|
February 17, 2011 - No. 22 In Parliament Harper's Medieval Notion of Entitlements• In
Parliament: Harper's Medieval Notion of Entitlements - Sandra
L. Smith In Parliament Harper's Medieval Notion of EntitlementsThe case of Minister of International Co-operation Bev Oda which forms the grist of the latest scandal in Canada's Parliament once again reveals the arrogance of the Harper government. Besides other things this arrogance is sustained by his line of march to enforce his royal prerogatives and those of his ministers. He is confident that these will stand in the face of any and all attempts of Parliament to usurp them or any court challenge. So long as the Official Opposition remains incapable of holding his government to account and a Workers' Opposition has yet to make its power felt, then Harper's arrogance will undoubtedly continue to know no bounds. The latest scandal concerns Minister Oda who, under pressure from the Opposition, finally admitted that she gave instructions for the word "not" to be inserted in a 2009 recommendation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) that church-based non-governmental organization Kairos be given a $7-million grant, and that she lied about it. She claimed the recommendation to cut off funding was made by her department, not herself. Based on the alleged departmental recommendation NOT to provide the grant, Kairos' funding was cut off. Harper defended his minister saying she was entitled to cut off Kairos' funding. "It is not the decision of appointed officials, it is not the entitlement of outside organizations. It is a decision of the minister to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are used effectively for foreign aid and that is what she has done," Harper told the House of Commons on February 15. For their part, Opposition MPs do not contest her right as a minister to make any decision she wants but say her admission shows she misled the Commons twice, first by portraying the decision as a routine matter handled by officials at the Canadian International Development Agency, and then when she testified to a committee last December that she did not know who had altered the document. They argue it is not merely a question of botched paperwork and a minister's power to overrule her officials. Responding to Harper's attempt to divert the issue, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said, "That wasn't the question. That's the government's responsibility, certainly. But our point, however, is that for months she laid the decision on the recommendations of civil servants, which is false, and secondly, documents were falsified." In other words, the existence of the Royal Prerogative and its use to enforce what cannot be justified is not a problem for Canadian MPs no matter what their party affiliation. The only problem is that Oda lied and falsified documents and for this the Parliament can hold her accountable. None of the parties in Parliament raise the substantive issue that Ministerial Prerogative is the most anachronistic part of what are called the democratic institutions. It was inserted into the system of so-called responsible government to make sure power always remains in the hands of the ruling class representing the propertied interests and that governments have a way of enforcing this power without their decisions being declared ultra vires -- outside the constitution. The prerogative is not only sanctioned by the constitution but it is the feature which characterizes who the constitution serves and the class nature of the democracy. Sovereignty is not vested in the people it is vested in the crown, which today means the monopolies which control the economy and the affairs of state. This archaic leftover from feudalism is totally anachronistic to the needs of a modern polity which requires that decision-making power be vested in the people in a way which is enforceable. Far from the House of Commons being a house for the commoners versus the Lords and far from its being a bulwark which deprives the King of his ability to arbitrarily do as he pleases, King Stephen quite happily rules with no force within the so-called Commons capable of curbing his unfettered arrogance. As King Stephen quotes his entitlements at every turn, the House of Commons has become a spineless fish while he and his entourage get away with the most reactionary decisions possible.
The fight is over the illegitimacy of the authority which is taking the decisions the Harper government makes. The need is to renew the political process in a manner which removes the feudal remnants of privileges not rights. The need is to end the arbitrary use of power to negate public right and to use public resources to privilege monopoly right. Hamilton Steelworkers' Opposition
|
The legitimacy of the
decisions is only as good as the legitimacy of the authority which
takes the decisions. In the 21st century such an authority must uphold
public right, not Christian Zionist doctrine which declares black is
white and up is down. Today we have a cartel party system which permits
King Stephen to run rampant over the dominions he has declared he is
ordained to rule.
This cabal uses the prerogative to declare that the struggle of the
Palestinian people is illegal and, on this basis, declares that any
support for this struggle is a hate crime and against Canadian values.
So
too, King Stephen and his cronies can rehabilitate
Nazis and call them freedom fighters while imprisoning the champions of
human emancipation, condone "evidence" procured from torture, trample
underfoot well-established international laws and conventions, engage
Canada in crimes against the peace and war crimes, sell out the country
to foreign interests, etc.
