Alternatives International

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte: A Socialist in Disguise?

Malcolm Guy — 2016-07-08T14:25:27Z

Time magazine called him "The Punisher", while other publications refer to him as “Duterte Harry”, the Trump of the Philippines, or a “dictator in waiting”. I feel compelled by the somewhat simplistic analyses in Canada and elsewhere concerning the new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo "Digong" Duterte, to weigh in with a somewhat more balanced view of this controversial figure.

Elected by an overwhelming majority of over six million votes last May, "Digong" was inaugurated as President of this South-East Asian country of over 100 million on June 30. In a clear sign that this was not business as usual, Duterte invited the leaders of a rally of thousands that had marched to the gates of the Presidential Palace, Malacañang, to join him inside the Palace. The leaders presented Duterte with a People's Agenda that includes a 15-point Program for Nationalist and Progressive Change as well as a more detailed agenda for the First 100 days. The topics in the agenda range from economic development, social policy, peace and human rights, to governance and foreign policy.

Traditionally such rallies are met with water cannons and truncheons, and sometimes live bullets.

Following his election, I interviewed Duterte in Davao, a city of two million on the southern island of Mindanao where he was mayor for 20 years. Surrounded by a throng of journalists, bodyguards and well wishers, we waited our turn in a hotel meeting room until almost midnight as Duterte dined in the next room with Philippine boxing legend and recently re-elected Senator, Manny Paquiao. The dinner was followed by a marathon two-hour press conference. By the time Duterte arrived for my interview, he was tired and had a migraine, but was still ready to talk for over 40 minutes.

The interview will be part of a new independent documentary I am working on about a legendary leader of the revolutionary Philippine left, Prof. Jose Maria Sison, who it turns out was Duterte's professor of political economy during university.

In Canada and elsewhere in the global North, we seem to like our politics Euro- or Americano-centric, and simple. There are the good guys and the bad guys.

Generally, the good guys are those leaders who offer foreign mining and other corporations a free hand to do business in their country without too many controls or regulations, or who buy western military material and/or support western powers' decision to bomb, send troops and/or occupy other countries in the name of "democracy". The Philippines is such a country, tied to the US in particular through a series of unequal treaties and agreements since the former colonial master granted the Philippines formal independence in 1949. Canadian mining corporations have been benefitting from these policies, including TVI in Mindanao.

The bad guys are everybody else.

But Duterte, despite a foul mouth, provocative statements on rape and the Pope, and association with anti-drug "death squads" in Davao, does not easily fit into such a black and white dichotomy. He is a conundrum to both those on the "left" as well as the "right" of the political spectrum, as Philippine activist Carol Pagaduan-Araullo points out in her column, Streetwise.

Araullo notes, "For those on the Right who support him — who comprise the socio-economic elite, the dominant classes, the status quoers, the political conservatives, and reactionaries — Duterte is what the ruling system needs to “fix” what is broken and in so doing maintain and strengthen it further."

They hope Duterte will "act as the charismatic demagogue who can make the people believe that the system can still be fixed and that he is the one to do it."

Meanwhile the poor and disenfranchised, of which there are plenty in the Philippines — 66 million of a population of 100 million live in abject poverty, less than $3.50 a day, while 20% of the labour force are obliged to seek work abroad — were supportive of Duterte's calls for law and order and "death" to drug pushers.

They also supported Duterte's promise to end corruption, incompetence, and subservience to Washington, the hallmarks of the previous regime of Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino. Noynoy is the son of former President Corazon "Cory" Aquino, who replaced the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Great hopes had thus been placed in Cory's successor, hopes that were soundly dashed over the last six years.

However, behind the crass law and order bluster of the new President lies a more complex character. Duterte refers to himself as a "socialist" and "the first Left President of the Philippines". In the heart of the election campaign he conducted a widely publicized Skype exchange with Prof. Sison, founding chairperson of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP and the armed revolutionary force it commands, the New People's Army (NPA), is present in scores of guerilla fronts in 71 of the 81 Philippine provinces and has been waging a people's war for the past 47 years – drawing support from millions of people in all parts of the country.

Duterte invited Sison, 76, back to the Philippines and offered the CPP four cabinet posts. Sison, who was tortured and imprisoned for nine years under the Marcos dictatorship, has lived in forced exile in the Netherlands, with wife Julieta de Lima, for the last 30 years following the removal of his Philippine passport by the government of Cory Aquino.

The Skype call to Sison was part of a concerted effort by Duterte to immediately resume peace talks with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), which represents the CPP, the New Peoples Army (NPA) and 16 other revolutionary organizations.

Although Duterte fundamentally represents the interests of the Philippine elite, as Araullo points out, "his record of non-antagonistic and, even more so, friendly ties with the New People's Army in Davao City, as well as support for the Leftist movement in general, underscore three aspects of Duterte that distinguish him from other run-of-the-mill bourgeois politicians."

Firstly, he does not spout the rabid anti-communism of his predecessors and considers revolutionaries neither "terrorists nor traitors, but as patriots who are seeking radical societal change for the good of the majority of the people," writes Araullo.

Secondly, Duterte acknowledges "the deep socio-economic and political underpinnings of armed conflicts cannot be resolved by military means alone."

Duterte announced his intention to release all political prisoners including the 18 NDFP peace consultants who were illegally arrested by previous governments despite protection under the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG). In my interview with Duterte, he seemed to backtrack somewhat on the promise of general amnesty for political prisoners, saying that his will start with the release of the "leaders" involved in the peace talks. Human Rights advocates in the Philippines are already stepping up pressure tactics to get him to respect his promise to release all, especially starting with the sick, women and elderly for humanitarian reasons. There are currently over 560 political prisoners in the Philippines, according to the principal human rights organization, Karapatan.

Thirdly, Duterte has thumbed his nose at conventional ideas and norms about how a President should act, notably with the former colonial power, the USA, as well as with the Philippine Congress, Supreme Court, the judiciary, civilian bureaucracy, and Catholic church hierarchy, along with the big landlords and the foreign multinationals and their local associates.

His attitude towards the powerful Catholic Church is noteworthy in a country where about 80 percent of the population are Catholics, the largest concentration in any Asian country. With divorce still illegal and the church hierarchy opposing abortion and contraception, Duterte has called the church a "most hypocritical institution" and has come out in favour of birth control.

Duterte has so far proved to be a clever tactician, weaving a complex path between the status quo and reform, keeping the extreme right at bay, with their thinly veiled threats of a military coup, while reaching out to the revolutionary left as he tries to put into place his vision of a "reformed 'socialist' society".

In my late night interview which took place a month before his swearing-in, Duterte told me that he is more comfortable being known as the first left "mayor" of the Philippines. He had trouble with the idea of President.

And in response to the accusation that he is a Trump clone, Duterte replied, "no I am not like Trump, I am not a bigot who discriminates against Muslims and other such people." Duterte has been strongly supportive of marginalized minorities, including Moro Muslims and their call for greater autonomy, and is an advocate for gay marriage and LGBT rights.

Duterte has also carried through on his promise to offer cabinet posts to representatives of the left after Sison formally declined the offer for Communists to take the positions.

