on Former Israeli soldier sues pro-Palestinian Toronto restaurant

Filed under Uncategorized

Security Council loss is opportunity to develop a more just foreign policy



Ottawa’s failure to gain a seat on the United Nations Security Council is a victory for those seeking a more just Canadian foreign policy. Spurred by the no Canada on Security Council campaign, the loss offers a unique opportunity to push for a fundamental reassessment of this country’s activities and relationships in every corner of our interconnected planet.

The Trudeau government’s defeat is simultaneously unsurprising and remarkable. As I detail here, the international community’s rejection of Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council is not a surprise since Liberal foreign policy has largely mimicked that of Stephen Harper, who lost a similar bid in 2010.

Conversely, the victory is remarkable because Canada had many advantages over its competitors Ireland and Norway for the two “Western Europe and Others” Security Council seats. It is a member of the G7 and has a seat on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. A member of the Commonwealth and Francophonie, Canada also speaks the two main colonial languages. Canada is richer than Ireland and Norway and, notwithstanding commentary suggesting otherwise, actually distributes more international “aid” (which is portrayed much too positively by liberal commentators). Canada spends about five times more on overseas development assistance than Ireland and a few hundred million dollars more than Norway. (Norway spends a great deal more as a percentage of its GDP on ODA and Ireland contributes a slightly higher percentage.)

Canada has a far larger diplomatic apparatus than Ireland or Norway. In the lead-up to the UN vote, Canada’s diplomats published a slew of commentaries in international papers vaunting Canada’s ties to Namibia, Lebanon, etc. Canadian diplomats across the globe also produced Security Council related videos and a Twitter campaign.

But, the #NoUNSC4Canada campaign effectively pushed back against the government’s international Twitter drive. Even if Canada would have won the seat, I would have considered the No Canada on UN Security Council campaign a success since it generated significant critical discussion of foreign policy. Launched formally a month ago (after a multi-month Covid-19 delay) with an open letter in the Toronto Star calling on countries to vote against Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council due to its militarism, support for controversial mining companies, anti-Palestinian positions and climate policies. The Canadian Press, Radio Canada and other major Canadian media outlets reported on the letter signed by numerous prominent individuals, including David Suzuki, Noam Chomsky, Pam Palmater and Roger Waters. Many left Canadian media outlets published the letter and dozens of Spanish, French and English language international media outlets reported on the campaign. More than a half dozen videos, including one from Roger Waters and another from Québec National Assembly member Ruba Ghazal, were produced in support of the effort.

Beyond highlighting immoral policies, the original Canadian Foreign Policy Institute open letter was signed by more than 30 organizations and 3,500 individuals. Another Just Peace Advocates letter asking UN ambassadors to vote for Ireland and Norway instead of Canada due to its anti-Palestinian positions was signed by 100+ organizations and dozens of prominent individuals.

The all-volunteer campaign (bravo Karen Rodman, Bianca Mugyenyi, David Heap, David Kattenburg, Robert Assaly, Lorraine Guay, Tamara Lorincz and Arnold August) stimulated 1298 individuals to deliver letters to every UN ambassador urging them to vote against Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat due to its anti-Palestinian record. Additionally, 471 individuals emailed all UN ambassadors with the general open letter, 169 individuals emailed Caribbean ambassadors with a statement critical of Canada’s role in the Caribbean and 118 letters were sent to all African ambassadors critical of Canada’s role on that continent. Two days before the vote a #NoUNSC4Canada Twitter ‘storm’ targeting UN ambassadors with messages opposed to Canada’s Security Council bid generated enough online chatter to be mentioned by Radio Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and foreign affairs minister François-Philippe Champagne were questioned directly about the campaign. In the clearest example of how the campaign disrupted the government’s bid, Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Marc-André Blanchard, delivered a letter to all countries’ permanent missions at the UN responding to the Palestine-focused effort.

It’s hard to gauge the impact the no Canada on the Security Council campaign had on the individuals who privately cast the ballots. But, Canada received fewer votes on Wednesday than in 2010.

Whether one views this failure to earn a Security Council seat as a victory or a loss, it is clearly time to fundamentally reassess Canadian foreign policy. A good place to begin is a broad discussion about whether this country’s international affairs should continue to be driven by Washington and corporate interests or whether another sort of foreign policy is possible.