 Helicopter in the plant. |
We're sure the members of Local 1005 are not too upset that Surma's slave-owner definition of what constitutes gentlemanly behaviour does not apply to them. After all, this is the same Surma that travels abroad in private planes and helicopters with private security guards on foreign soil, such as the ones which were planted at the door of the room on the two occasions U.S. Steel held "negotiations" with members of 1005. Talk about holding a gun to the workers' head and then pontificating on who is and who is not "gentlemanly."
The definition of "gentleman" has undergone considerable change over time. It started out as a strictly class term -- in English history, a man who was not of noble birth but an owner of property entitled to a coat of arms, was referred to as a gentleman. In other words, he ranked well above a yeoman in the social order and there was nothing ruffian, i.e. common, about him. As time passed and ownership of property was no longer required to qualify a person for citizenship rights, the term evolved to the current reference of a person who behaves with courtesy and thoughtfulness.
Aside from the reality that Local 1005 has female members whom Surma ignores, the real issue seems to be with the "us and them." This is what Surma is all riled up about -- he does not seem to like the way the "them" refuses to submit to the "us." He also does not seem to be too pleased with how the "them" involves all of "them" and the community in a very public debate and mobilization against the "us."
Local 1005 realizes workers cannot confront current conditions of neoliberal domination of the global monopolies over "them," the economy and governments in the old way. Under these conditions of monopoly right and the subservience of governments to the monopolies, the security of "them" (workers) is found in a very public broad mobilization of workers and middle strata in defence of the rights of all. For "them" at Local 1005 to conclude a just collective agreement with Surma's "us," the full weight of the membership, the community and allies throughout Canada must be brought to bear on the struggle which in essence affects all Canadians, to the extent that governments must be forced to uphold public right in opposition to monopoly right.
For "them" of Local 1005 to have any chance of defending themselves and their rights, their most important weapon -- their unity and determination based on a principled stand -- must be mobilized. The unity and determination of "them" involves discussing all the issues facing them openly and without reservation. They participate consciously in arriving at decisions and carrying them out. Acts of conscious participation lead to understanding of the importance of the pension and other issues for the survival of a united "them" capable of defending the rights of all. Acts of conscious participation lead to an understanding of the importance of the principled stand of Local 1005 for the Hamilton community and the working class and middle strata across the country.
Greater and greater acts of conscious participation have given rise to the demand that governments must do their duty and uphold public right and not monopoly right. USW 1005 demands that U.S. Steel bargain in good faith, drop its dictate for pension concessions, abide by its sworn commitments and resume producing steel at Hamilton Works!
As far as being gentlemanly
in the modern sense, the USW
Local 1005 negotiating team could never be accused of not being
gentlemen concerning their behaviour towards the negotiating team from
U.S. Steel. They tolerated the security guards and no incident could be
cited where the Local 1005 negotiating team
has not behaved in a cultured manner and with courtesy and
thoughtfulness regardless of the obvious difference in social class
position between "us and them." Local 1005 has kept its cultured and
courteous behaviour, even in the face of a refusal on the part of the
U.S. Steel "us" to meet with "them" and bargain
in good faith. The U.S. Steel "us" first closed down steelmaking and
then issued a final dictate for "them" to "make pension concessions or
we'll lock you out." Not what an honest person would call gentlemanly
behaviour.
In contrast, the cultured behaviour of Local 1005 upholds as a matter of principle respect for the views of all its active and retired members and the community and country and encourages their active participation in the decisions so as to achieve a just settlement of the dispute and in the process become better organized and united to defend the rights of all.
CEO Surma's refusal to bargain in good faith and his retrogressive demand for secrecy and innuendo behind the backs of Local 1005 members and the public are obsolete and in the view of the working class decidedly uncultured and discourteous. Surma's neoliberal dictate and methods are an attack on the dignity of Local 1005 members, the community and Canada. Surma's discourteous dictate and secret deals have no place in Canada. Canadians have grown tired of his insulting dismissal of sworn commitments and dictate for anti-worker anti-Canadian concessions and attacks on the dignity of workers and their way of life. They demand that governments do their duty to defend Canadians and their socialized economy and national integrity from the abuse of monopoly right.
For Your Information
CEO Surma's words referring to USW Local 1005, according to the U.S. Steel transcript:
United States Steel CEO Discusses Q4 2010 Earnings Call Transcript, January 25, 2011
Question, Charles Bradford, Bradford Research: Are there any ongoing negotiations in Canada?