The new cabinet members include feminist professor Judy Taguiwalo and peasant leader Rafael "Paeng" Mariano. Taguiwalo was named Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). A former political prisoner, she was head of the Department of Women and Development Studies at the University of the Philippines and has a Canadian connection, earning her master's degree at Carleton University.

Taguiwalo wasted no time showing her colours by visiting a refugee centre for hundreds of Lumads, or Philippine indigenous people, on the southern island of Mindanao. They were forced from their land under counter insurgency operations by the Philippine military and hired mercenaries under the former government.

Mariano, a farmer and chairman of the militant peasant's organization, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (Philippine Peasant's Movement - KMP), will head the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Mariano has said that he will investigate the situation at the huge plantation four hours north of Manila, Hacienda Luisita, which is owned by the family of the outgoing President Aquino and where there is an epic battle for land underway led by landless peasants. The struggle is symbolic of the continuing feudal land holding structure and lack of true land reform in the Philippines.

Peace talks will begin between the Duterte government and the NDFP in the coming weeks in Norway, which is acting as mediator. This is a major advance since peace talks with the former government were stalled since 2011. CPP founder Prof. Sison stated that he wishes to return to the Philippines as early as this this month (July) to be personally present for the release of the political prisoners and the signing of the preliminary peace talk documents. Sison is a senior advisor to the NDFP in the peace talks.

Sison, however, is facing opposition from Washington, which since the Philippine election has renewed the mislabelling of the revolutionary forces, the CPP and NPA, as “terrorist”. Sison points out that it is “hypocritical” for US imperialism, “the biggest terrorist power in the world” to try to sabotage and upset the peace process with the incoming Duterte government.

The meddling by the US reveals just one of the basic challenges facing the Duterte government and the Philippine people.

It is going to take a lot more than a few reforms to root out the entrenched system of wealth and power of the landed elite, big business, and bureaucrat capitalists that is backed by the police and military, the judiciary and the military might of the United States. Even those reforms will only stand a chance of being enacted if the Philippine people organize and mobilize to keep up the pressure on the Duterte government in the face of the fierce opposition that will arise.

There will no doubt be many more surprises in store under President Rodrigo Duterte, and as my Philippine friends have pointed out, he could be the best, or the worst, President the Philippines has known.

Malcolm Guy is a Montreal-based filmmaker and anti-imperialist activist.

An Interview with Ali Abunimah: BDS and Palestinian Solidarity

Sophia Reuss — 2016-07-04T17:16:23Z

Ali Abunimah is a prominent Palestinian-American activist and journalist. Abunimah is the Vice-President on the Board of Directors of the Arab American Action Network, a fellow at the Palestine Centre, and a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, an independent, not-for-profit, publication that covers the Israel-Palestine conflict from a Palestinian perspective.

The Alternatives International Journal spoke with Abunimah about the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and international solidarity for Palestinian struggle in the 21st century.

This February, the Canadian parliament passed a motion condemning the BDS movement in Canada and abroad. Many BDS activists and allies fear that the next step could be the movement's criminalization. To what extent is the criminalization the BDS movement a likely outcome in Canada?

It is important to see the Canadian parliament's condemnation of the BDS movement in an international context. This was part of a wave of legislation or resolutions passed by legislative bodies and cities all around the world in Europe and in North America, that were being pushed by Israel itself, by its foreign ministry, and by Israeli lobbyists in particular countries. This is an Israeli campaign, that very openly and explicitly works to delegitimize BDS and criminalize the BDS movement. Canada of course is very much a part of that, so this kind of thing had already been happening on Canadian campuses with efforts to silent Palestine solidarity groups on for some years. The vote in the House of Commons was the culmination of those efforts.

In the Canadian context, it is important to remember that the Harper government had threatened at a certain point to use hate crime laws to criminalize the BDS movement. They eventually backed down but it was also the case that Justin Trudeau, when he was leader of opposition, condemned the BDS movement. This is very much part of an elite consensus as it is in other countries.

It is also important to note that there has been much resistance, which has won some successes. Again, if we look at the broader context, in the United States, there has been anti-BDS legislation in almost half of the states. I think [anti-BDS legislation] has been passed in about 10 or 11 states, but there have been initiatives in 24 states [writer's note: anti-BDS legislation has been enacted in nine states and at least nine other states are considering anti-BDS legislation this year.] In a number of states we see a strong pushback from the grassroots that's actually having an effect. In Virginia, New York, Ohio, and California, various legislative measures were either shelved or very severely watered down because of strong pushback from activists. New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo, introduced an executive order against BDS because they were having difficulty advancing legislation through the legislature.

All of that is a prelude to say that in Ontario, a BDS bill was proposed several weeks ago which was modelled on the New York legislation, very repressive of free speech, and what was really fantastic bout what happened in Ontario, is that as far as I'm aware, this was the first time a BDS bill had been put before a legislature for a full vote and was defeated by a very big margin. That was great, and Ontario really made history there. What was great is that they had introduced the bill in a very stealthy way, with almost no notice to members, no time for a serious debate, and activists in Canada didn't even know about it. But in a very short time, people mobilized and that bill was really defeated very soundly. So that's good news, because if they try to bring more serious federal legislation in Canada, what happened in Ontario is a very good precedent: it can be stopped, and [the criminalization of the BDS movement] isn't inevitable.

The Israeli government is reacting very strongly to the BDS. Is it because BDS is generating a bad image internationally or does it really affect their economy?

Yes, [Israel's] fear of BDS is very real. Part of it is posturing: they like to exaggerate the threat. But [the BDS movement] is very real and they recognize that.

It's not just the economy. The economy is a big part of it - but it's a lot of other activities as well, such as the academic and cultural boycott. A council of presidents of Israeli universities have said through the Israeli media in the past year that, the academic boycott is an issue in the sense that there's a few hundred, a few thousand academics who have publicly declared that they wont [go] to Israel or work with Israeli institutions.

But what's a much bigger problem is what they call the silent boycott. For every professor or academic who publicly supports the boycott, there are maybe 10 others who don't say anything, but who don't [go] to Israel and don't engage [with Israeli institutions]. [Israel and Israeli institutions] are feeling the pressure of the silent boycott.

Theres something very similar [to the cultural and academic silent boycott] that comes in the economic sphere. The number of multinational companies that have pulled out [of Israel] isn't that big. I don't want to underplay the [BDS movement's] victories, because they're important and the result of major campaigns. But the problem for Israel is that a number of companies are going to say: well, Israel is a very small market and it's a big headache to invest. It's much easier [for these companies] to stay away and [they] don't have to say anything, [they] just stay away [from Israel].

And thats how BDS works, its not necessary for everybody to declare why they're not going there, but Israel realizes that this is the big impact the potential losses from a European consumer boycott is more than 12 billion euros a year. Those are major numbers that Israel is looking at.

International solidarity for the Palestinian cause is enormous, both in numbers and in sustainability and perseverance. What are the main reasons behind the international support for the Palestinian cause? And how do we reconcile support for Palestine with the criticism and condemnation of the BDS movement?

The situation in Palestine is the last anti-colonial struggle of the 20th century. But unfortunately, it is continuing into the 21st century, and for a lot of people, [the anti-colonial struggle in Palestine] is symbolic and emblematic of the injustice and violence in the world.

All of the settler colonial projects that reached their height in the 20th century have ended, except in Palestine, and the support for Palestinian rights has been strong for a very long time, for many, many decades. What's different now, and this is really the opportunity we have to hopefully bring liberation and justice into Palestine, is that BDS is providing a set of tools and techniques to translate that solidarity into real political power and action. That's the difference.

It's not enough that people are sympathetic to Palestinians. We have to translate that sympathy into political power and pressure. That's why BDS is seen as such a threat to Israel and Israel's supporters, including of course the Trudeau government in Canada.

The other thing is that Palestine is really seen as a key issue. At the Socialism Conference in Chicago a few days ago, we were doing a session on Black Palestinian solidarity. And one of the speakers made the point that Black people in the United States and Palestinians in Palestine are really at the sharpest end of the empire. Black Americans being on the internal side and Palestinians being on the international side. These two struggles, of black people in the United States against racism and state violence, and the Palestinian struggle for their liberation, really in a way galvanize and represent the struggle against American imperialism in its most violent forms.

Is the unconditional United States veto the only factor blocking the end of occupation?

American support for Israel is of course a major factor. But it's not the United States alone. Canada has been of the most pro-Israel countries in the world, sometimes even more so than the United States. The difference is that Canada weighs much less than the United States.

I was in Australia and New Zealand this Spring, and the message that I was trying to give to activists in New Zealand in particular is that it's much easier to move the politics of a smaller country than it is to move the politics of the United States. The opportunity for activists in New Zealand or in Canada, some countries in Europe as well as in Southeast Asia, is that the victories you win there can have really a global impact. They start to change the discourse internationally, they start to break the consensus [with the United States].

While we recognize the weight of the United States, I think it's very important that we don't disempower ourselves by saying that unless the United States changes nothing is going to happen. The United States is part of an international system. Changing things in Canada, and Quebec is a good metric for this, has an impact on changing the United States. It's critical that people understand that people [both outside and inside the United States] have power and play an important role. And that's the strength of the BDS movement: it's grassroots, it's international, it's internationalist, and it's decentralized. And that's how we exercise power.

Student-led BDS campaigns are galvanizing university campuses across North America, but student campaigners face pushback from both university administrations and pro-Israel student bodies. What role does the BDS movement need to play on university campuses and how would you respond to students who are struggling to maintain the BDS campaign?

Students are the experts at that. What I can say is that, and I know less about Canada, but there have been some important successes recently: at Dalhousie [University] the student government voted to divest, not just recommended divestment, but actually voted for actual divestment. The student union itself has funds of several million dollars and there about tens of thousands of dollars that they were holding in companies complicit in Israeli human rights violations that will be divested.

What we're seeing in the United States, and across North America generally, is university administrations (and they always do this) siding with the status quo, siding with power, siding with governments [over students], siding with Israeli. But this has not stopped the momentum, and what we see is that the momentum is moving up the chain, it's incremental, but it's happening. What I mean by that is that this has gone from a movement which is about passing student government resolutions in support of BDS (and that has happened across North America), [to a movement that now] works to actually turn [that momentum] into campaigns which put pressure on universities to actually divest.

Some of those campaigns are beginning to involve faculty. We see alliances between students and faculty and that [alliance] is very, very important. That's one way students can protect themselves against censorship and intimidation. But the other thing [happening] in the United States that's very important is that we've seen three graduate student trade unions support BDS. We need more involvement of trade unions, and more alliance. This isn't just a way to strengthen the BDS movement on campuses, but also to broaden the movement in society generally.

How optimistic are you about the future of the BDS movement?

I think the one point to make is that there is a major political shift going on in North America, Europe, and other parts of the world. The young generation, the so-called millennials, are becoming much more progressive. They're in revolt against the system which has robbed them of a viable political and economic future. We see that in the United States in the support for Bernie Sanders (that's not to say Sanders is the greatest politician or person in the world), we see that in the support for Corbyn, we see it in Spain with Podemos, in Greece with Syriza. There are victories and losses, like we see in Greece.

But this shift is also critical to support for Palestine, support for Palestine is part of a broader movement for economic and social justice and against racism. So in that sense I'm quite optimistic about the possibilities [for the BDS movement]. We've seen [this change] in the past few years in Canada. Quebec is perhaps the biggest indicator, with the enormous student-led protests that have happened there in the past couple of years, but also in Alberta with the New Democratic Party's victory (although the NDP is nothing fantastic politically, especially on Palestine.) My point is there are opportunities and insurgent movements, and we should be optimistic about our possibility to bring about change.

“I Am a Victim of Injustice”: Dilma Rousseff and Sexism in Brazilian Politics

Samia Constantin — 2016-07-04T17:12:31Z

Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff faces an impeachment trial after accusations of burying an important budget deficit to guarantee her re-election in 2014 sparked massive public outrage. The Senate voted 55-22 to suspend her for 180 days, ending the thirteen-year rule of the Worker's Party.

Brazil's first female president denounced this decision as a “coup,” declaring that “when an elected president is suspended as a result of a crime she hasn't committed, the name we give is not impeachment but a coup.”

Rousseff refuses to take responsibility for any wrong-doings during her presidency, although during her impeachment trial, she admitted that she regrets the coalition she created with her Vice President Michel Temer, since he turned against her during the trials.

Conveniently, Temer took over Rousseff's responsibilities as interim president, with a cabinet made up of an all white, male ministers. Temer's white male cabinet highlights the systemic issue of sexism in Brazilian politics, and leads to the speculation that Rousseff payed the price of being a woman in the Brazilian political realm.

In fact, Temer appointed various ministers implicated in corruption scandals. AlJazeera reported that at least sixty percent of politicians in Brazil are “under investigation or indictment for crimes ranging from attempted murder to massive corruption, including the president of the senate who will be overseeing Rousseff's impeachment trial.” Yet, it seems like only Rousseff is being punished for the culture of corruption in Brazil.

Gender-based arguments

Rousseff is the first female president in Latin America. The Brazilian Senate is 16 percent female, while the Lower House is comprised just about 10 percent women. Still, Temer's government is the first all-male cabinet Brazil has had since 1979.

The gender bias against Rousseff started before her first election in 2010. Media coverage insisted on her lack of femininity and “sex appeal” while underlining the fact that she was divorced and never remarried. She was qualified as “aggressive,” “strict,” and “too serious,” in comparison to the charismatic President Lula.

At the time, Rousseff was already listed by Forbes as the 16th most powerful person internationally, but was still considered by many Brazilians as unfit for the political sphere. These reactions and comments effectively pressured her into getting plastic surgery during the presidential campaign, in order to fit the standard of beauty socially imposed on her. Rousseff had to change drastically to appeal to the Brazilian expectations of a woman. Following her transformation, media outlets rushed to discuss her physical changes, the color of her lipstick, her outfits, or her different hairstyles.

“Tchau querida !” (Bye, darling!)

Rousseff's gender is not the only reason for her impeachment, but it has undeniably worked against her. Rousseff's womanhood was politicized to guarantee her impeachment. Multiple congressmen held up signs reading “Tchau querida” as they voted to suspend her in the lower house. Magazines argued that Rousseff did not possess “the emotional control to run the country”. The first female President claimed “there are attitudes towards me that wouldn't exist toward a male president.”

Rousseff's impeachment raises the spectre of sexism in Brazilian politics and society. Does the reaction against Rousseff point to the comeback of a conservative Brazil attached to traditional family values where women are unfit for politics? Or perhaps Brazilian sexism has never really gone away.

Despite comprising 51 percent of Brazil's population, women are still treated as a minority group by the new government. Interim president Temer merged the Ministry of Women, Racial Equality, Youth, and Human Rights with the Ministry of Justice to form a new Ministry of Justice and Citizenship.

To justify the lack of women in his cabinet, Temer argued that no political party suggested he nominate a woman. Instead, the executive branch includes multiple sons of political officials who do not have any formal political experience. Temer has emphasized the fact that his Chief of Staff was a woman but used the term “secretary” to refer to her position.

Temer has also promised that his wife, Marcela Temer, will have a function in the social sector of the government, but felt it necessary to describe her as “beautiful, reserved, and domesticated.” Rousseff reacted to Temer's cabinet saying that “Black people and women are fundamental if you truly want to construct an inclusive country”

Over the past few weeks, new information has surfaced that links the Temer's government to the Petrobras corruption scandals. Transparency Minister Fabiano Silveira and Senate President Renan Calheiros made a plea bargain with Petrobras. Temer himself was accused of corruption, but not put on trial. This latest scandal is symbolic: the female leader of one of the world's biggest countries is singled out in ways that her male counterparts never are or will be.

What Hillary and Trump's Foreign Policies Have in Common

Kyle Jacques — 2016-07-04T17:10:22Z

Hillary Clinton's major speech on foreign policy was surely a disappointment for anyone who wanted to hear about, well, foreign policy. Take away the many digs at Donald Trump and the many mentions of Hillary's time as Secretary of State, and what remains are very few indications of what she would actually do as commander-in-chief.

Instead, one should look at the language Hillary uses and the broader narrative that she attempts to lay out with it. What emerges is that, despite her insistence that she and Trump are so drastically different, both Hillary and Trump rely on the same vision of a “strong” and “decisive” America that must stand up against those who see it as “weak” or “fearful.” This is not mere rhetorical posturing. Rather, this mentality has profoundly influenced Hillary's hawkish stances towards foreign policy in the past and, barring some fundamental change of heart, is likely to do so in the future.

First, it is worthwhile to review what was said and, indeed, not said, in Hillary's speech:

“First, we need to be strong at home.” This “means investing in our infrastructure,” “reduc[ing] income inequality,” and “break[ing] down barriers of bigotry and discrimination.” These are all unobjectionable, albeit vague, promises. However this is, of course, domestic policy, not foreign policy.

“Second, we need to stick with our allies.” Here, Hillary discusses how important her negotiations with countries like Japan and South Korea were in developing an anti-missile defence system to guard against a potential attack from North Korea. Trump, she says, would pull America out of NATO and let Japan and North Korea engage in a nuclear war if they wanted to. She does not explain what “sticking with our allies” would actually mean in her future agenda. Instead, she simply references her former diplomatic experience, and implicitly promises not to do all the crazy stuff that Trump says he wants to.

“Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development.” Here, Hillary recounts how non-violent diplomacy was crucial to the Iranian nuclear agreement, even when there were some who “called for military action” that “could have ignited a broader war.” She conveniently leaves out that she advocated American intervention in Iran during the Green Movement of 2009.1 She also does not bring up the second tool she mentions, development, for the rest of the speech. Instead, Hillary reaffirms that “the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Thus, it is only mere minutes after promising to embrace “all the tools of American power,” that Hillary only outlines a role for one of them: the military.

“Fourth, we need to be firm but wise with our rivals.” Here, Hillary talks about her experience going ‘toe-to-toe' with American adversaries to reduce nuclear stockpiles in Russia and negotiate a deal in Copenhagen on climate change. Trump, by contrast, wants to rip up this climate deal and start a trade war with China. Again, there is no clear indication of what being “firm but wise” would really mean in a Clinton Administration.

“Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists.” Here is Hillary's first, and indeed only, sustained explanation of her foreign policy. Her plan for combatting ISIS would involve intensifying the US-led air campaign, stepping up support for Arab and Kurdish allies in the region, and continuing diplomacy and intelligence-sharing with our allies. Hillary doesn't outline how diplomacy or intelligence-sharing would differ from how it is right now.

This would mean that, for those keeping track, the speech contains only three concrete pieces of a Clinton foreign policy platform so far: 1) acting “decisively if necessary, including with military force” against Iran, 2) intensifying the air campaign against ISIS and 3) stepping up the (predominantly military) support for Arab and Kurdish allies.

These three proposals are all unmistakably belligerent. This is further magnified by her sixth point, the “need to stay true to our values.” Trump, explains Hillary, “says over and over again [that] the world is laughing at us” and that America “lack[s] a backbone.” A Trump presidency, Hillary says, would create a narrative that America is “weak”, “fearful,” and “not confident.” Yet “if you really believe America is weak,” she responds, “then you don't know America.”

It is important, however, to remember that Trump does not refer to the United States as being “weak” and “fearful” because he wants it to stay that way. Rather, Trump uses this language to advocate and romanticize his own alternative of a “strong” and “decisive” America in which he would do things like “make China pay” or “bomb the shit out of ISIS.” More importantly, when Hillary positions her campaign as one that will make a “strong” and “decisive” America instead of “weak” and “fearful” one, she does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that she conveniently has Trump to call the country “weak” instead of doing it herself.

In Hillary's vision of a “strong” America, “we lead with purpose, and we prevail. [Because] if America doesn't lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void.”

Americans would do well to remember that it was a fear of looking “weak” and “fearful” that helped push the country into a war in Iraq in 2003, a decision that Hillary supported. They should also remember it was a fear of “other countries filling the void […] if America doesn't lead” that justified circumventing UN Security Council clearance before the invasion. In addition, Hillary wanted to combat the image of not having a “backbone” when she advocated military action in Syria after Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons.”(“If you say you're going to strike,” she later remarked, “you have to strike. There's no choice.”2

In fact, some of the biggest power “vacuums” of recent memory were created precisely because of American intervention, not its absence. One need look no further than Iraq and Libya, where the military interventions that Hillary advocated may have toppled corrupt dictators, but also allowed militant groups like ISIS to rush in and “fill the void.”

Hillary has spent so much of her energy trying to turn Trump's positions into impotent straw men, that she has almost succeeded in concealing the commonalities that underlie both of their campaigns. The choice in this election is not, as Hillary says, between “a fearful America that's less secure” or a “strong, confident America that leads.” Rather, it is between two campaigns that both exploit the dichotomous language of “strong” and “confident” versus “fearful” and “insecure” to promote their own brands of hostile American exceptionalism. If one looks to Hillary's past which, judging by her speech, is all she wants them to do, then there is very little reason to think that her vision of a “decisive” and “strong” America will lead to anything but more violence-begetting violence.

For Full Text of Hillary Clinton's Speech see: http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

1. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/stop-calling-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-tough-and-muscular/404608/
2. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

The Other Side of The War on Terror: False Terror Charges Against Muslim Youth in India

Catherine Larouche — 2016-07-04T17:07:27Z

I first met Mohammed Aamir Khan in the office of Act Now for Harmony and Democracy (ANHAD), a Delhi-based organization working on communal harmony and human rights, in which he was formerly employed. Aamir answered my questions on the organization's relief activities for victims of anti-Muslim violence during the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots and spoke vividly about the importance of protecting secularism and the civil rights of minorities in India. Impressed by his knowledge and refined analysis of Indian politics and the criminal justice system, I asked him at the end of the interview whether he had pursued graduate studies in social sciences and, if so, at which university. Aamir smiled, paused, and answered: one day I will tell you all about my past; it is a very long story…

It was only a few weeks later that I learned his story. Mohammed Aamir Khan had spent his entire youth, from age 18 to 32, in a high-security prison, serving a sentence for charges of terrorism that were later shown to be fabricated. Last January, four years after his discharge, Aamir released his autobiography, Framed as a Terrorist: My 14-year Struggle to Prove My Innocence, co-written with Nandita Haksar. The book relates how he was abducted in front of his house, brutally tortured, and forced to sign false declarations of guilt for 19 different bomb blasts and terror plots. The book carries painful descriptions of police brutality, years of confinement in prison, and stories of the endless trials and court hearings that eventually led to his acquittal.

Mohammed Aamir Khan's story is only one of many cases of false terrorism charges brought against poor, Muslim youth in India. On May 11 2016, Nisar-ud-din Ahmad, along with two other Muslim men, was released after spending 23 years in prison on similar terror charges. He was a 20 year-old pharmacy student when he was detained by the police. Last April, eight Malegaon residents were discharged from the 2006 Malegaon bomb blast case after five years of incarceration. A special 2011 Human Rights Watch Report documented many other cases of abusive counterterrorism tactics against Muslim youth in India, which take the form of unregistered arrests, arbitrary detention, fabricated evidence, and torture.

Most of these cases are eventually acquitted by justice courts, but given the extremely slow pace of trial procedures and the financial cost of justice, many like Aamir become lost in a judicial maze, hopelessly awaiting acquittal. For those who cannot afford to hire experienced lawyers, the waiting period can continue indefinitely.

Aamir writes in his book that he was lucky in his misfortune because he eventually received the support of ANHAD and other civil society organizations after his release. In the past years, his story has also slowly started receiving national media coverage. But like others who must begin their lives anew after many years in jail, Aamir still struggles to make a living and support his family: there are no state compensation mechanisms for those wrongfully confined in jail on false terror charges.

In December 2015, the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) issued a show cause notice to the Delhi Government as to why compensation had not been given to Mohammed Aamir Khan for his wrongful arrest. The NHRC press release indicates that:

[…] Rule of Law must not become an instrument, which grossly violates the distinct human rights of the citizens. It transpires from the case record that the victim was subjected to State action only on suspicion. Not an iota of evidence was produced in the court to connect Mohammad Amir with any of the alleged crimes.

The Times of India recently reported that the Union Minister of Law and Justice expressed his concern over the arrests of Muslim youth on false terror charges and mentioned that the Law Commission had been called upon to suggest reforms to criminal procedures. Unfortunately, similar statements in the past have proven to be empty promises. Given the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) controversial positions on religious minorities, there is also doubt whether any major change can take place under the current government.

Muslim youth are not the only target of anti-terror legislation in India, but different studies have shown that a disproportionally high percentage of Muslims have been framed under India's three main anti-terror laws (the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, amended in 2008, has now replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)). Growing anti-Muslim sentiment and the current global focus on fighting terrorism also provides a certain aura of legitimacy to profiling Muslim youth in India, as elsewhere in the world. Although intelligence and law enforcement agencies are under great pressure to curb terrorist acts, there is a strong need to investigate the use of exceptional measures, and ensuing human rights violations, in the name of national security. Mohammed Aamir Khan's book is a reminder of this other side of the war on terror.

Cited publications:

Jaffrelot. 2010. « La dialectique des terrorismes en Inde depuis 2001 : la « main de l'étranger », les islamistes et les nationalistes hindous », Critique Internationale. 2(47) : 93-110. https://www.cairn.info/revue-critique-internationale-2010-2-page-93.htm#no247

The Results that We Got: The Contradictions of American Gun Violence

Dylan Boyko — 2016-07-04T17:04:26Z

There is a problem in America with the economics of safety. Early in Evan Osnos' stunning New Yorker article on the subtle proliferation of gun ownership and gun discourse in America, he quotes Smith & Wesson CEO P. James Debney as “very pleased with the results that we got” in a sales increase surrounding personal protective firearms. The results, in America, vary heavily depending on what political perspective one takes, as red and blue rarely skews black and white regarding the Second Amendment.

Outside ideological differences, the entire equation surrounding gun control tilts away from logic and towards feelings. Quantitative analysis is strangely absent in most discussions regarding guns in America, and most gun manufacturers would love to keep it that way – unless they're discussing sales figures.

Available statistics often come from gun industry trade magazines or actual gun policy. The numbers gathered in Osnos' piece are stunning. In two decades, concealed carry permits have went from being illegal in twenty-two states to legal in all states, with nearly 12.8 million active permits in the United States.

In 1999, self defence was cited as the reason for gun ownership in 26 per cent of industry respondents – in 2013 this answer was given more than any other reason. The ownership pool was shrinking, however, as Osnos notes that gun owners now own an average of eight guns each. Osnos' ultimate statistic may shock, but more defines the constant locus of violence in contemporary American society: “more American civilians have died by gunfire in the past decade than all the Americans who were killed in combat in the Second World War.”

Again, the speculative nature of such statistics complicates any argument for gun control. Due to the extensive gun lobby and the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.), the Centre for Disease Control (C.D.C) cannot receive federal funding to study gun deaths in America. Such studies, or any real evidence to the effects of guns and gun violence on American citizens run contrary to the ethos of the N.R.A. Consequently, the group needs to maintain its aging and dwindling base of support. Osnos notes that ”the problem with failing to recruit and grow [gun supporters] is that numbers equate to political power.” What tricks then, can the gun industry reuse to invigorate their core base of gun-toting Americans?

History offers the worst kind of inspiration. Traced from the rural to urban migration (and the pure white panic after the Rodney King verdict in the early 1990s), gun advertising around personal safety has always contained an implicit racial component – be in the threat of 9/11 and the response, in armament, of 9/12 or the current push for conceal-carry civilians armed against ‘Radical Islam.'

Fear and preparedness form the twin bastions of patriotic gun ownership in America – tragedy does not demand a revisitation of how and why guns are available, but a redoubled vigilance, a tighter grip, and a truer aim. The dissonance between perception and reality regarding gun violence in America becomes Osnos' refrain: violent crimes are going down each year but people feel less and less safe.

Osnos final observation outlines the true double-bind of gun politics in America. If Donald Trump were to become president, the gun lobby would have a true ally in the Whitehouse. If Trump were to lose, those same embittered N.R.A. supporters would simply cling tighter to their weapons, decrying the new round of persecution gun owners face for simply wanting to protect them and theirs.

Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer, two formers Obama staffers who co-host a pro-Democrat podcast, reach a similar conclusion in their evaluation of the House Democrat sit-in regarding gun control policy. Both spoke to the capriciousness of the no-fly list (a major talking point for new gun legislation that supposedly leans in a bipartisan manner) but more so discussed the Democratic policy as something that looks good in an attack advert but has no real agenda past political windmill-tilting. Real change, it seems, can never materialize when politics gets in the way.

The recent tragic events in Orlando, where Omar Mateen brutally murdered forty-nine and injured fifty-three people using a semi-automatic pistol and rifle, only exacerbate a disastrous American dichotomy on guns. After the requisite forty-eight hours of mourning (aside from a tone-deaf Donald Trump tweet or two), each side of the political spectrum puts on their tired and tawdry battle armor, preparing for the usual media mud-slinging. Gun lobbyists prepare speeches wishing for a single armed patriot present at Pulse that night.

Those demanding better gun control speculate on the means through which Omar Mateen obtained his weapons for his hateful mission. In the midst of infighting, another column of statistics are left uncounted in the continuing decades of gun violence in America. Fear and anger both do their part in ignoring the daily enormity of human loss in tragedies like the Orlando massacre. One side of the results are measured in sales dollars earned and polling points shifted, while the other deals in absented persons and unanswered questions. We cannot be happy with the result of such calculus.

Torture: Legislations and Reality

Messaoud Romdhani — 2016-07-04T17:02:21Z

« To combat torture without compromise, we need to know our major opponent: the dark side of our humanity.”
– Serge Portelli, Why torture

A few weeks after the Assembly of People's Representatives had elected the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), a mechanism considered to be a pioneer in the region and a positive step to combat torture and ill-treatment, the UN Committee against Torture concluded its consideration of the third periodic report of Tunisia regarding the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The representative of the Tunisian government stressed the efforts undertaken to implement a legislative framework that would put an end to these barbaric practices and reinforce the role of independent organizations that militate for the prohibition of torture.

He, also, emphasized the commitment of Tunisia to endure the protection of human rights and dignity while combating terrorism.

On the other hand, civil society organizations, while acknowledging that torture is no longer “a state policy”, have alerted both decision-makers and public opinion against the recurrence of this practice and other ill-treatment practices, mainly in detention centers. “Such frequent practices taint the credibility of the exemplary democratic process achieved since the January 2011 revolution,” they said.

Recently, some NGOs denounced in a damning report the numerous challenges related to the eradication of torture. First, there is the heavy legacy of a cruel regime. Then, there's the lack of an effective policy that would address the issue of torture. The existence of the “old demons” who are still in office and who drag their feet on the implementation of any change did not help much.

Also, terrorist threats are a convenient scapegoat to stop short of taking any decisions that would prohibit torture and fully respect human rights in detention centers.

Before the revolution, Tunisia had ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1988. And the Tunisian law considered torture a serious crime punishable by severe penalties. That did not, however, prevent Ben Ali's regime from institutionalizing torture that became systematic and widespread. And since the Judiciary was not independent, it provided the legal basis for different kinds of abuses. Several complaints against security officers and prison guards were ignored. In fact for the regime, human rights were no more than an empty shell and a propaganda tool used to dissimulate different types of violations.

Much has changed since the revolution. Tunisia acceded to several international human rights agreements. Among them was the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The new constitution, adopted in 2014, ensures the primacy of human rights, protects the right to human dignity and prohibits torture. The constitution, also, grants the Higher Committee for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a simple consultative body under Ben Ali's regime, new competences to monitor the respect of basic freedoms and the respect of human rights.

Civil society organizations believe that these harmful practices of human rights violations are still rampant because impunity is still the rule. Even after the revolution hundreds of complaints related to torture have remained outstanding. The huge number of cases submitted to the courts and the limited number of magistrates are always used as an excuse for the laxity and powerlessness when facing the scourge of torture.

That's why human rights defenders have been calling for the appointment of a prosecutor entrusted with torture cases and who has sufficient means, a satisfactory degree of impartiality and the necessary protection to ensure the independence of the investigation and bring perpetrators to justice.

We are not short of texts and legislations, and they've been lately reinforced with new ones that guarantee human rights. However, applying these texts to reality will probably take time. One explanation is that of the “the force of the habit” as it seems that judicial police have been used, for decades, to extorting violence by torture and unlawful means. Both the police and justice systems have not been reformed. And the eruption of terrorism did not help much as it has put decision –makers in front of a false dilemma; whether this battle is going to be an opportunity to promote and consolidate human rights or an excuse to tolerate abuses and turn a blind eye to torture, though the choice is easy to make for a nascent democracy.

That's why bodies that work on combating and preventing the use of torture have a tough task as their challenge is, rather, daunting. In this difficult transitional period, it is incumbent on them to help safeguard the physical and moral integrity of suspects. They should demonstrate not only courage and expertise but also, autonomy, starting with the logistical and financial resources required for the task, an accurate definition of prerogatives of each preventive body so that each of them would accomplish its mission in the best possible manner.

Messaoud Romdhani, Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights in Tunisia

In Dedication to Amjad Sabri & All Qawwals

Jooneed J Khan — 2016-07-04T16:58:30Z

Qawwalis can be deadly. Case in point: the assassination of Pakistani Qawwal Amjad Sabri, brought down June 22 in a hail of bullets fired by two gunmen on a motor-bike as he drove with a friend in the ultra-violent city of Karachi.

A splinter group of the Islamic fundamentalist Tehrik-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility, but gave no reasons. The claim could not be verified.

Predictably, the investigation led by the Counter-Terrorism Department has thrown up mixed signals hinting at personal feud, property dispute, and the MQM party which holds sway over Karachi.

A few hours later, gunmen in another part of the city tried to kill Sabri's friend Farhan Ali Waris, a popular reciter of Noha, the mournful poetry Shi'as chant to recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussein at Karbala in 680 AD.

Muslim fundamentalists, especially those of the pro-Saudi Wahhabi type, routinely target Sufis and Shi'as who represent two of the most tolerant and inclusive currents in Islam – and which literalist Wahhabis cannot fathom nor accommodate.

The Qawwali (from the Arabic Qaul or Spoken Word) has deep roots in Islamic, and Pre-Islamic, culture. But it is the specific product of Islam in India, where Sufism blended with Hindu mysticism (Bhakti) and sprouted the devotional singing that is associated with the shrines of saints, visited by people of all faiths across the Asian subcontinent.

The Qawwali focuses on the deep and intimate human relation to God and the prophet – and often derides the sanctimonious practitioners of Islam, Pharisees who do it just for show, profit and material power.

In today's context of rampant armed, ultra-violent Islamic fundamentalism manipulated for political ends, the Qawwal (Singer of Qawwalis) reminds us of the learned masters who, when summoned by the Emir or Sultan, would go carrying their own coffin and shroud.

The Qawwali below, by the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (with lyrics from Nasir Iqbal), is a typical example of Sufi satire targeting the hypocritical devotees. Its superficial theme calls on God, over and over, to “protect us against the charms and the traps of Beauty”, an obvious enough topic in a patriarchal and macho society – where every one on stage is visibly a male.

But, interspersed throughout, are verses that make it clear the lethal Beauties here are the devotees who just come to pray for show and influence. They are likened to “painted belles” who set traps for their fellow humans.

The very opening couplet says: “A beautiful face needs no make-up/Simplicity has its very own allure”. This shifts to: “The sheikh bows down before God in the mosque/But there's no guarantee his prayers have any effect”. The meaning becomes clear in the conclusion when the Qawwal says: “They come to pray with dreams of virgins in Paradise, May God protect us from such God-lovers!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58I2bDX-JIk

BDS in Canada

Voices-Voix — 2016-07-04T16:54:26Z

What Happened

On February 22, 2016, the House of Commons passed a Conservative motion to “reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement” and “call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.” The motion was passed by a margin of 229-51, with 57 absences or abstentions, and was supported by both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. This motion represents the latest in a series of bills that have targeted BDS and the freedom of expression of those advocating for Palestinian human rights. The Canadian government has repeatedly silenced criticism of the policies of the state of Israel, as well as discussion of Palestinian human rights.

Background

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS)

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) was initiated by over 170 Palestinian civil society actors in 2005 and is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee. The BDS campaign is a non-violent, rights-based campaign that is inspired by the international boycott movement to end South African apartheid. The campaign calls for various forms of boycott in order to pressure the state of Israel to meet its obligations under international law. This includes: targeted boycotts of Israeli and international products and companies that profit from the occupation; boycotts of Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions; divestment from companies complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights, and; sanctions against Israel. The campaign's objectives are: “1. Ending [the] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and, 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 94.”

The United Church of Canada, the Ontario Chapter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) and a variety of student organizations at various Canadian universities have passed resolutions supporting the BDS campaign.

Historically, the Canadian government has supported the use of boycotts, divestment and sanctions in the fight for human rights abroad. The Canadian government imposed a variety of economic and political sanctions against the South African government in 1985, followed by a ban on investment the following year, in the struggle to end apartheid. Canada hasimposed sanctions and/or related measures against 22 countries as per the United Nations Act or the Special Economic Measures Act.

Since 2015, more than two dozen nation, state, or local laws against BDS have been put forward in the United States. In Europe, the United Kingdom recently banned publicly funded institutions from participating in BDS and France's highest court has upheld criminal convictions which ruled that those promoting BDS are guilty of inciting hate. Israel itself has an anti-BDS law in place since 2011 which states that individuals or organizations publicizing a boycott call may be sued civilly for potential damages. In May 2016, members of the Ontario provincial parliament voted down a private-member's bill that would have stopped the provincial government from doing business with organizations that support BDS. However, following the motion's defeat, the Ontario Premiere Kathleen Wynne said she would support a "non-divisive" bill that opposes to the BDS movement.

In January 2015, the Harper government signed a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with the state of Israel that described the BDS campaign as “the new face of anti-Semitism” and called for Canada and Israel to coordinate their efforts to oppose the campaign. In March 2015, leader of the Liberal party, and now Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau criticized a vote on divestment taking place at McGill University, tweeting “The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on Canadian campuses. As a @McGillU alum, I'm disappointed. #EnoughIsEnough.”

The motion and the debate

On February 18, 2016, Conservative MP and opposition foreign affairs critic Tony Clement and Conservative MP Michelle Rempel jointly sponsored a motion to condemn the BDS movement. The motion reads: “That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

In the debate in the House of Commons prior to adopting the motion, Conservative MP Tony Clement described the BDS movement as seeking to “delegitimize and isolate Israel”, promoting the “odious narrative that Israel is uniquely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict”, and suggesting that the BDS movement is “a form of discrimination” or a “present-day blacklist” that “undermines peace”, threatens the “livelihoods of thousands of Palestinians”, and “imports the conflict” into Canada. Clement stated that the Conservative Party of Canada values “the ability to speak freely and to act freely” but that the debate over BDS was not about freedom of speech.

Equating support of BDS with anti-Semitism, Conservative MP Peter Kent stated that, “…anyone who supports the boycott, divest, sanctions program, or supports Israeli Apartheid Week is motivated either by hate or by ignorance.”

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel compared the motion to a 2010 motion passed by the Ontario legislature which condemned Israeli Apartheid Week. She admonished NDP MP, Charlie Angus for turning “this into a debate about free speech. He is saying that we are trying to stifle free speech. We are not. All of the groups the member mentioned absolutely have the right to say what they said. What I am asking him to do is make a choice and condemn this movement.”

In debate, NDP MP Charlie Angus stressed the right of students to “debate foreign policies of another country”, stating that “The question that has been put here is about the condemnation of individuals and organizations, including church people, teachers, and all manner of people. Whether the member [The Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion] agrees with them or not, it is the role of parliamentarians to stand up for individual rights. I am absolutely shocked that the member would stand with the Conservatives on a motion that specifically calls upon us to condemn individuals for their right to dissent.”

NDP MP, Hélène Laverdière stated that the NDP does not support BDS but that the role of Parliament is not “…to limit topics Canadians are allowed to debate, or to condemn opinions.” Laverdière compared the anti-BDS motion to Bill C-51, describing them as Conservative “gag orders”: “They muzzled bureaucrats and scientists, and limited access to information. They kept journalists from doing their job properly, even though that is one of the tenets of our democracy. They harassed and intimidated a range of civil society organizations, particularly through the Canada Revenue Agency, organizations whose biggest crime was not to agree with the government's policies.”

The Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion, reaffirmed the “strong friendship between Canada and Israel”. He described the Conservative motion as divisive but stated that the government would be supporting the motion in substance, despite reservations about “its form and the Conservative Party's real intentions.” Dion said that rejecting the boycott of Israel would be “in keeping with Canadian tradition”, stating that a boycott “creates victims” by stemming “the flow of investment”, and that a boycott would “be an affront to free speech”.

The Bloc Québécois were the only party to defend the objectives of the BDS movement as a non-violent campaign that is not anti-Semitic. BQ MP, Monique Pauzé stated that the BDS movement “does not target Jews for being Jewish” but targets the policies of the state of Israel. Pauzé defended criticism of the “colonization of Palestine” as “legitimate political opinion” and stated that the BQ recognized “boycotting as a democratic right of people who want to criticize a state's policies in a non-violent way”.

The vote

On February 22, 2016, the motion passed in the House of Commons 229-51. Eight Conservatives, 43 Liberals, 2 NDP, 3 Bloc Québécois, and the sole Green Party member were absent or abstained from the vote.

The NDP voted against the motion, stating that it constituted an attack on free speech.

Liberal MP Rene Arsenault was one of three Liberal MPS to vote against the motion, stating that “it restricts too much of freedom in Canada to criticize any state”. Arsenault criticized the motion for condemning the BDS movement without parameters.

Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith wrote a public letter about his abstention. Erskine-Smith stressed that “Israel is a friend and ally to Canada”, but that the motion was intentionally divisive. Erskine-Smith defended the rights of individuals and groups to exercise “their right to free expression”, including the United Church of Canada, the American Anthropological Association, the Quakers, student associations, trade unions and academics.

The Reaction:

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the principal Israel advocacy group in Canada, applauded the vote, describing BDS as a “fringe movement” that is “outside genuine peace efforts that emphasize negotiation, fairness, and mutual responsibility”. CIJA stated that a “clear, all-party consensus” had “…spoke out against efforts to delegitimize, isolate, and discriminate against Israel by advancing the false idea that Palestinians bear no responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Criticism of the motion would come from various individuals and groups, focusing on freedom of speech, and the chilling effect of the motion.

Patrick Martin of the Globe and Mail noted that the BDS campaign is not inherently anti-Semitic, and that its goals “are not dissimilar from Canada's official positions on Israeli occupation, settlements and human rights”. Neil Macdonald of the CBC described Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion's position on the motion as inconsistent or ambivalent. Writing in the Globe and Mail, Gerald Caplan, a former New Democratic Party national director, stated that the core issue is free speech or the “right to say freely whatever I think about Israel and its policies. Just as I have the right to say whatever I want about my own government's policies, or Washington's, or Costa Rica's, or Cuba's”.

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) responded with the “make my day” campaign, gathering over 2200 signatures from individuals supporting BDS. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the President of CJPME, Thomas Woodley, invited condemnation for his support of the BDS campaign, pointing out that the BDS movement is “perfectly aligned with Canada's official policy” which: “does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967”; does not recognize the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel; and, opposes Israel's construction of the wall inside the occupied territories, as well as housing and economic infrastructure expropriation and demolition. CJPME also stated that following the passage of the motion, CJPME and other BDS advocates had been subject to hate speech specifically referencing Parliament and the anti-BDS motion, as well as being the target of physical threats. Woodley, President of CJPME, criticised the anti-BDS motion as political posturing that resulted in “incitement or encouragement to hate, or even physical threats”.

In a letter, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, Right Reverend Jordan Cantwell, asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to uphold the fundamental freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and defeat the motion, stating that “The United Church of Canada stands in solidarity with groups and individuals exercising [the right of citizens to engage in constructive critique of both Canadian as well as foreign governments] in nonviolent, peaceful ways.”

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association stated that while the material consequences of the motion are unclear, in situations where the “…potential consequences of speaking out are uncertain, Canadians will be less likely to express themselves….Insinuating to the public that it is better to be seen and not heard – on any issue, but especially on issues of great political significance – should never be the role of a truly democratic government.”

Cara Faith Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also expressed concerns regarding the “potentially chilling affect [sic]” of the motion.

The National Council on Canada Arab Relations (NCCAR) described the anti-BDS motion as going “against the spirit of Freedom of Speech”, noting that “Democratic governments do not ordinarily attempt to dictate the political views of their citizens.” Gabriel Fahel, NCCAR Chair stated that “…freedom of speech and conscientious objections to buying products from countries that contravene international law are core values of a free and democratic society.”

Relevant Dates

• 9 July 2005: Over 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations launch the BDS campaign.
• 18 January 2015: ‘Memorandum of Understanding' between Canada and Israel calls for a coordinated response to oppose the BDS campaign.
• 18 February 2016: MP Tony Clement and MP Michelle Rempel introduce the anti-BDS motion in the House of Commons.
• 22 February 2016: The motion was passed by a margin of 229-51, with 57 absences or abstentions, and was supported by both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of Canada.

Implications and Consequences

Free speech and equality: The anti-BDS motion is consistent with a larger trend whereactivism that is critical of Israeli policies is conflated with anti-Semitism. Organizations and individuals supporting BDS are at risk of being labeled extremist and anti-Semitic because they are participating in a non-violent campaign that advocates for a Palestinian right to self-determination. In the words of one writer, the effect of this conflation is to make “…well-rounded democratic input on this issue almost impossible.” The impact of false allegations of anti-Semitism are particularly onerous for Muslim and/or Arab groups, or those perceived to be Muslim and/or Arab, given the intensification of anti-Muslim racism after 9/11. See the Voices-Voix section on Palestinian Human Rights, including our case study on the Canadian Arab Federation.

Free speech: While the legal consequences of the motion are not clear, the anti-BDS motion attempts to deny individuals their right to dissent by narrowing the bounds of acceptable or tolerable speech, a strategy evident in international efforts to criminalize BDS advocacy. This motion adds to the amendments made to section 318 of the Criminal Code which expanded the “identifiable groups” provision to include those distinguishable by national origin, and generates a chilling effect on freedom of speech, ostracizing, alienating and dissuading those advocating for the rights of Palestinians.

Free speech: Peaceful protest and dissent are at the core of a fair, functioning democracy. Canada has a long history of implementing sanctions against states for human rights violations. This motion stifles an important, non-violent political protest.

Sources

“Current sanctions imposed by Canada”, Government of Canada

“Go ahead, make my day, condemn me”, CJPME

United Nations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. U-2)

Special Economic Measures Act (S.C. 1992, c. 17)

“Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS” by BDS Movement, 9 July 2005

“MPPs unite to condemn ‘odious' Israeli Apartheid Week” by Robert Benzie, The Toronto Star, 25 February 2010

“Israel Passes Law Banning Calls for Boycott” by Jonathan Lis, Haaretz, 11 July 2011

“The Stephen Harper doctrine: With me or against me?” by Steven Zhou, Al Jazeera, 25 December 2013

“Memorandum of Understanding between the DFATD and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel regarding Public Diplomacy Cooperation”, Government of Canada, 18 January 2015

“Canadian students reject Justin Trudeau's attack on Palestine activism, free speech” by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 15 March 2015

“Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel”, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, 1 April 2015

“Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance' for Israel boycotters” by Neil Macdonald, CBC News, 11 May 2015

“France Court Upholds ‘BDS is Discrimination Ruling' by JTA, Forward, 23 October 2015

“New York bill would create official blacklist of Israel boycott supporters” by Nora Barrows-Friedman, The Electronic Intifada, 8 January 2016

“Press release: Putting a stop to public procurement boycotts”, Cabinet Office, The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP and Crown Commercial Service, Government of the United Kingdom, 17 February 2016

House of Commons Debates, 18 February 2016

Open letter to the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, by Jordan Cantwell (The Right Reverend), Moderator, The United Church of Canada, 18 February 2016

“Press Release: Parliament rejects BDS, reaffirms commitment to Israel, highlights failure of fringe anti-Israel movement”, CIJA, 18 February 2016

“Liberals denounce and agree with Tory motion condemning Israel boycotters” by Neil Macdonald, CBC News, 18 February 2016

“NCCAR Urges Putting Canadians' Right to Free Speech First When Considering BDS Position”, National Council on Canada Arab Relations, 22 February 2016

“Parliament votes to reject Israel boycott campaign” by Patrick Martin, The Globe and Mail, 23 February 2016

“Muslim MPs Stayed on the Sidelines as Parliament Condemned Boycotts of Israel” by Paul McLeod, BuzzFeed News, 23 February 2016

“My thoughts on Mr. Clement's divisive motion” by MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, 23 February 2016

Open letter to the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, by Thomas Woodley, President, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, 23 February 2016

“Liberals who opposed BDS motion speak out” by Selina Chignall, iPolitics, 26 February 2016

“Did the Liberal really mean it? Advocates respond to Dion's anti-BDS motion” by Paul Weinberg, Rabble.ca, 26 February 2016

“The debate on BDS has now begun – thanks to Tony Clement” by Peter Larson, 6 March 2016

“On the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the narrowing of acceptable speech” by Alyssa Stryker, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, 8 March 2016

“BDS group targeted with threats, hate after Parliamentary motion”, CJPME, 10 March 2016

"Private member's bill over boycott of Israel defeated by MPPs", by Rob Ferguson, Toronto Star, 19 May 2016

"Ontario Premier Calls for Motion on BDS That Is 'Not Divisive'", by JTA, Haaretz, 05 June 2016

Source: http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-movement