Category Archives: Democracy

Indigenous Teachers Defend ´A Just Cause´

NYC Indymedia.org: Indigenous Teachers Defend ´A Just Cause´

Teachers build and defend thousands of makeshift barricades throughout Oaxaca City

By John Gibler The Herald Mexico/El Universal  October 07, 2006

OAXACA CITY – Every night streets here become battlefields in waiting. But behind the commandeered city buses, burned trucks, and coils of barbed wire, a group of atypical urban rebels stands guard.

Watching over a barricade where a small altar to the Virgin of Guadalupe rests between tangled wire and sand bags, six women ranging from their early 30s to their late 60s, none taller than 5 feet, huddle around a small fire in the street, wrapped in blankets and without so much as a club in sight.

For over a month these six women, teachers from the southern mountainous region of Oaxaca, have been poised on the front lines of a conflict that has seized this colonial city, paralyzed the state government, and come to dominate national headlines. And while they may not be threatening to a casual passerby, these women’s resolve to defend their barricade is implacable.

“If they kill us, then we were born to die,” says María, a Mixteca indigenous woman who teaches in Mixteco and Spanish in a rural elementary school, a five-hour walk from the nearest road.
“We are not afraid,” she adds, “because we are here defending a just cause.”

RAID BACKFIRES

The conflict in Oaxaca began on May 22 as a teachers strike for better wages and a higher budget to provide impoverished school children with uniforms, breakfasts, and basic school supplies. After refusing to negotiate with the teachers union, Gov. Ulises Ruiz sent the state police into Oaxaca City’s central plaza on June 14 to remove the teachers´ protest camp with tear gas and police batons.

Hundreds were injured in the pitched battle that resulted, and after a few hours the teachers, supported by outraged local residents, forced the police out of town. They have not been back since.

The teachers and members of the Oaxaca People’s Assembly (APPO) that formed after the failed police raid decided to suspend the teachers´ original list of demands and focus all their efforts on forcing the removal of Gov. Ruiz.

Since June 14, they have subjected Oaxaca City to increasingly radical civil disobedience tactics, such as surrounding state government buildings with protest camps, covering the city´s walls with political graffiti, and taking over public and private radio stations.

Their struggle has led to a severe drop in tourism and the economic impact of the empty restaurants and sidewalk cafes has polarized the community, leading many who are sympathetic to the teachers´ cause to clamor for an end to the movement’s grip on the city.

“We do agree with some things the teachers demand, but this is affecting too many people, ” says Mercedes Velasco, a 30-year-old resident who sells banana leaves in the Mercado de Abastos in the southern reaches of the capital.

TENSION INCREASES

The tension shot up in late August when a convoy of armed gunmen opened fire on the protesters´ camp outside Radio Ley, killing 52-year-old Lorenzo Cervantes. From that night on, striking teachers and members of the APPO, have built massive barricades across all the streets surrounding the radio station and other strategic points near protest camps around the city.

Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department issued a warning to U.S. citizens considering Oaxaca as a potential vacation spot.

“U.S. citizens traveling to Oaxaca City should consider carefully the risk of travel at this time due to the recent increase in violence there,” states the announcement, which was extended to expire on Oct. 30.

Despite the announcement, there have been no reported incidents of violence against tourists during the conflict.

Since the shooting on Aug. 22, teachers and local citizens take to the streets every night between 10 and 11 p.m. to reinforce their barricades.

Walking the desolate streets at night, fires are visible at every intersection, as figures gather around holding vigil.

The visual impact is alarming: at many barricades men with clubs and Molotov cocktails stand in the shadows with their faces covered by bandanas or cheap surgical masks.

As rumors of a federal police or military intervention intensified this week, teachers and APPO protesters extended their barricades throughout the city, making it impossible to navigate the streets of Oaxaca by automobile at night.

But this is no ordinary battlefront. Rather than tanks making rounds, in this labyrinthine conflict zone one finds instead families winding through the predawn streets, carrying large stew pots filled with steaming coffee and hot chocolate for the night guards.

The barricade guards are at times skittish, but not hostile. They ask pedestrians where they are going, and then tell people walking alone to be careful and not to walk down dark streets.

A well-dressed couple returning home in the middle-class Colonia Reforma gave the barricade guards near their house directions to their back door saying: “if anything happens, our house will be open.”

At the barricade near Niños Héroes Avenue, the six Mixteca and Zapotec women stay up all night discussing their favorite topic: education.