John Surma: Yes, we're in a collective bargaining situation. We'd prefer sort of to keep that between us and them. It isn't always necessarily what they do, but we prefer to be a gentleman about it and keep it between us and them. So with respect, Chuck, I'm going to refrain. And when there's something worth reporting, we'll make sure everyone knows about it.
***
The following day the Hamilton Spectator repeated a slightly altered version of the transcript:
"Surma also refused to say if there are active negotiations toward ending the Hamilton dispute.
"'We'd rather be gentlemen and keep that information between us and them,' he said.'"
***
Steel Market Update then ran the following item:
The lockout of the USW Local 1005 union workers at the U.S. Steel Hamilton Works plant in Canada has now entered its 15th week with no end in sight. The core disagreement between the mill and the union are centered on pensions.
U.S. Steel wants to eliminate the practice of indexing (cost of living adjustments) for the existing retirees and they also want to close the existing pension plan for new hires. The union management has been firm in their position to "stand pat" and to keep the existing contract in place which includes the indexing of pensions and keeps the defined pension plan in place for new hires. The company has the right to force a vote on their offer but has not petitioned for one. The union management, in the meantime, are not willing to take the USS offer to their membership.
We asked Rolf Gerstenberger, president of Local 1005 for a comment about the status of negotiations with USS at this time. He replied to SMU with the following:
"USW Local 1005 has not heard anything from U.S. Steel. But, as you know, CEO John Surma is very peeved that we oppose secret negotiations. He says it is not gentlemanly to discuss in public what is going on in bargaining. Maybe this means that we too should be kept in the dark about U.S. Steel's plans. Or, maybe it means he is talking to somebody else. All we know is that the more U.S. Steel draws this out, the more Canadians oppose its arrogant failure to bargain in good faith."
We asked U.S. Steel to provide details as to the status
of negotiations and their Canadian media representative sent back a
note to SMU stating, "We have nothing new to report at this time."
What Are Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa up to in Quebec?
What are Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa up to in Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean and in the Mauricie region? Workers report that they have not seen such a flurry of disciplinary action under any pretext hit them in a long time. The Alma workers, who are reminding Rio Tinto about their obligations to provide decent jobs in exchange for their hydro privileges and all the public money they have received, are being suspended for holding minutes of silence in the cafeteria to protest the elimination of positions. The Becancour workers are reporting a similar flurry of disciplinary action and even of having their working conditions changed unilaterally right on the shop floor as if they do not have a union and a contract. Meanwhile the owner, Alcoa, is suing the union for alleged vandalism and loss of production.
The increase in disciplinary action is accompanied by a barrage of propaganda by these global aluminum monopolies to the effect that while they are planning huge investments in their facilities, there is the risk that the money will go elsewhere unless the "intimidation" tactics of the workers stop, because investors don't like trouble and "sour labour relations." The representatives of the monopolies now also argue that because of global competition, the hydro privileges that they have been granted for decades by the Quebec government are no longer enough and more has to be done to persuade them to continue operating in Quebec.
Workers are discussing this situation and wondering what is being cooked up behind their backs. Are the aluminum monopolies preparing the ground for more pay-the-rich-schemes in open and secret deals with the Charest government? Do they want to impose new concessions on the workers under the hoax of making their operations flexible? Are they planning to increase the subcontracting of anything they do not consider core aluminum work, which will mean the further deterioration of the living standards of the workers and people in the whole region?
In the face of this repression and anti-labour propaganda, people must remind themselves that their standard of living has largely been due to the struggle of the workers to force the aluminum monopolies to recognize some responsibility towards the active and retired workers in the region. It can be said that how far the workers have been able to force Alcan to live up to its responsibilities has largely determined the extent to which living standards in the region have been defended. It must be said too that this struggle has been waged largely in the face of the reluctance and refusal of the governments to stand up for arrangements of mutual benefit between the likes of Alcan and the workers, the regions and Quebec as a whole. It was not the workers who signed secret deals with Rio Tinto at the time of its buyout of Alcan that allowed it to close mills without penalties in terms of, for example, its preferential hydro rates. Why should the workers feel defensive today and apologize for their struggle? They should be supported in their fight for arrangements that defend the dignity of labour because it is the treatment of labour which determines the quality of life in the region.