Please sign this petition calling for a fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy.


Comments Off on Security Council loss is opportunity to develop a more just foreign policy

Filed under imperialism, Uncategorized

International community rejects Canada’s bid for a seat on Security Council


The international community’s rejection of Canada’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council isn’t a surprise. In the below introduction to my recently published House of Mirrors: Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy I detail how Liberal foreign policy has largely mimicked Stephen Harper’s who lost a bid for the Security Council in 2010.


Justin Trudeau presents himself as “progressive” on foreign affairs. The Liberals claim to have brought Canada “back” after the disastrous Stephen Harper government. But, this book will demonstrate the opposite.

While promising to “make a real and valuable contribution to a more peaceful and prosperous world”, Trudeau has largely continued the Conservatives pro-corporate/empire international policies. The Liberals have followed the previous government’s posture on a wide range of issues from Russia to Palestine, Venezuela to the military.

In 2017 the Liberals released a defence policy that called for 605 more special forces, which have carried out numerous violent covert missions abroad. During the 2015 election campaign defence minister Jason Kenney said if re-elected the Conservatives would add 665 members to the Canadian Armed Forces Special Operations Command. The government’s defence policy also included a plan to acquire armed drones, for which the Conservatives had expressed support. Additionally, the Liberals re-stated the previous government’s commitment to spend over one hundred billion dollars on new fighter jets and naval ships.

The Harper regime repeatedly attacked Venezuela’s elected government and the Liberals ramped up that campaign. The Trudeau government launched an unprecedented, multipronged, effort to overthrow Nicolás Maduro’s government. As part of this campaign, they aligned with the most reactionary political forces in the region, targeting Cuba and recognizing a Honduran president who stole an election he shouldn’t have participated in. Juan Orlando Hernández’ presidency was the outgrowth of a military coup the Conservatives tacitly endorsed in 2009.

In Haiti the Liberals propped up the chosen successor of neo-Duvalerist President Michel Martelly who Harper helped install. Despite a sustained popular uprising against Jovenel Moïse, the Liberals backed the repressive, corrupt and illegitimate president.

The Trudeau government continues to justify Israeli violence against Palestinians and supports Israel’s illegal occupation. Isolating Canada from world opinion, they voted against dozens of UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights backed by most of the world.

Initiated by the Conservatives, the Liberals signed off on a $14 billion Light Armoured Vehicle sale to Saudi Arabia. The Liberals followed Harper’s path of cozying up to other repressive Middle East monarchies, which waged war in Yemen. They also contributed to extending the brutal war in Syria and broke their promise to restart diplomatic relations with Iran, which the Conservatives severed.

The Liberals renewed Canada’s military “training” mission in the Ukraine, which emboldened far-right militarists responsible for hundreds of deaths in the east of that country. In fact, Trudeau significantly bolstered Canada’s military presence on Russia’s doorstep. Simultaneously, the Trudeau government expanded Harper’s sanctions against Russia.

On China the Liberals were torn between corporate Canada and militarist/pro-US forces. They steadily moved away from the corporate sphere and towards the militarist/US Empire standpoint. (During their time in office the Conservatives moved in the opposite direction.) Ottawa seemed to fear that peace might break out on the Korean Peninsula.

Trudeau backed Africa’s most bloodstained politician Paul Kagame.

Unlike his predecessor, Trudeau didn’t sabotage international climate negotiations. But the Liberals flouted their climate commitments and subsidized infrastructure to expand heavy emitting fossil fuels.

Ignoring global inequities, the Liberals promoted the interests of corporations and wealth holders in various international forums. They backed corporate interests through trade accords, Export Development Canada and the Trade Commissioner Service. Their support for SNC Lavalin also reflected corporate influence over foreign policy.

In a stark betrayal of their progressive rhetoric, the Trudeau regime failed to follow through on their promise to rein in Canada’s controversial international mining sector. Instead they mimicked the Conservatives’ strategy of establishing a largely toothless ombudsperson while openly backing brutal mining companies.

To sell their pro-corporate/empire policies the Liberals embraced a series of progressive slogans. As they violated international law and spurned efforts to overcome pressing global issues, the Liberals crowed about the “international rules-based order”. Their “feminist foreign policy” rhetoric rested uneasily with their militarism, support for mining companies and ties to misogynistic monarchies.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, the sober reality is that Trudeau has largely continued Harper’s foreign policy. The “Ugly Canadian” continued to march across the planet, but with a prettier face at the helm.

My 2012 book The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy detailed the first six and a half years of Harper’s rule. This book looks at the first four years of Trudeau’s reign. I will discuss the many ways Canadian foreign policy under Conservative and Liberal governments remained the same. Support for empire and a pro-corporate neoliberal economic order is the common theme that links the actions of conservative and self-described “progressive” prime ministers.


Please sign this petition calling for a fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy.

Comments Off on International community rejects Canada’s bid for a seat on Security Council

Filed under Uncategorized

Canada does not deserve Caribbean countries’ support in its bid for a Security Council seat



Canada is expecting Caribbean countries’ support in its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. Canada does not deserve the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) support.

While the Canadian government often uses progressive, internationalist rhetoric, its current actions and failure to apologize for its imperialist, racist past belie the claims.

For example, over the past two years Ottawa has sought to undercut CARICOM’s non-interventionist position towards Venezuela. Canadian officials have repeatedly pressured CARICOM countries to join its campaign to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro. In September Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raised Venezuela with CARICOM Chair Allen Chastanet and five months earlier Canadian officials facilitated a video link meeting between self-declared Venezuelan President Juan Guaido and CARICOM members. With Peru, Canada launched the “Lima Group” of anti-Maduro countries in mid 2017 after the Organization of American States, primarily Caribbean member states, refused to criticize Venezuela.

At the CARICOM summit in February Haiti, a participant in the Lima Group, pushed other members to join the campaign against the Venezuelan government. But, Jovenel Moïse is only President of Haiti because of support from the US and Canada, which have greatly shaped Haitian affairs since they overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and thousands of other elected officials in 2004. Ottawa played an important role in the coup and supported the murderous foreign imposed regime of Gérard Latortue for two years afterwards. CARICOM opposed the coup against Aristide.

Ottawa has long demonstrated imperialist tendencies elsewhere in the region. In the 1970s and 80s the Canadian military trained in Jamaica on a number of occasions in preparation for an intervention to protect Montréal-based Alcan’s bauxite facilities in the event of civil unrest and/or in case a socialist government took office. According to Royal Military College of Canada professor Sean Maloney’s summary of the internal documents, “the objective of the operation revolved around securing and protecting the Alcan facilities from mob unrest and outright seizure or sabotage.” In 1988 Canadian military planning resumed with an exercise titled “Southern Renewal”. Maloney explains, “in this case a company from two RCR [Royal Canadian Reserves] was covertly inserted to ‘rescue’ Canadian industrial personnel with knowledge of bauxite deposits seized by Jamaican rebels and held hostage.”

Canada’s colonial attitude is actually of even longer standing. “Canadians of varying backgrounds campaigned vigorously for Canada-West Indies union”, writes Paula Hastings in a 300-page thesis titled “Dreams of a Tropical Canada: Race, Nation, and Canadian Aspirations in the Caribbean Basin, 1883-1919.” Canada’s sizable financial sector in the region played an important part in the efforts for Caribbean colonies. In Towers of Gold, Feet of Clay: The Canadian Banks, Walter Stewart notes, “the business was so profitable that in 1919 Canada seriously considered taking the Commonwealth Caribbean off mother England’s hands.”

At the end of World War I Ottawa asked the Imperial War Cabinet if it could take possession of the British West Indies as compensation for Canada’s defence of the empire. London balked. Ottawa was unsuccessful in securing the British Caribbean partly because the request did not find unanimous domestic support. Prime Minister Robert Borden was of two minds on the issue. From London he dispatched a cable noting, “the responsibilities of governing subject races would probably exercise a broadening influence upon our people as the dominion thus constituted would closely resemble in its problems and its duties the empire as a whole.” But, on the other hand, Borden feared that the Caribbean’s black population might want to vote. He remarked upon “the difficulty of dealing with the coloured population, who would probably be more restless under Canadian law than under British control and would desire and perhaps insist upon representation in Parliament.”

Until the second half of the 20th century Canada maintained a racist immigration policy that excluded most West Indians. In recent years some Canadian politicians have floated the idea of annexing Turks and Caicos. Others have pushed for foreign tutelage of Haiti.

Canada has never apologized for its racist past towards the people of the Caribbean and to this day continues to interfere in the internal affairs of the region’s nations.

Until Canada actually walks the anti-imperialist walk, rather than spouting occasional progressive talk, Caribbean countries should vote against Canada’s bid for a two-year seat on the UN Security Council.


Please sign this petition calling on UN member states to vote against Canada’s bid for a Security Council seat.

Comments Off on Canada does not deserve Caribbean countries’ support in its bid for a Security Council seat

Filed under Uncategorized

For Trudeau Black (Haitian) lives do not matter


Justin Trudeau and Jovenel Moïse

It appears that, in Haiti, Black lives do not matter much to the Canadian government.

Justin Trudeau is backing the neo-Duvalerists subjugating that country’s impoverished masses.

On Wednesday the prime minister called President Jovenel Moïse and “underscored the strong friendship between Canada and Haiti.” This is the latest instance of diplomatic support by the Liberals for a repressive, corrupt and illegitimate president who has faced massive popular protests. In April 2018 Trudeau met Moïse at the Summit of the Americas and Moïse’s Prime Minister Jean Henry Ceant in Ottawa in December 2018. According to the post-meeting press release, Trudeau “took the opportunity to convey his support for current efforts of the Haitian government to promote political dialogue.”

In January 2017 foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion and international development minister Marie-Claude Bibeau “warmly congratulated Jovenel Moïse on his election” and declared it “essential that the Haitian political actors respect the definitive results of the presidential election.” But, the president’s claim to legitimacy is paper-thin. Moïse assumed the job through voter suppression and electoral fraud. Barely one in five eligible voters took part in the 2016 presidential election and, even according to official figures, Moïse only received 600,000 votes in a country of over 10 million.

Amidst mass protests Canadian officials put out a stream of statements defending Moïse. In November 2018 Bibeau‏ declared a desire to “come to the aid” of the Haitian government and three months later she attacked the popular revolt. When asked by TVA “the demonstrators demand the resignation of the president. What is Canada’s position on this issue?” Bibeau responded, “the violence must stop; we will not come to a solution in this way.” But, the violence was overwhelmingly meted it out by the Canadian-backed regime.

Canadian officials have all but ignored the regime’s violence. The day after Trudeau talked with Moïse, US Congresswoman Maxine Waters sent a letter to the US ambassador in Haiti drawing attention to recent killings in the Port-au-Prince slum of Cité Soleil. On May 28 the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee wrote: “I am especially disturbed by reports that a death squad headed by Jimmy Cherizier, commonly known as ‘Barbecue,’ accompanied by three Haitian National Police armored personnel carriers invaded Cité Soleil Tuesday, burning houses and killing people. This violent attack reportedly follows violent attacks in the impoverished Port-au-Prince neighborhoods of Tokyo, Delmas, and Pont-Rouge over the previous two days, in which police officers allied with Cherizier stood by while houses were burned, and people were killed. These reports, if true, represent an outrageous and appalling escalation of politically motivated violence against the people of Haiti.”

During the popular uprising between July 2018 and November 2019 the police killed dozens, probably over 100. Videos of police beating protesters, violently arresting individuals and firing live ammunition during protests circulated widely. Amidst a month-long general strike at the end of October 2019 Amnesty International reported, “during six weeks of anti-government protests … at least 35 people were killed, with national police implicated in many of the deaths.” A UN report confirmed government involvement in a massacre that left at least 26, and possibly as many as 71, dead in the Port-au-Prince neighborhood of La Saline in mid-November 2018. Residents said men in police uniforms began the killing. A year later 15 people were massacred in a nearby slum, reported the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, “in politically backed gang attacks intended to force residents of Bel-Air to remove protest barricades.”

Trudeau’s government provided various forms of support to the repressive force that maintained Moïse’s rule. Canadian police train their Haitian counterparts and Ottawa has paid for Haitian police buildings, vehicles, beds, etc.

The Liberals have supported the violent suppression of the popular will in Haiti. The Trudeau government has continued a two-decade old Canadian policy of undercutting Haitian democracy.

Comments Off on For Trudeau Black (Haitian) lives do not matter

Filed under Uncategorized

#NoUNSC4Canada thrusts critical discussion of foreign policy into mainstream


The No Canada on UN Security Council (#NoUNSC4Canada) campaign has thrust critical discussion of Canadian foreign policy into the mainstream. It has also pierced through a stultifying ‘team Canada’ nationalism that affects much of the left. While the historical record suggests otherwise, it is widely assumed that Canadian power is good for the world.

Last Tuesday the Toronto Star published a powerful open letter calling on countries to vote against Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council. It was endorsed by 20 groups and more than 100 prominent artists, academics, activists and authors including David Suzuki, Roger Waters, Noam Chomsky, Pam Palmater, Rawi Hage, Sid Ryan, Antonia Zerbisias, Monia Mazigh and Romeo Saganash. The open letter points out how the Trudeau government has been offside with most UN member states on a host of issues and criticizes Canadian militarism, support for controversial mining companies and climate policies.

Justin Trudeau was forced to respond to the letter during his press conference that day. Subsequently, the Canadian Press covered the letter and the Prime Minister’s response. Radio Canada’s Le Téléjournal did a long sympathetic clip and published a story online. Canadian Dimension, Dissident Voice, Rabble, Socialist Project, Presse-toi à gauche!, Left Chapter, Philippine Reporter, Legrand Soir, Les Artistes pour la Paix, L’aut’journal and others published the full letter while Telesur, Sputnik, Pacific Free Press, Redaction Politics, Hill Times, Omny, Orinoco Tribune, Counterpunch, The Conversation, Common Dreams and others covered it. A somewhat unhinged Global news commentary labeled it a “ridiculous petition”.

Pink Floyd founder Roger Waters did a four-minute video clip on why he feels Canada doesn’t deserve a seat on the Security Council, which has been viewed more than 100,000 times. A number of other individuals have produced videos detailing why Canada doesn’t deserve a seat on the Security Council. There’s also been significant discussion of the letter on social media and nearly 2000 people have signed the petition, which will be sent to all UN ambassadors.

The #NoUNSC4Canada campaign has added substance to a discussion focused on whether Ottawa will win a seat, how much time and money the government has spent on it and whether it’s all worth it. Unlike almost all other substantive criticism, the No Canada on UN Security Council campaign has done so without reinforcing nationalist mythology or the idea the world needs more Canada.

When the media has assessed actual policy — rather than the horse race — during the Security Council campaign two issues have received critical attention: Canada’s limited contribution to peacekeeping and low foreign aid. It’s not coincidental that both these criticisms suggest the ‘world needs more Canada’.

Coverage of Canada’s withdrawal from UN peacekeeping presupposes that “peacekeeping” is a benevolent endeavor, which has often not been the case. In 2004 Canada was part of a UN mission that helped overthrow Haiti’s elected government, in the early 1960s Canadian peacekeepers enabled the assassination of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba and a decade before that Canadian troops were part of a ghastly UN lead war in Korea. Bemoaning Canada’s lack of peacekeeping is a nonthreatening criticism because it aligns with nationalist mythology and evades directly confronting military power (elements of the Canadian Forces have long viewed “peacekeeping”, which demands a military force, as a way to maintain public support for its budget.)

The media has also been willing to criticize Canada’s lack of aid. In the abstract and often in practice, international aid sounds appealing. In a just world, wealthier regions would assist poorer ones. Federal government transfer payments smooth out regional inequities in Canada and there’s no reason this type of policy couldn’t be internationalized. When looked at narrowly, most aid projects are beneficial (though there are many examples that are not, from training killer cops in Haiti, to rewriting Colombia’s mining code to better serve multinationals). Schools financed by Canada elsewhere usually benefit some children and the same can be said regarding money put into a farmers’ cooperative or a micro loan program for impoverished women. But as you broaden the lens of analysis the picture changes. Aid takes on a different meaning in the hands of governments run by and for the economic elite.

Initially conceived as a way to blunt radical decolonization in India, Canadian aid is primarily about advancing Ottawa’s geopolitical objectives and, to a lesser degree, specific corporate interests. In the 1970s, for instance, Ottawa increased aid to African states as a way to mitigate their criticism of Canada’s economic and political relations with apartheid South Africa. More substantially, the ‘intervention equals aid principle’ has long seen money channeled into countries where US and Canadian troops are killing people. The $2 billion in aid Canada spent in Afghanistan was at least partially a public relations exercise to justify — to the Canadian public and elite Afghans — its military occupation. Similarly, the huge influx of Canadian aid to Haiti after the 2004 coup was tied to undermining democracy.

While wealthier regions should assist poorer ones, the aid discussion puts a humanitarian gloss on a foreign policy largely driven by support of empire and Canadian corporate interests. The No Canada on Security Council campaign challenges the nationalist prism by criticizing unambiguous foreign policy injustices. Hopefully, #NoUNSC4Canada will go a small way to creating the conditions in which progressives feel comfortable declaring “the world needs less Canada” of the corporate, colonialist kind.

Comments Off on #NoUNSC4Canada thrusts critical discussion of foreign policy into mainstream

Filed under Uncategorized

Canada’s record on Palestinian rights should disqualify it from Security Council race


Canada’s anti-Palestinian voting record should disqualify it from a seat on the UN Security Council. Hopefully when member states pick amongst Ireland, Norway and Canada for the two Western Europe and Others positions on the Security Council they consider the international body’s responsibility to Palestinians. If they do it will be a rebuke to Canada’s embarrassing history of institutional racism against the Palestinian people.

Compared to Canada, Ireland and Norway have far better records on upholding Palestinian rights at the UN. According to research compiled by Karen Rodman of Just Peace Advocates, since 2000 Canada has voted against 166 General Assembly resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Ireland and Norway haven’t voted against any of these resolutions. Additionally, Ireland and Norway have voted yes 251 and 249 times respectively on resolutions related to Palestinian rights during this period. Canada has managed 87 yes votes, but only two since 2010.

In maybe the most egregious example of Ottawa being offside with world opinion, Canada sided with the US, Israel and some tiny Pacific island states in opposing a UN resolution supporting Palestinian statehood that was backed by 176 nations in December 2017.

The only time since the end of the colonial period Canada has somewhat aligned with international opinion regarding Palestinian rights was in the 1990s and early 2000s under Jean Chretien. In the early 1990s Norman Finkelstein labeled Canada “probably Israel’s staunchest ally after the United States at the United Nations” while a 1983 Globe and Mail article referred to “Canada’s position as Israel’s No. 2 friend at the UN.” In the early 1980s Ottawa sided with Israel on a spate of UN resolutions despite near unanimity of international opposition. In July 1980 Canada voted with the US and Israel (nine European countries abstained) against a resolution calling on Israel to withdraw completely and unconditionally from all Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967. On December 11, 1982 the Globe and Mail reported that the “United Nations General Assembly called yesterday for the creation of an independent Palestinian state and for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from territories it occupied in 1967. Israel, Canada, the United States and Costa Rica cast the only negative votes as the assembly passed the appeal by 113 votes to 4, with 23 abstentions.”

Canada’s voting record on Palestinian rights at the UN is an abomination. It’s made worse by the fact that Canada contributed significantly to the international body’s role in dispossessing Palestinians. Canadian officials were important players in the UN negotiations to create a Jewish state on Palestinian land. Lester Pearson promoted the Zionist cause in two different committees dealing with the British Mandate of Palestine. After moving assiduously for a US and Soviet accord on the anti-Palestinian partition plan he was dubbed “Lord Balfour of Canada” by Zionist groups. Canada’s representative on the UN Special Committee on Palestine, Supreme Court justice Ivan C. Rand, is considered the lead architect of the partition plan.

Despite owning less than seven percent of the land and making up a third of the population, the UN partition plan gave the Zionist movement 55% of Palestine. A huge boost to the Zionists’ desire for an ethnically based state, it contributed to the displacement of at least 700,000 Palestinians. Scholar Walid Khalidi complained that UN (partition) Resolution 181 was “a hasty act of granting half of Palestine to an ideological movement that declared openly already in the 1930s its wish to de-Arabise Palestine.” Palestinians statelessness seven decades later remains a stain on the UN.

Over the past year the Canadian government has devoted significant energy and resources to winning a seat on the Security Council. In recent days, Canada’s foreign affairs minister has taken to calling individual UN ambassadors in the hopes of convincing them to vote for Canada.

To combat this pressure, a small group of Palestine solidarity activists have organized an open letter drawing attention to Canada’s anti-Palestinian voting record. Signed by dozens of organizations, the letter will be delivered to all UN ambassadors in the hope that some of them will cast their ballots with an eye to the UN’s responsibility to Palestinians.


Please sign and share this petition against Canada’s Security Council bid:

Comments Off on Canada’s record on Palestinian rights should disqualify it from Security Council race

Filed under Uncategorized

Canadian GHG emissions grow


While governments’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic proves significant resources can be marshalled quickly in a crisis, there is little evidence official Canada sees global warming as a comparable emergency.

Even though Justin Trudeau’s Liberals say they take climate change seriously, Canadian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are actually increasing. According to the inventory report the government filed with the United Nations last week, Canada’s emissions grew to more than 729 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and its equivalents in 2018. This represents a 15 million tonne increase over 2017.

Incredibly, the editors at the Globe and Mail decided this information deserved a 75-word brief in the bottom corner of page 15. While Canada’s paper of record buried the story, it deserved front-page attention. The situation is dire. Temperatures are increasing steadily and so too the frequency/intensity of “natural” disasters. In 2019 there were 15 natural disasters linked to climate change that caused more than a billion dollars in damage. Seven of them destroyed more than $10 billion. Hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of anthropocentric climate disturbances and the numbers will grow exponentially.

At the 2015 Paris climate negotiation the Trudeau government committed Canada to reducing GHG emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 (a major step backwards from Canada’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol and 2009 Copenhagen Accord). But, this target is unlikely to be achieved. In December Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, said Canada was expected to emit 603 million tonnes of GHG in 2030, far above the 511 million tonnes agreed to in Paris (to meet the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Canada would need to reduce its GHG emissions to 381 million tonnes by 2030).

A November Nature Communications study seeking to reconcile the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5-to-2 C concluded that if the rest of the world flouted its commitments in a similar way to Canada temperatures would increase between 3 C and 4 C by the end of the century. A Climate Transparency report card release that month found that Canada’s plan to meet its GHG targets was among the worst (along with Australia and South Korea) in the G20. The November study found that the emissions intensity of Canada’s buildings, transportation and agriculture were all above the G20 average and that Canadians produced nearly three times more GHG per capita than the G20 average.

Expansion of the tar sands guarantees that Canada will flout its international commitments to reduce GHG emissions. According to the Parkland Institute, “bitumen production grew 376% from 2000 through 2018” and is projected to grow by another 1.41 million barrels per day by 2040. To expand extraction of heavy carbon emitting Alberta oil, the Liberals are spending $9 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline and related infrastructure. Last week the government announced $1.7 billion to clean up orphan wells in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. While energy workers should be offered work cleaning up environmental devastation, the initiative is, in effect, a subsidy to a historically profitable industry that should be covering the costs.

This was not the first time the Liberals broke their pre-election promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Ottawa continues to offer billions of dollars (as much as $46 billion, according to one IMF working paper) a year in assistance to oil, gas and other fossil fuel firms. While Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s 2015 mandate letter from the PM said he should “work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to fulfil our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term”, there was no mention of this objective in either Morneau’s or Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson’s 2019 mandate letters.

Despite claiming to take the climate crisis seriously, the Trudeau government has failed to put the country on track to meet even dangerously insufficient targets for reducing GHG emissions. This is largely because of the oil industry’s power. The profits from oil and natural gas flow to their producers and distributers, as well as the banks that finance them, and other investors whose portfolios include these stocks. These are the people who, under the current economic system, mostly determine government policy.

Comments Off on Canadian GHG emissions grow

Filed under Climate, Justin Trudeau, Uncategorized