“I have to walk six hours to get to my school,” says Estela, a Mixteca woman who has been teaching in mountainside communities for 30 years, “And then when I get there, I find that half the kids have not had breakfast and the other half don’t have pencils or notebooks. I use my salary to buy these supplies, to prepare bread and tortillas. How do you expect children to learn if they have not had breakfast?”

OFFENDED BY REPRESSION

Estela and the other women expressed outrage and offense at Ruiz´s use of violence to answer their call for a greater education budget, and that outrage fuels their long nights at the barricades.

“Ulises made a mistake when he attacked us on June 14,” says María as she leans away from the smoke of the street fire where she warms her hands. “He thought that he was going to repress a small organization, but the teachers union is large, and resilient.”

War in Iraq and Across the Middle East! American Civil Liberties Under Siege! An Urgent Call for Nationwide Teach-Ins, October 17, 18, 19, 2006

From Historians Against the War:

War in Iraq and Across the Middle East!
American Civil Liberties Under Siege!
An Urgent Call for Nationwide Teach-Ins, October 17, 18, 19, 2006

As the violence in Iraq and across the Middle East intensifies, with
the accompanying attack on civil liberties here at home, the need for
an informed public debate is vitally important. However, since the
initial invasion of Iraq, too many of our schools and campuses have
been silent.

In the absence of a draft, the fighting abroad and the changes in our
constitutional order can seem remote. However, as historians we are
acutely aware that the transformations now occurring have far-reaching
implications for our current lives and for future generations.

With mid-term elections scheduled for November, we have the
opportunity to focus campus attention on the vital issues of war and
peace. Why is the United States still occupying Iraq? How and when
can we withdraw? How does the Iraqi occupation relate to the current
crisis in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon? And what are the prospects
for a new war in Iran or Syria? How is the Bush Administration
expanding the powers of the Executive Branch? And what are the
domestic effects of its commitment to a prolonged ?war on terrorism??

Historians Against the War is urging our colleagues across the country
to organize or participate in National Teach-In Days, October 17-19.

If you can help arrange an event at your school on any one of these
three days, please email us at teachin@historiansagainstwar.org so
that we can begin compiling a listing and assisting with resources.
If your organization can endorse this call, please contact us. We
will post this call and additional information on our Teach-In page on
our HAW website. http://www.historiansagainstwar.org/teachin/

While the exact format and themes will reflect the particular needs of
your institution, Historians Against the War will be lining up
speakers, preparing a web-page with helpful ideas, and establishing
connections with national organizations (such as Military Families
Speak Out, Gold Star Parents, Iraq Veterans Against the War!).

The tragedies now unfolding in Iraq and across the Middle East
underscore our responsibility as educators and citizens to enhance
public knowledge, to stimulate thoughtful inquiry, and to end the
American occupation of Iraq. We hope that you can join this urgent
effort!

Bush Contemplates Rebirth of Dictatorship for Iraq

In The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild picks up on the latest Bush administration propaganda line to appear in The New York Time: “senior administration officials . . . are considering alternatives other than democracy…”

hmm, let’s see what are the alternatives…Monarch? Dictatorship?

August 19, 2006
Bush Says Iraq and Lebanon Fragile Democracies

By REUTERS
Filed at 11:22 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Iraq and Lebanon remain fragile democracies, and security in the United States depends on democracy taking hold in the Middle East, President Bush said on Saturday

With U.S. public doubts rising over the Iraq war in a congressional-election year and his Middle East strategy challenged by 34 days of Israeli-Hizbollah fighting in Lebanon, Bush conferred this week with his national-security and counterterrorism teams and received an update from U.S. commanders in Iraq.

U.S. officials have said sectarian violence in Iraq could lead to civil war.

The New York Times this week quoted an unnamed military- affairs expert who was briefed at the White House last month as saying senior administration officials acknowledged that they are “considering alternatives other than democracy” in Iraq, which the White House denied.

“These young democracies are still fragile, and the forces of terror are seeking to stop liberty’s advance and steer newly free nations to the path of radicalism,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“The way forward will be difficult, and it will require sacrifice and resolve,” he said. “But America’s security depends on liberty’s advance in this troubled region, and we can be confident of the outcome because we know the unstoppable power of freedom.”

More than 2,600 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Bush has vowed not to withdraw prematurely, despite pressure from Democrats to begin bringing troops home this year and switch the effort to counterterrorism and supporting Iraqi forces.

Pennsylvania congressional candidate Joe Sestak delivered the Democratic radio address as the party seeks to recapture Congress from the president’s Republicans. Sestak, a former career Navy officer, said Bush’s Iraq policies undermined U.S. security.

“We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security challenges we have worldwide,” Sestak said.

“The fact is, we are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq. Iraqi leaders must be responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop the civil war and bring about stability. We cannot do this work for them,” said Sestak, who is running against Republican Rep. Curt Weldon.

In Lebanon, the United States has ruled out offering troops to help enforce a cease-fire along the border with Israel after fighting there with Hizbollah guerrillas, but instead has pledged financial and other support.

The United Nations hopes to send 3,500 troops within two weeks to oversee the truce and withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after more than a month of fighting that erupted after Hizbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers.

“This force will help Lebanon’s legitimate armed forces restore the sovereignty of its democratic government over all Lebanese territory and stop Hizbollah from acting as a state within a state,” Bush said.

“What Can Israel Achieve?” by Immanuel Wallerstein

Wallerstein argues that Israel’s invasion of Lebanon is a direct parallel of the US invasion of Iraq.

The Israeli generals are already noting that Hezbollah’s military is far more formidable than anticipated, that U.S. allies in the region are already taking wide distance from the United States and Israel (note the Iraqi government’s support of Lebanon and now that of the Saudi government), and soon will discover that the Israeli public’s support is more fragile than expected. Already the Israeli government is reluctant to send land troops into Lebanon, largely because of what it thinks will be the reaction of its own people inside Israel. Israel is heading towards a humiliating truce arrangement.

He also argues “What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately … it is only Hamas and Hezbollah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace.”

“What Can Israel Achieve?” by Immanuel Wallerstein
Commentary No. 190, August 1, 2006
The State of Israel was established in 1948. Ever since, there has been continuous violence between Jews and Arabs in Israel, and between Israel and its neighbors. Sometimes, the violence was low-level and even latent. And every once in a while, the violence escalated into open warfare, as now.

Whenever full- scale violence broke out, there was an immediate debate about what started it, as though that mattered. We are now in the midst of warfare between Israel and Palestine in Gaza and between Israel and Lebanon. And the world is engaged in its usual futile debate about how to reduce the open state of warfare to low-level violence.

Every Israeli government has wished to create a situation in which the world and Israel’s neighbors recognize its existence as a state and intergroup/interstate violence ceases. Israel has never been able to achieve this. When the level of violence is relatively low, the Israeli public is split about what strategy to pursue. But when it escalates into warfare, the Jewish Israelis and world Jewry tend to rally around the government.

In reality, Israel’s basic strategy since 1948 has been to rely on two things in the pursuit of its objectives: a strong military, and strong outside Western support. So far this strategy has worked in one sense: Israel still survives. The question is how much longer this strategy will in fact continue to work.

The source of outside support has shifted over time. We forget completely that in 1948 the crucial military support for Israel came from the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites. When the Soviet Union pulled back, it was France that came to fill the role. France was engaged in a revolution in Algeria, and it saw Israel as a crucial element in defeating the Algerian national liberation movement. But when Algeria became independent in 1962, France dropped Israel because it then sought to maintain ties with a now- independent Algeria.

It is only after that moment that the United States moved into its present total support of Israel. One major element in this turn-around was the Israeli military victory in the Six Days War in 1967. In this war, Israel conquered all the territories of the old British Mandate of Palestine, as well as more. It proved its ability to be a strong military presence in the region. It transformed the attitude of world Jewry from one in which only about 50% really approved of the creation of Israel into one which had the support of the large majority of world Jewry, for whom Israel had now become a source of pride. This is the moment when the Holocaust became a major ideological justification for Israel and its policies.

After 1967, the Israeli governments never felt they had to negotiate anything with the Palestinians or with the Arab world. They offered one-sided settlements but these were always on Israeli terms. Israel wouldn’t negotiate with Nasser. Then it wouldn’t negotiate with Arafat. And now it won’t negotiate with so-called terrorists. Instead, it has relied on successive shows of military strength.

Israel is now engaged in the exact same catastrophic blunder, from its own point of view, as George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Bush thought that a show of military strength would establish U.S. presence unquestionably in Iraq and intimidate the rest of the world. Bush has discovered that Iraqi resistance was far more formidable militarily than anticipated, that American political allies in Iraq were far less reliable than he assumed they would be, and that the U.S. public’s support of the war was far more fragile than he expected. The United States is heading towards a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq.

Israel’s current military campaign is a direct parallel of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. The Israeli generals are already noting that Hezbollah’s military is far more formidable than anticipated, that U.S. allies in the region are already taking wide distance from the United States and Israel (note the Iraqi government’s support of Lebanon and now that of the Saudi government), and soon will discover that the Israeli public’s support is more fragile than expected. Already the Israeli government is reluctant to send land troops into Lebanon, largely because of what it thinks will be the reaction of its own people inside Israel. Israel is heading towards a humiliating truce arrangement.

What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately. If Israel wants not to become a Crusader state that is in the end extinguished, it is only Hamas and Hezbollah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace.

Achieving a stable peace settlement will be extremely difficult. But the pillars of Israel’s present strategy – its own military strength and the unconditional support of the United States – constitute a very thin reed. Its military advantage is diminishing and will diminish steadily in the years to come. And in the post-Iraqi years, the United States may well drop Israel in the same way that France did in the 1960s.

Israel’s only real guarantee will be that of the Palestinians. And to get this guarantee, Israel will need to rethink fundamentally its strategy for survival.

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
___________________________

Rev. Jim Rigby: Christians Who Want Democracy Must Stop Bowing to a Dictator Christ

Here’s a ZNet commentary by Rev. Jim Rigby, pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX, and a longtime activist in movements concerned with gender, racial, and economic justice.

Rigby argues that Christianity is build upon a theology power, which contradicts the authority of Jesus’s teaching, which is found in truth. “To picture God in terms of power,” says Rigby, is “one of the great bait and switch gimmicks of all time. People within the power hierarchy proclaim that God is the ultimate authority, and then appoint themselves as God’s interpreters and enforcers. They are God’s humble bullies. It has been one of the most successful con games of all time.”

“Whereas American theology was born out of a hope for democracy, much of it is wedded to a picture of Christ as a benevolent dictator. Should we be surprised that a hierarchical cosmology would produce hierarchical churches and nations? Should we be surprised that religious nations that picture Christ as a loving dictator have produced conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders?”

Keep reading for the full commentary…http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-06/21rigby.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Christians Who Want Democracy Must Stop Bowing to a Dictator Christ July 10, 2006
By Rev. Jim Rigby

Whereas American theology was born out of a hope for democracy, much of it is wedded to a picture of Christ as a benevolent dictator. Should we be surprised that a hierarchical cosmology would produce hierarchical churches and nations? Should we be surprised that religious nations that picture Christ as a loving dictator have produced conquistadors, inquisitors and crusaders?

What else could they produce? As the tree is, so shall be the fruit. The word “Lord” was not in the original Bible. It is an English word from feudal times. Whereas the Greek word “kurios” had a range of meanings, from a title of respect, to a title of leadership, to a name for the sacred, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron. Many people have softened that interpretation in their own minds, but in times of great stress, such nuance falls away and many Christians seek a white male king. He may be called “Pope”, he may be called “the decider President,” he may be called “televangelist,” but the title only masks what he is, a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictator.

Neither Calvin nor Luther spoke English, but they helped the Popes lay the groundwork for the view of God as a cosmic dictator. From Popes, Luther and Calvin we have some of the ugliest slurs ever recorded against women, intellectuals, and those who refused the church’s message. How did Christians hold slaves, oppress women and slaughter nonbelievers? Perhaps they could not see Christ in non-male, non-European, and non-Christian people because they were limited by their theology. Their “Christ” was merely a glorification of the most powerful member of their own culture.

To picture God in terms of power is also one of the great bait and switch gimmicks of all time. People within the power hierarchy proclaim that God is the ultimate authority, and then appoint themselves as God’s interpreters and enforcers. They are God’s humble bullies. It has been one of the most successful con games of all time.

The real Jesus was born illegitimately. He called himself “the human one.” Just like Buddha, his authority came from truth, not power. He taught whoever has love has God. He said those who work for the common good are his church.

The real Jesus was an anarchist. He spent his life refusing to claim power over anyone. He said that God is understood in terms of love not power. We add nothing to the majesty of “the human one” by adding a throne or a crown. If he did not want to rule over others in life, why should he want it in death? That is why Jesus is called “lamb of God,” he spoke not as the king of the universe, but from its heart.

If you want to know why Americans are so frightened and why we are attacking anything that would challenge our dominance over others, read the Bible. Like Cain we have murdered members of our human family. Even when we silence our victims, the ground beneath our feet cries out against us.

Today’s church lifts its arms to praise Christ wearing liturgical garments woven in sweatshops. So called “Christian America” is still a nation built on the work of slaves. We do not see them because they toil invisibly in other countries. Today’s church doles out bits of charity from booty stolen from God’s powerless people the world over. Anyone who claims to believe in a just God, or even in justice itself, has to know at some level that the prayers for liberation coming from third world countries will be heard and answered. At some level, people of faith have to know that unless America repents of the sin of empire we are a doomed nation.

Whatever prophetic voices survive in the church must take a message to the mainstream denominations. “We are guilty of our leaders’ crimes. Just because we are silent and passive does not mean that we are innocent. If we have any status in the power hierarchy, we are partially responsible for its misdeeds.”

I realize that most of the church consists of wonderful and compassionate people, but that does not matter if we turn over our power to those less charitable. The moderate mainstream church is helpless against fundamentalism because it is built on a nuanced version of the same cracked foundation of a theology of power.

Whether or not we can change America in time to avoid a political and ecological apocalypse, it is never too late to do the right thing. All of us can begin to plant seeds of a better future for our children’s children. For Christians today, that means suffering the consequences of refusing to bow to the dictator Christ of this culture.

The Rev. Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX, and a longtime activist in movements concerned with gender, racial, and economic justice. This summer he is finishing a book on principles for a New Reformation. Rigby can be reached at jrigby0000@aol.com.

Robert Fisk: Has racism invaded Canada? The Case of the Toronto 17

Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent. His new book is The Conquest of the Middle East.

June 12, 2006

The Case of the Toronto 17: Has Racism Invaded Canada?

By ROBERT FISK

This has been a good week to be in Canada–or an awful week, depending on your point of view–to understand just how irretrievably biased and potentially racist the Canadian press has become. For, after the arrest of 17 Canadian Muslims on “terrorism” charges, the Toronto Globe and Mail and, to a slightly lesser extent, the National Post, have indulged in an orgy of finger-pointing that must reduce the chances of any fair trial and, at the same time, sow fear in the hearts of the country’s more than 700,000 Muslims. In fact, if I were a Canadian Muslim right now, I’d already be checking the airline timetables for a flight out of town. Or is that the purpose of this press campaign?

First, the charges. Even a lawyer for one of the accused has talked of a plot to storm the Parliament in Ottawa, hold MPs hostage and chop off the head of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Without challenging the “facts” or casting any doubt on their sources–primarily the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Canada’s leak-dripping Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) — reporters have told their readers that the 17 were variously planning to blow up Parliament, CSIS’s headquarters, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and sundry other targets. Every veiled and chadored Muslim woman relative of the accused has been photographed and their pictures printed, often on front pages. “Home-grown terrorists” has become theme of the month–even though the “terrorists” have yet to stand trial.

They were in receipt of “fertilizers”, we were told, which could be turned into explosives. When it emerged that Canadian police officers had already switched the “fertilizers” for a less harmful substance, nobody followed up the implications of this apparent “sting”. A Buffalo radio station down in the US even announced that the accused had actually received “explosives”. Bingo: Guilty before trial.

Of course, the Muslim-bashers have laced this nonsense with the usual pious concern for the rights of the accused. “Before I go on, one disclaimer,” purred the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente. “Nothing has been proved and nobody should rush to judgment.” Which, needless to say, Wente then went on to do in the same paragraph. “The exposure of our very own home-grown terrorists, if that’s what the men aspired to be, was both predictably shocking and shockingly predictable.” And just in case we missed the point of this hypocrisy, Wente ended her column by announcing that “Canada is not exempt from home-grown terrorism”. Angry young men are the tinderbox and Islamism is the match.
The country will probably have better luck than most at “putting out the fire”, she adds. But who, I wonder, is really lighting the match? For a very unpleasant–albeit initially innocuous–phrase has now found its way into the papers. The accused 17–and, indeed their families and sometimes the country’s entire Muslim community–are now referred to as “Canadian-born”. Well, yes, they are Canadian-born. But there’s a subtle difference between this and being described as a “Canadian”–as other citizens of this vast country are in every other context. And the implications are obvious; there are now two types of Canadian citizen: The Canadian-born variety (Muslims) and Canadians (the rest).

If this seems finicky, try the following sentence from the Globe and Mail’s front page on Tuesday, supposedly an eyewitness account of the police arrest operation: “Parked directly outside his … office was a large, gray, cube-shaped truck and, on the ground nearby, he recognized one of the two brown-skinned young men who had taken possession of the next door rented unit…” Come again? Brown-skinned? What in God’s name is this outrageous piece of racism doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily? What is “brown-skinned” supposed to mean–if it is not just a revolting attempt to isolate Muslims as the “other” in Canada’s highly multicultural society? I notice, for example, that when the paper obsequiously refers to Toronto’s police chief and his reportedly brilliant cops, he is not referred to as “white-skinned” (which he most assuredly is). Amid this swamp, Canada’s journalists are managing to soften the realities of their country’s new military involvement in Afghanistan.

More than 2,000 troops are deployed around Kandahar in active military operations against Taleban insurgents. They are taking the place of US troops, who will be transferred to fight even more Muslims insurgents in Iraq.

Canada is thus now involved in the Afghan war–those who doubt this should note the country has already shelled out $1.8bn in “defense spending” in Afghanistan and only $500m in “additional expenditures”, including humanitarian assistance and democratic renewal (sic)–and, by extension, in Iraq. In other words, Canada has gone to war in the Middle East.

None of this, according to the Canadian foreign minister, could be the cause of Muslim anger at home, although Jack Hooper–the CSIS chief who has a lot to learn about the Middle East but talks far too much–said a few days ago that “we had a high threat profile (in Canada) before Afghanistan. In any event, the presence of Canadians and Canadian forces there has elevated that threat somewhat.” I read all this on a flight from Calgary to Ottawa this week, sitting just a row behind Tim Goddard, his wife Sally and daughter Victoria, who were chatting gently and smiling bravely to the crew and fellow passengers. In the cargo hold of our aircraft lay the coffin of Goddard’s other daughter, Nichola, the first Canadian woman soldier to be killed in action in Afghanistan.

The next day, he scattered sand on Nichola’s coffin at Canada’s national military cemetery. A heartrending photograph of him appeared in the Post–but buried away on Page 6. And on the front page? A picture of British policemen standing outside the Bradford home of a Muslim “who may have links to Canada”.

Allegedly, of course.

The Independent asks “Does Marx Still Matter?”

The Independent (London, UK) June 6 2006

Politics and principles: Marx: does he still matter?

In a letter to former Labour leader Michael Foot, written in 1982 and published yesterday, Tony Blair reveals that reading Karl Marx ‘irreversibly altered’ his outlook. He even agreed with Tony Benn that Labour’s right-wing was politically bankrupt. We asked nine commentators – including Mr Benn – whether Marxism still has anything to offer today
Published: 16 June 2006

Eric Hobsbawm Historian

I think there has been a substantial revival of interest in Marx in recent years, and this has been largely because what he said about the volatility and shape of capitalism was correct – even some business people now seem to recognise this. Marx is once again somebody that you can quote, and this in part is due to the end of the Cold War.

In terms of Marx’s legacy, as the Chinese are reported to have said following the French Revolution: “It’s too early to tell.” What we do know, though, is that Marx and his disciples were massively responsible for the shaping of the 20th century, for good or for bad, and Marx was an extraordinarily important thinker.

In this era of neo-liberal globalisation, Marxist thinking is still important in showing that while capitalism is enormously dynamic, that dynamism creates crises. We need to address these crises, not by free markets, but by controlling the system or changing it altogether. Whether or not that is possible in the short term is a different story.

Matthew d’Ancona Editor, ‘THE Spectator’

Marx is certainly relevant. As Francis Wheen’s very good biography shows, he was on to the idea of globalisation long before right-wing economists started writing about it. Beyond that, his way of thinking is still pervasive.

One of the fascinating things about the Labour Party is that there has been what you might call a Marx-size hole in it, a quest for a sense of destiny. Blair has tried to fill that: his critics would say with religion, his apologists would say with Europe. Blair is someone with a pretty strong sense of destiny, and he has tried to extend that to the Labour Party. He is no Marxist but in a funny way he has that sense of destiny Marx had.

Marx was wrong about lots of things, but he is still somebody you have to know about. He is one of a very small number of people – Marx, Freud and Darwin are, I suppose, the three big ones – who completely changed the way we see mankind.

Jack Straw Leader of The House of Commons

Karl Marx’s legacy – not just for the Labour Party but for intellectual development – is his development of Hegel’s more scientific approach to historical analysis and his elevation of the dialectical process. Both are, I think, enduring. Much of his analysis is accurate and his analytical tools are still respected by many historians.

His prescriptions were often widely off-beam, as we now know, and played down non-economic forces to a point where I think he made some grievous historical and political errors – for example, ignoring the role of nationalism and religion as political forces.

What we saw in 1989, with the collapse of theSoviet system, was that the Marxist-Leninist approach to running not only economies but also societies was unenduring. The point of Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History was not that history had ended but that we had reached a point of ideological hegemony which I think we probably had. So Marxist Leninism is not relevant in that respect but the analysis is still worth having.

Hilary Wainwright Editor, ‘Red Pepper’

For all the abuses of his work, Marx’s view of society was far from being mechanical and determinist. His notion of people “making history but not in conditions of their own choosing” and his idea of “the social individual” points to that crucial balance between recognising the capacity of individuals to choose to transform rather than reproduce the social relations that depend on them and on the other hand the enduring nature of these social relations.

There is in Marx a powerfully grounded belief in human creativity combined with a strong belief in individual fufilment. It’s there in his theory of alienation: the way in which the capitalist labour market depends on workers’ alienation from their creative capacity. It’s there in his vision of socialism: not as a command economy but as the association of free producers. It is a cruel irony his name should have been used to justify authoritarianism and new, state, forms of alienation.

Tony Benn Labour Politician

It’s the teachers, including the prophets of ancient times, the founders of the great religions, along with Galileo, Darwin, and Karl Marx, who explain the world and our place in it.

I always think of Marx as the last of the Old Testament prophets who wrote a brilliant book about capitalism but also condemned it because of the oppression by one class of rich and powerful people.

Marx was no more responsible for a Stalinist tyranny than Jesus was for the Inquisition or the recent war of aggression waged by a Christian president and a Christian prime minister. Without the Marxist analysis, it is impossible to understand capitalism and globalisation, to reach a moral judgement, and it is even harder to explain the crude use of that power and the need for it to be held to account. There is nothing in the Marxist analysis to prevent us from thinking things out for ourselves and working to build a genuine democracy, where the polling station replaces the marketplace, and the ballot replaces the wallet as a source of political and economic power.

Alexei Sayle Comedian and Writer

I think that the Marxist historical analysis is an accurate account of how society has developed. Although perhaps a little wide of the mark, it is definitely still relevant. When Marx spoke about the differences in society being based on economic structure he definitely had a point.

Marxism should be seen as a tool and therefore a method of analysing society and that can be relevant today. You can certainly be right-wing and still be a Marxist.

It is a historical analysis of the class struggles and a prediction of the way our society would be, and it isn’t wrong. Yes, it is a complex set of ideas, but it makes sense.

Norman Tebbit Former Conservative Party Chairman

I read bits of Marx, though in a way when I grew up what seemed more relevant was Mein Kampf. I read that because I wanted to know about the bugger who was dropping bombs on me. I don’t think Marx is relevant, except to show up the folly of people who believe in what is now shown to be an absolute failure of a political system. Blair is right that it purports to be a total system. You can be a Conservative without being a capitalist, you can be Labour without being a socialist, but if you buy Marx, you have to buy the lot. It’s like a religion in that respect, and very harmful. So, for once, Tony’s right.

Anthony Seldon Headmaster, Wellington College

I think that Marx’s way of analysing society is of course relevant today because you simply cannot understand how societies have formed today without seeing the remnants of Marxism. It has been hugely influential across the world.

Marx definitely got some things wrong because his theory was, sadly, overly idealistic about working-class unity. Nevertheless, you can certainly still see elements of truth in what he said – workers are stronger when they stand together.

Marxism hasn’t itself been a negative influence. It is often the way that followers have chosen to interpret Marxism that has led to things like police states and concentration camps. Marx would have been horrified in the same way that Jesus would have been by the way people have interpreted him.

I find Marxism a lot less odious as an idea than capitalist policies. The idea of people living in a just society with no warfare is an inspiring vision, although hopelessly naïve.

Bob Crow General Secretary, RMT

It was entertaining to hear that Tony Blair’s youthful outlook was “irreversibly altered” by reading Marx. Of course, he doesn’t say in which direction his outlook was altered, but his actions during the past decade give us a clue. Today it is far easier to win the ear of Downing Street if you represent the class of capitalists, as Marx would have put it, rather than working people.

Of course, it may be that Blair has had a memory lapse and just needs a refresher. No need to wade through all of Das Kapital – just a quick read of the little pamphlet Wages, Price and Profit, which lays bare the mechanism by which bosses extract surplus value from the labour of working people. It should be in the pocket of every trade unionist.

In it, Marx demolishes the idea that wage rises cause inflation and that it is futile for workers to fight for higher pay.

Marx’s great achievement was understanding capitalism, and in understanding it he came to the conclusion that it could and must be replaced with something better.

As long as there are capitalists Marx will remain relevant.

Over 100 students protest arrests for skipping school to participate in immigration reform protests

More than 100 students have been criminally charged for skipping school to attend immigration “reform” protests. While many protesters faced repercussions for participating in the massive protests across the US, no group was criminally charged on the scale of students in Round Rock, Texas (a mostly White and conservative suburb of Austin).

The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Across the country, educators punished protesters with detention, suspension, and even canceled their extracurricular activities. But some school districts got the police involved.”

So what’s the lesson that’s learned with truancy trumps free-speech rights? Well…could it be that the democracy that is taught in US high schools is not in fact the democracy that is actually practiced there.

Christian Science Monitor: For students, cost of protest can be high

By Kris Axtman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

HOUSTON

Jennifer Avilez says her parents, both from Mexico, worked hard their whole lives to get her into a good school. So when she walked out of that school in late March to protest an immigration bill passed by the House, she did it for all those who hadn’t achieved as much.

“Other people need to have the same chance as they did,” she says. “This country was started by immigrants, after all.”

But her protest came to a halt when she was arrested and accused of criminal behavior by the local police.

The case against Jennifer, a student who takes AP courses at Stony Point High School in Round Rock, Texas, is one of hundreds like it that pit students’ free-speech rights against local rules against truancy.

Other immigration protesters have faced repercussions, too. Many employers took a hard line by firing those who didn’t show up for work. And during the rallies, which took place in dozens of cities nationwide this spring, some people were ticketed by police for minor infractions such as loitering or hindering traffic.

But no group was criminally charged on such a large scale as the students in Round Rock, a conservative, mostly white suburb near Austin, the state capital. The number of Hispanics there has only recently begun to increase.

“What was being done by those students is in the highest traditions of this country and we would hope that their idealism would be weighed against the rules that they’ve broken,” says Josh Bernstein, a senior policy analyst at the National Immigration Law Center, a Washington organization that promotes immigrant rights.

Across the country, educators punished protesters with detention, suspension, and even canceled their extracurricular activities. But some school districts got the police involved.

On the first day that Round Rock students protested, police officers gave warnings, which Jennifer says she never heard. The next day, March 31, police rounded up more than 200 students who were heading to a rally in Austin. Officers issued tickets for violating daytime curfew, a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500.

What makes this case unique is that the city has an ordinance that allows for free speech and assembly – which trumps the curfew-violation statute, says Ernest Saadiq Morris, a staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin.

But violators must show beyond a reasonable doubt that they were actually exercising that right, “and not just running roughshod through the city,” writes Eric Poteet, with the Round Rock Police Department, in an e-mail interview.

He says that only a certain percentage of marchers were actually protesting immigration reform. “The rest were just skipping school.”

In addition, says Officer Poteet, the student protests required the presence of police officers who were needed elsewhere, affecting the department’s ability to serve the community.

To date, more than 100 of the Round Rock students have pleaded guilty or did not contest the charges and will either pay a fine or do community service.

The other 98 have requested trials; the Texas Civil Rights Project is defending 82 of those.

The trials will take place from June through November. The first five have already been dismissed. Jennifer’s trial is set for July 7.

“Schools could have disciplined students in far more appropriate ways than criminalizing them,” says Morris.

But students didn’t need to skip school – or break any laws – to send a strong message, says Flavia Jimenez, an immigration policy analyst with the National Council of La Raza in Washington, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization.

“We feel that children in this country did a very courageous thing by speaking up about ways the illegal-immigration issue has affected them, but we were not in any way encouraging them to walk out of their classes,” says Ms. Jimenez. “Education is extremely important to the Latino community and will do more for us in the long run.”