If Rio Tinto and Alcoa want to make new investments, nothing is preventing them from doing so nor do they need labour concessions and to criminalize workers for that. Meanwhile, the people are no fools and understand that these investments in Jonquière, for example, are not actually new but a rehash of pledges made by the previous owner, Alcan, that have not yet materialized. In 2006, a "continuity agreement" was signed between Alcan and the Charest government which provided for the investment of $2 billion in Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean in exchange for substantial government aid in the form of a $400 million loan, an extension of the Péribonka lease until 2058 and a new block of 225 megawatts of electrical power at preferential rates. If now Rio Tinto is planning to hold up its part of the deal, this is no time for people to be on their knees or to attack those who are fighting to make sure that the monopolies are not given carte blanche to plunder our resources.
The concern of the workers over what Rio Tinto and Alcan are plotting is not paranoia. How can they accept that the choice before them is to choose between investments and jobs versus maltreatment? Since when have the workers been opposed to investments and jobs and the well being of all? Why are these global monopolies threatening to pull out if new favourable concessions are not granted to them by the workers and the governments?
Whose well-being do they have in mind? The workers's
concerns must be taken seriously. Everyone must participate in
investigating what those monopolies are up to and defending the
interests of the workers and the communities they live in.
The Egyptian Revolution and the
Canadian Mass Media
Canadian mass media coverage of the Egyptian revolution has been contemptible. Its wretchedness could be summed up in four categories:
- disinformation, especially with regard to the role of
the
military in the state;
- dogmatism of imperialist democracy;
- Eurocentric arrogance opposing the "hijacking of the
democratic movement with extremist demands";
- and, the bandwagon hypocrisy of suddenly supporting
the Egyptian people and opposing President Mubarak without however
demanding regime change of Mubarak's Anglo-Zionist U.S. client state
and all its institutions, especially the military and political police.
Disinformation
The Egyptian people's uprising was met with state-organized violence and intimidation. The people responded with courage, discipline and determination sacrificing over 300 dead at the hands of the regime, thousands injured and an unknown number arrested and disappeared under the "Emergency Laws" that have been in place for decades and continue today under direct military rule.
The Canadian mass media spoke constantly of the peaceful nature of the uprising deliberately downplaying the heroic resistance to the state-organized violence, and the broad discipline, organizational skills, clear conscience and heroism of the people in the face of numerous violent provocations by police, state-hired thugs and hooligans.
Egyptians in Tahrir Square mourn those who lost their lives to violent government repression, February 12, 2011.
The mass media deliberately confused the nature of a modern state of which the most prominent and important institutions are the military, political police and government with its extensive bureaucracy and multifarious agencies. In the case of Egypt, the links of the military with U.S. imperialism are profound especially amongst the leading officer corps. The generals are responsible for allocating the military budget, which includes over one billion dollars from the United States. Control of the money gives leading officers economic, political and social connections with suppliers of all type of goods both in Egypt and abroad, in particular the U.S. armaments industry. These economic, political and social connections of Egyptian military officers with the U.S. have been broadened ideologically with constant training and education within U.S. military universities and continual joint training missions and exchanges. U.S. imperialist penetration of the Egyptian military is an important wedge turning the entire state into a U.S. client and target of neoliberal globalization preventing the development of a dignified independent Egyptian state with Egyptians in control of the direction of their economy and political affairs.
The situation does not mean that the Egyptian or any military penetrated by imperialism does not have contradictions within its ranks especially coming from colonels and below that rank and particularly sharp contradictions between the ruling officer corps with the masses of soldiers below commissioned officers. However, these contradictions generally are brutally suppressed through military discipline and court martial, and require a broad mass mobilization and movement in society to overthrow the status quo.
Generals in any army are accustomed to issuing orders and having those orders obeyed without question according to military discipline. Under imperialism, the trend is to negate human rights, demanding forms of military discipline throughout society even as modern conditions require the opposite, the recognition in practice that people have rights by virtue of being human. Only a determined and consistent resistance led by working class which constitutes itself the nation to defend the rights of all can reverse the all-sided fascization of life by opening a door to progress.
Just as economic power is concentrated in ever larger global monopolies, political power is more and more concentrated in executive organs at all levels annexed to the most powerful imperialist states. Such is the case in Canada annexed to the U.S., where the Canadian Prime Minister, Premiers and Mayors of the largest cities answer to the global monopolies not the Canadian people, and the military and political police are increasingly glorified, brought into civil life and given special powers to negate rights.
To suggest, as the Canadian mass media do, that the Egyptian military as it exists today can lead or play a positive role in the transformation to people's democracy and regime change is deliberate disinformation. This disinformation also plays a role in causing confusion in Canada as to the nature of the Canadian state and the interconnections among the civilian state institutions and the military and political police, both native and foreign, which are all organs of the dictatorship of the monopoly capitalist class.
Dogmatism of Imperialist Democracy
The mass media never tire saying
that the movement for
Egyptian democracy is up to the Egyptians themselves but cannot
complete the ritual speech without repeating the dogma of imperialist
democracy as the path the people must follow. The dogma of imperialist
democracy includes the general formulation of "Western democracy" and
certain banal particulars of contending electoral parties that push
their chosen privileged candidates in "free and fair elections" to
represent their sectarian interests in a Westminster-style parliament.
Of course, if an election gives rise to results
which do not favour the interests of the foreign powers, then talk of
elections is readily replaced with talk about stability. It never
enters the brains of those spouting this imperialist dogma that a
modern political system and its features must arise from the economic,
social, cultural and national conditions of the country
itself within history. This can only happen if it is guided by the
thought material of its own people and the constant renewal of this
thought material
in the form of modern political theory. The Egyptian people are part of
the Arab nation and have political and other needs that arise from the
present retrogressive economic conditions
of neoliberal globalization, the history of Anglo-Zionist domination
over their lives and Egypt in particular, and the necessity to defend
the rights of all. The starting point of the Egyptian people's
democracy is how they deal with the realities they face in a manner
which favours their interests. Necessarily, the people must
create a power which blocks foreign imperialist interference in their
sovereign decision-making. Its features will reveal themselves as they
overcome the interference of U.S. imperialism in their political
affairs. A fixed political formula coming from the early history of
Anglo-U.S. capitalism dominated by European
men of property and restructured to serve neoliberal globalization has
nothing to offer the Egyptians or any other people. In the past it
offered oppression, subjugation and negation of their rights. In the
present it offers wrecking, violence, targeted assassinations -- and
enslavement of all.
Eurocentric Arrogance
Around the world, those regimes
that are struggling to
find their way forward in a manner that serves the interests of their
people in opposition to the imperialist system of states are
consistently attacked as despotic and acting contrary to the
Eurocentric norms of imperialist
democracy. The arrogance of Anglo-U.S. imperialism has recently led to
wars of aggression in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan to
bring about regime change and force those countries back firmly into
the imperialist system of states. Threats are continuous against all
others outside the norms of imperialist
democracy such as Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and all others that dare to step out on their own
path towards independence and new arrangements. New fangled coups were
carried out against Haiti and Honduras in the name of defending
democracy, and so on.
Even before the Egyptian people have completed their revolutionary task of overthrowing the Anglo-Zionist regime, the Canadian mass media are already warning them not to "hijack" the movement towards democracy with some Egyptian homemade "despotic" deviation from the Eurocentric norm. It matters little to the Canadian media that Egyptians want genuine regime change and new arrangements that serve their interests and guarantee their rights and independence in opposition to imperialism. The arrogance of the media is insufferable and should be broadly denounced. This arrogance has a local aspect, as it blocks discussion on a way forward beyond imperialist democracy and annexation right here at home in Canada.
Bandwagon Hypocrisy
U.S. imperialism has financed and supported the Mubarak military dictatorship since the beginning. Successive U.S. administrations have done everything in their power to oppose the rise of an Egyptian people's democratic movement. They have given billions of dollars to strengthen the Egyptian military and political police to suppress the Egyptian people. In the last decade, any opposition to the Mubarak regime was denounced as terrorist and subjected to severe sanctions including against anyone within the U.S. who supported in any way a movement to oust the Anglo-Zionist Egyptian regime. In Canada, Harper is taking this to the absurd extent of criminalizing any criticism of Zionist Israel.
It stands as the height of hypocrisy that as soon as it became clear the masses of Egyptians were heroically going for revolutionary change that the U.S. state and the Canadian mass media would suddenly turn against the long-time U.S.-client president and demand his ouster. Jumping on the hypocrisy bandwagon of "peaceful transition" to imperialist democracy, U.S. President Obama did not even offer the people of the world the apologies of the U.S. for having financed and foisted the Mubarak regime on the people of Egypt and the Arab nation for three decades.
The U.S. opposes regime change led by the Egyptian people. The U.S. wants to manage a "peaceful transition" to imperialist democracy by flooding the country with NGO professional politicians, and along with the continued funding of the Egyptian military and political police, funnel dirty money to various political parties and organizations determined to maintain Egypt as an Anglo-Zionist U.S. client state.
What it has yet to understand is that it will fail.
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca