On-going mass crime against Yemen

The Saudi war against Yemen is a grotesque violation of the lives and dignity of innocent women, children, and civilians who seek nothing more than peaceful lives under democratic rule of their own choice.

This vile Saudi mass-crime, and the associated inhuman blockade, condoned and supported by the USA, Canada, and the silent Western world, is presently the worst on-going genocidal attack on the planet.

By such behaviour, the West and Saudi show themselves to be hypocritical, vicious, and murderous. I cannot condemn my own government (Canada) enough, which sells arms for profit to the Saudi thugs.

Dear Chinese Premier Li Keqiang

as I posted earlier to Facebook...

Dear Chinese Premier Li Keqiang:

On your visit to Canada, please make a point of publicly reminding Prime Minister Trudeau that Canada needs to be far more attentive to its international human rights obligations.

As you know, Canada's jails are overcrowded with citizens. The bail system systemically denies constitutional rights. Physical isolation that amounts to torture is widely used. Jail sentences are disproportionate and there is no rehabilitation. The police summarily attack and murder black, aboriginal, and economically excluded citizens on the streets and in detention. A Black man was summarily murdered by police in my own neighbourhood in Canada’s capital city Ottawa just days ago. Police entrapment and its organizing of citizens to commit criminal acts are routine. Critical political expression is criminalized and prosecuted. A defamation law that is contrary to international law is in wide application to silence any influential voices. A family court system and state-empowered family “services” conspire to attack the families of the working and economically-excluded classes, with absolute power and virtually no oversight. An immigration authority simply jails applicants for indeterminate periods. Legal fees are beyond access for ordinary litigants, thus ensuring that the courts can only be used by wealthy individuals and corporations. When corporations go bankrupt the creditors get legal priority and employee pensions are effectively robbed with government blessings. Corporations and foreign and domestic investors hold local governments to ransom and devastate communities at will with closures, relocations, and property “development”. The list is a long one. The negative impact on the Canadian social fabric is immeasurable, as is the impact on global values.

China's historic large-scale creation of economic justice and its independence from US corporate dominance should be an example to Canada. Your words will carry the weight of China's stature. Please intervene for the good of Canada.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association

It's the Geopolitics, stupid!

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Geopolitics determines domestic policy.
Geopolitics determines domestic policy.
Geopolitics determines domestic policy.

This is apparent in the client country "Canada", where no sovereignty is allowed, and where domestic policy is entirely about preventing any emergence of actual democracy.

It is glaringly obvious, to anyone who escapes the constant institutional social-engineering restrictions and blaring propaganda amplified by all the media, that US-led geopolitics determines every aspect of state management in Canada.

That US-led geopolitics determines every aspect of state management in Canada is true in every area of state involvement:

• regulation of politics
• social policy
• health policy
• educational and student-debt policy
• prison and police complex
• domestic surveillance complex
• slave banking and monetary policy
• corporate tax and royalties policies
• zero resistance against foreign takeovers
• zero national policy for industrial-base development in all areas except the client arms industries and slave industries such as agri-food using proprietary seeds and chemicals
• slave trade agreements designed to counter BRICS and boost US global corporations
• implementation of carbon economic instruments
• pipeline economics (versus domestic refinement and transformation) 
• predatory global mining extraction (including on domestic territories)
• arms industry preeminence
• arms purchases
• foreign policy and diplomatic campaigns
• involvement in and diplomatic support for illegal direct and proxy wars of aggression

The "Conservative" and "Liberal" blocks are entirely aligned with the US "Republican" and "Democrat" blocks, to the point that it has become a cartoon, with pipelines swinging in different directions at the turn of elections, as easily as geopolitical directions.

Break diplomatic ties with Iran, remake diplomatic ties with Iran... etc.

The Canadian state, in the hands of the US governing complex, has given itself the task of gutting our minds and our political agency, in order to serve the US global campaigns, without the nuisance of popular domestic awareness or demands. This has been a long and continuing process, which accelerated in the 1980s, and became solidified by ever-increasing "globalization" agreements, and security "cooperation".

The truth is: there is no Canada. There is only an illusion maintained by servants. There are institutional remnants that would allow sovereignty to take hold, in a battle for the nation, but the intelligentsia and service managers have no interest in an independent and democratic nation on Canadian territory.

At this rate, eventually the majority of Canadians will experience something towards what the Aboriginals have experienced in Canada's genocide. Those who have had their families and lives destroyed by the "children's aid" and family court complex are already experiencing aboriginality at the hands of a vicious state system.

The corporate managers (including governments, which are corporations) already invest abroad, serve on the boards of multinationals, vacation in the US, accept tourist packages to Israel, send their kids to Harvard, and even occasionally try to import their facade party leaders from Harvard. The middle managers want a heated pool, vacation packages, big-screen entertainment, two cars, and a golden retirement.

All the others can fight among themselves, be institutionalized, and get fucked.

Canadian Members of Parliament Vote in Express Contempt for Democracy, in Support of Israel's Apartheid Regime

On February 22, 2016, 68% of the federal members of parliament in Canada's House of Commons voted FOR this motion:

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.

It does not appear to have crossed their minds that they were thereby subverting the freedom of political participation, democracy, and Canada's constitution. (Although a few were visibly tormented: VIDEO.)

This was a truly historic vote. And we must never forget how "our" representatives voted (or did not vote):

A = absent or abstained  /  NO = voted against the motion  /  * = voted for the motion

VOTE	First Name	Last Name	Political Affiliation
*	Ziad	Aboultaif	Conservative
*	Dan	Albas	Conservative
*	Harold	Albrecht	Conservative
*	John	Aldag	Liberal
A	Omar	Alghabra	Liberal
A	Leona	Alleslev	Liberal
*	Dean	Allison	Conservative
*	Rona	Ambrose	Conservative
*	William	Amos	Liberal
A	Gary	Anandasangaree	Liberal
*	David	Anderson	Conservative
NO	Charlie	Angus	NDP
*	Mel	Arnold	Conservative
NO	René	Arseneault	Liberal
A	Chandra	Arya	Liberal
NO	Niki	Ashton	NDP
NO	Robert	Aubin	NDP
*	Ramez	Ayoub	Liberal
A	Vance	Badawey	Liberal
NO	Larry	Bagnell	Liberal
*	Navdeep	Bains	Liberal
*	John	Barlow	Conservative
A	Xavier	Barsalou-Duval	Bloc Québécois
*	Frank	Baylis	Liberal
A	Mario	Beaulieu	Bloc Québécois
*	Terry	Beech	Liberal
A	Mauril	Bélanger	Liberal
*	Carolyn	Bennett	Liberal
NO	Sheri	Benson	NDP
*	Candice	Bergen	Conservative
*	Maxime	Bernier	Conservative
*	Luc	Berthold	Conservative
*	James	Bezan	Conservative
*	Marie-Claude	Bibeau	Liberal
*	Chris	Bittle	Liberal
NO	Daniel	Blaikie	NDP
*	Bill	Blair	Liberal
NO	Rachel	Blaney	NDP
*	Steven	Blaney	Conservative
*	Kelly	Block	Conservative
*	Randy	Boissonnault	Liberal
*	Mike	Bossio	Liberal
A	Sylvie	Boucher	Conservative
NO	Michel	Boudrias	Bloc Québécois
NO	Alexandre	Boulerice	NDP
NO	Marjolaine	Boutin-Sweet	NDP
*	John	Brassard	Conservative
A	Bob	Bratina	Liberal
*	Pierre	Breton	Liberal
*	Scott	Brison	Liberal
NO	Ruth Ellen	Brosseau	NDP
*	Gordon	Brown	Conservative
*	Celina	Caesar-Chavannes	Liberal
*	Blaine	Calkins	Conservative
NO	Richard	Cannings	NDP
NO	Guy	Caron	NDP
*	Jim	Carr	Liberal
*	Colin	Carrie	Conservative
*	Bill	Casey	Liberal
*	Sean	Casey	Liberal
*	Bardish	Chagger	Liberal
*	François-Philippe	Champagne	Liberal
A	Arnold	Chan	Liberal
A	Shaun	Chen	Liberal
*	Michael	Chong	Conservative
NO	François	Choquette	NDP
NO	David	Christopherson	NDP
*	Alupa	Clarke	Conservative
*	Tony	Clement	Conservative
*	Michael	Cooper	Conservative
*	Serge	Cormier	Liberal
NO	Nathan	Cullen	NDP
*	Rodger	Cuzner	Liberal
*	Julie	Dabrusin	Liberal
A	Pam	Damoff	Liberal
A	Don	Davies	NDP
*	Matt	DeCourcey	Liberal
*	Gérard	Deltell	Conservative
*	Sukh	Dhaliwal	Liberal
*	Anju	Dhillon	Liberal
*	Nicola	Di Iorio	Liberal
A	Stéphane	Dion	Liberal
*	Kerry	Diotte	Conservative
*	Todd	Doherty	Conservative
A	Fin	Donnelly	NDP
*	Earl	Dreeshen	Conservative
*	Francis	Drouin	Liberal
NO	Matthew	Dubé	NDP
A	Emmanuel	Dubourg	Liberal
*	Jean-Yves	Duclos	Liberal
*	Terry	Duguid	Liberal
*	Kirsty	Duncan	Liberal
NO	Linda	Duncan	NDP
NO	Pierre-Luc	Dusseault	NDP
NO	Scott	Duvall	NDP
*	Julie	Dzerowicz	Liberal
*	Wayne	Easter	Liberal
*	Jim	Eglinski	Conservative
*	Ali	Ehsassi	Liberal
A	Fayçal	El-Khoury	Liberal
*	Neil	Ellis	Liberal
A	Nathaniel	Erskine-Smith	Liberal
*	Mark	Eyking	Liberal
*	Doug	Eyolfson	Liberal
*	Ted	Falk	Conservative
*	Ed	Fast	Conservative
*	Greg	Fergus	Liberal
*	Andy	Fillmore	Liberal
*	Diane	Finley	Conservative
*	Pat	Finnigan	Liberal
*	Darren	Fisher	Liberal
A	Peter	Fonseca	Liberal
*	Judy	Foote	Liberal
NO	Rhéal	Fortin	Bloc Québécois
*	Peter	Fragiskatos	Liberal
*	Colin	Fraser	Liberal
A	Sean	Fraser	Liberal
*	Chrystia	Freeland	Liberal
*	Hedy	Fry	Liberal
A	Stephen	Fuhr	Liberal
*	Cheryl	Gallant	Conservative
*	Marc	Garneau	Liberal
NO	Randall	Garrison	NDP
*	Bernard	Généreux	Conservative
*	Garnett	Genuis	Conservative
*	Mark	Gerretsen	Liberal
NO	Marilène	Gill	Bloc Québécois
*	Marilyn	Gladu	Conservative
*	Joël	Godin	Conservative
*	Pam	Goldsmith-Jones	Liberal
*	Ralph	Goodale	Liberal
*	Karina	Gould	Liberal
*	Jacques	Gourde	Conservative
*	David	Graham	Liberal
*	Raj	Grewal	Liberal
*	Patty	Hajdu	Liberal
NO	Cheryl	Hardcastle	NDP
*	Rachael	Harder	Conservative
*	Ken	Hardie	Liberal
*	Stephen	Harper	Conservative
*	T.J.	Harvey	Liberal
*	Kent	Hehr	Liberal
A	Jim	Hillyer	Conservative
A	Randy	Hoback	Conservative
A	Mark	Holland	Liberal
*	Anthony	Housefather	Liberal
NO	Carol	Hughes	NDP
A	Ahmed	Hussen	Liberal
*	Gudie	Hutchings	Liberal
*	Angelo	Iacono	Liberal
*	Matt	Jeneroux	Conservative
NO	Gord	Johns	NDP
NO	Georgina	Jolibois	NDP
*	Mélanie	Joly	Liberal
*	Yvonne	Jones	Liberal
*	Bernadette	Jordan	Liberal
A	Majid	Jowhari	Liberal
NO	Peter	Julian	NDP
A	Darshan Singh	Kang	Liberal
*	Pat	Kelly	Conservative
A	Jason	Kenney	Conservative
*	Peter	Kent	Conservative
A	Iqra	Khalid	Liberal
A	Kamal	Khera	Liberal
*	Robert	Kitchen	Conservative
*	Tom	Kmiec	Conservative
NO	Jenny	Kwan	NDP
*	Mike	Lake	Conservative
*	David	Lametti	Liberal
*	Kevin	Lamoureux	Liberal
*	Linda	Lapointe	Liberal
*	Guy	Lauzon	Conservative
*	Stéphane	Lauzon	Liberal
NO	Hélène	Laverdière	NDP
A	Denis	Lebel	Conservative
*	Dominic	LeBlanc	Liberal
*	Diane	Lebouthillier	Liberal
*	Paul	Lefebvre	Liberal
*	K. Kellie	Leitch	Conservative
*	Denis	Lemieux	Liberal
*	Andrew	Leslie	Liberal
*	Michael	Levitt	Liberal
*	Ron	Liepert	Conservative
A	Joël	Lightbound	Liberal
*	Ben	Lobb	Conservative
*	Alaina	Lockhart	Liberal
*	Wayne	Long	Liberal
A	Lloyd	Longfield	Liberal
*	Karen	Ludwig	Liberal
*	Tom	Lukiwski	Conservative
*	Lawrence	MacAulay	Liberal
NO	Alistair	MacGregor	NDP
*	Dave	MacKenzie	Conservative
*	Steven	MacKinnon	Liberal
*	Larry	Maguire	Conservative
NO	Sheila	Malcolmson	NDP
*	James	Maloney	Liberal
NO	Simon	Marcil	Bloc Québécois
NO	Brian	Masse	NDP
*	Rémi	Massé	Liberal
NO	Irene	Mathyssen	NDP
*	Bryan	May	Liberal
A	Elizabeth	May	Green Party
*	John	McCallum	Liberal
*	Kelly	McCauley	Conservative
*	Phil	McColeman	Conservative
A	Karen	McCrimmon	Liberal
*	Ken	McDonald	Liberal
A	David	McGuinty	Liberal
A	John	McKay	Liberal
A	Catherine	McKenna	Liberal
*	Ron	McKinnon	Liberal
*	Cathy	McLeod	Conservative
*	Michael	McLeod	Liberal
A	Alexandra	Mendès	Liberal
*	Marco	Mendicino	Liberal
*	MaryAnn	Mihychuk	Liberal
*	Larry	Miller	Conservative
*	Marc	Miller	Liberal
*	Maryam	Monsef	Liberal
NO	Christine	Moore	NDP
*	Bill	Morneau	Liberal
*	Robert	Morrissey	Liberal
NO	Thomas	Mulcair	NDP
*	Joyce	Murray	Liberal
NO	Pierre	Nantel	NDP
A	Eva	Nassif	Liberal
*	John	Nater	Conservative
*	Robert	Nault	Liberal
*	Rob	Nicholson	Conservative
*	Alexander	Nuttall	Conservative
A	Deepak	Obhrai	Conservative
A	Jennifer	O'Connell	Liberal
*	Robert	Oliphant	Liberal
*	John	Oliver	Liberal
*	Seamus	O'Regan	Liberal
*	Erin	O'Toole	Conservative
*	Robert-Falcon	Ouellette	Liberal
*	Denis	Paradis	Liberal
*	Pierre	Paul-Hus	Conservative
A	Monique	Pauzé	Bloc Québécois
*	Joe	Peschisolido	Liberal
*	Kyle	Peterson	Liberal
*	Ginette	Petitpas Taylor	Liberal
*	Jane	Philpott	Liberal
*	Michel	Picard	Liberal
NO	Louis	Plamondon	Bloc Québécois
*	Pierre	Poilievre	Conservative
*	Jean-Claude	Poissant	Liberal
NO	Anne Minh-Thu	Quach	NDP
*	Carla	Qualtrough	Liberal
*	Lisa	Raitt	Conservative
NO	Tracey	Ramsey	NDP
NO	Murray	Rankin	NDP
A	Yasmin	Ratansi	Liberal
*	Alain	Rayes	Conservative
A	Geoff	Regan	Liberal
*	Scott	Reid	Conservative
*	Michelle	Rempel	Conservative
*	Blake	Richards	Conservative
*	Jean	Rioux	Liberal
*	Gerry	Ritz	Conservative
*	Yves	Robillard	Liberal
*	Pablo	Rodriguez	Liberal
*	Sherry	Romanado	Liberal
*	Anthony	Rota	Liberal
*	Kim	Rudd	Liberal
*	Dan	Ruimy	Liberal
A	Don	Rusnak	Liberal
NO	Romeo	Saganash	NDP
A	Ruby	Sahota	Liberal
*	Raj	Saini	Liberal
*	Harjit S.	Sajjan	Liberal
*	Darrell	Samson	Liberal
*	Ramesh	Sangha	Liberal
NO	Brigitte	Sansoucy	NDP
*	Randeep	Sarai	Liberal
*	Bob	Saroya	Conservative
*	Francis	Scarpaleggia	Liberal
*	Andrew	Scheer	Conservative
*	Peter	Schiefke	Liberal
*	Jamie	Schmale	Conservative
*	Deborah	Schulte	Liberal
*	Marc	Serré	Liberal
*	Judy	Sgro	Liberal
*	Brenda	Shanahan	Liberal
*	Terry	Sheehan	Liberal
*	Martin	Shields	Conservative
*	Bev	Shipley	Conservative
*	Jati	Sidhu	Liberal
*	Sonia	Sidhu	Liberal
*	Gagan	Sikand	Liberal
*	Scott	Simms	Liberal
A	Amarjeet	Sohi	Liberal
*	Robert	Sopuck	Conservative
*	Francesco	Sorbara	Liberal
*	Kevin	Sorenson	Conservative
A	Sven	Spengemann	Liberal
*	Bruce	Stanton	Conservative
A	Gabriel	Ste-Marie	Bloc Québécois
NO	Wayne	Stetski	NDP
NO	Kennedy	Stewart	NDP
*	Mark	Strahl	Conservative
*	Shannon	Stubbs	Conservative
*	David	Sweet	Conservative
A	Marwan	Tabbara	Liberal
A	Geng	Tan	Liberal
*	Filomena	Tassi	Liberal
NO	Luc	Thériault	Bloc Québécois
A	David	Tilson	Conservative
*	Hunter	Tootoo	Liberal
*	Brad	Trost	Conservative
*	Justin	Trudeau	Liberal
NO	Karine	Trudel	NDP
*	Dave	Van Kesteren	Conservative
*	Peter	Van Loan	Conservative
*	Dan	Vandal	Liberal
A	Anita	Vandenbeld	Liberal
*	Adam	Vaughan	Liberal
*	Karen	Vecchio	Conservative
*	Arnold	Viersen	Conservative
A	Arif	Virani	Liberal
*	Cathay	Wagantall	Conservative
*	Mark	Warawa	Conservative
*	Chris	Warkentin	Conservative
*	Dianne	Watts	Conservative
*	Kevin	Waugh	Conservative
*	Len	Webber	Conservative
NO	Erin	Weir	NDP
NO	Nick	Whalen	Liberal
*	Jonathan	Wilkinson	Liberal
*	Jody	Wilson-Raybould	Liberal
*	Alice	Wong	Conservative
*	Borys	Wrzesnewskyj	Liberal
A	Kate	Young	Liberal
*	David	Yurdiga	Conservative
A	Salma	Zahid	Liberal
*	Bob	Zimmer	Conservative

The lie in Canada's Syrian refugee show

REGARDING CANADA'S SYRIAN REFUGEE POLICY, an aspect which is egregiously avoided and covered up is the geopolitical dimension and motives for receiving refugees preferentially from Syria (and other specific conflict areas).

The government is not doing this primarily to satisfy its international humanitarian obligations.

Syria under Assad is a target of vicious US-Canada-NATO-Israel aggression (both direct and by proxy) that will continue even if Syria survives for-now thanks to the Russian coalition. In this context, as always, the Syrian refugees in Canada will be used as instruments: as "witnesses" pressured by many spoken and unspoken means to be critical of Assad, to not be critical of NATO, to serve as media sources in the latter, to be spies and informants, to facilitate manipulations in Syria, etc.! This ugly dimension of refugee politics is simply not ever mentioned. 

Likewise, the PR message in the very act of receiving Syrian refugees is that we are saving the refugees from the crimes of our enemies, not from our own crimes. Otherwise our (Canada's) show of generosity would be both absurd and disingenuous..., which it is! Indeed, the government and media are remarkably silent about the 26,000 other refugees that arrive in Canada every year. 

The whole Syrian refugee media and political campaign is largely a manipulation made to advance the domestic and allied illusion of a benevolent Canada that is not participating in continuous war crimes of the US and Israel, and it's wonderful for the Liberal voter base. But the actual crimes cannot go unnoticed by the targets of those crimes, and by those of us who are paying attention. Disgusting.

--Denis Rancourt
 

But is it true? (Catalyzed by CBC's interview of Gideon Levy)

By Denis G. Rancourt

Well-meaning humanists often make broad pronouncements of alleged universal principles that they advance as absolute truth in the face of the most horrendous problems facing humanity. But are these pronouncements true?

There are many examples of this phenomenon in the legal decisions of our highest courts, where, if it were taken into account, sociological evidence would often be counter to the true and apparent purpose of the legal system.

But without going to lawyers and judges in their courtrooms, what about the humanists, and the activists concerned about preventing the largest mass crimes of state, including war, genocide, occupation, slavery, and extreme exploitation, often perpetrated by their home states?

Recently, I heard one of these pronouncements made by the great humanist, Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy, interviewed by Canada's CBC. In expressing his existential commitment to protecting Israel, Mr. Levy said:

"I will never protect myself only based on military power. This will never work. The only guarantee for the existence of Israel for the long run is making it a just place based on justice and international law."

This is a common enough expressed belief, that the application of military power cannot win peace. But is it true? It seems important to ask whether or not this is a fallacy. And the answer lies in history, rather than in our psychological desires for wishful and fictitious principles.

History gives an unequivocal answer in this case. Every time an invader and occupier has been committed enough to accomplish the genocide or permanent expulsion of the native population, by one way or another, and then occupied the territory by force, what followed was territory-wide peace. That is, what followed was virtual complete removal of the native threat, with only the usual domestic violence inherent in any hierarchical society.

Since Mr. Levy was interviewed in Canada, the most convenient example is Canada's accomplished genocide (LINK) of the native peoples that occupied the territory that it stole. Canada is now considered "one of the most peaceful nations on earth", according to the CBC and many primary school teachers. So peaceful in fact, that it now has the resources to inflict mass destruction and societal disintegration on the peoples of distant nations such as Syria, without any apparent negative consequences that rise above the very low domestic crime rate.

One counter example is sufficient to disprove the said pronouncement, but all of history is the history of such "peace making" by extermination and dominance.

Therefore, I conclude that this pronouncement of Mr. Levy is a desperate and toothless appeal to those supporting the mid-phase Israeli genocide to imagine a terrible negative consequence, but one that is not likely to materialize. The fantasy negative-consequence in question would be that occupied Palestinians could find a way to inflict enough backlash to slow and stop the genocide, or that the peoples in influential nations would successfully pressure their governments to pressure Israel enough to stop it in its project.

From the perspective of history, these fantasies are very unlikely. They would require a kind of mass-hysteria of repulsion against the criminal actions of Israel, and against the criminal actions of all home governments that support suppression of peoples.

Clearly Israel and its allied states are very concerned about any possible spark of such mass-hysteria. This explains their extreme obsessions with "hate speech laws" and "antisemitism laws" and "holocaust denial laws" and the many laws against all the civil liberties. The ruling class is feeling very uneasy about its image-management difficulties regarding its criminal activities. But in the end, all this is irrational over-reaction in places like Canada where the police are clearly in charge and where the greatest threat to humanity is "global warming" from atmospheric CO2.

My point is that these general pronouncements of baseless principles are not useful because they are not realistic. Agitation does not rely on grand appeals to the oppressor to be less oppressive, or to kind opinion activists to "mobilize". Effective agitation is based on shared disgust at being stepped on, and is anchored in reality.

I may be wrong? Maybe opinion activism and the "critical mass of like-minded people" will prove me wrong? I hope so. But, from history, it would appear that a class war or struggle leading to (not-necessarily violent) revolution has been needed every time.

Also, who am I to judge that Palestinians are not inflicting enough backlash to slow and stop the Israeli genocide? But from here, the genocide appears to be accelerating if anything. There will be another summer slaughter soon. Expressed disgust is an answer.

Canada's CBC is adamant on being worthless -- Canada's war against the Syrian people

Canada is engaged in a new war in Syria and Iraq, in addition to its war in Afghanistan, and the CBC simply will not provide the Canadian public with any balanced reporting about facts on the ground, or any actual reporting. Just look at the retarded headlines being featured in this time of war: CBC-link.

The whole World can see what is immediately obvious to any objective reader of the verifiable evidence:

Yet, the CBC insists on being irrelevant and refuses to cover the most glaring facts on the ground.

At the very least, some anchor could say "Press TV reports that", and then spend some resources looking into it. Here is today's glaring example:



Good job CBC. All who work at the state corporation can be proud.

Major foreign corporation with US-military and IDF ties buys a "security and policy institute" at "Allan Rock's university" in Canada's capital

By Denis G. Rancourt


BACKGROUND ABOUT ALLAN ROCK'S NAKBA AT uOTTAWA

The University of Ottawa was a reputable institution of higher learning in Canada's capital city, before it was taken-over in 2008 by former federal politician and former Canadian Ambassador to the UN Allan Rock.

Following his appointment, Rock immediately proceeded to bring in all his own people to run the place in support of his announced pet projects to support US-colonial "globalization" and to legitimize the state of Israel, in the face of growing international condemnation of Israel's on-going war crimes in Palestine.

There was a complete overhaul of the executive team, and of the Board of Governors (BOG). The new VP-Academic, Francois Houle, disappeared shortly after the start of his mandate. The whole executive team left for one reason or another. The Chair of the BOG left, to be replaced by a retired federal senior civil servant who had been an underling of the then federal minister Allan Rock, and so on.

Rock has gone so far as to receive public condemnations from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers for administrative interferences with the student-based Israel Apartheid Week (see Appendix). He created a questionable joint law graduate degree with an Israeli university, for which there was no apparent or expressed need. He has been pressing for a "School of Government" without consulting the academic community. He accepts large anonymous donations for his pet programs. And so on.

Since Rock's appointment, damaging public relations fiascoes have followed, one after the other, somewhat like in Rock's former political career in which a colleague from his own party said that he has "shit magnets in his pockets".

The most recent matter illustrating Rock's ability to continually harm the institution's reputation has been the subject of several harsh editorial critiques in the national print media: Rock prejudicially and publicly dismissed and tarred the entire university hockey team, thereby wrecking student athlete careers, prior to any criminal charges being laid against two of the team's members.

A partial list of Rock's notorious achievements, up to 2010, in both his past political dealings and on campus, is given in the Appendix below.


A PATTERN OF UNILATERAL AND UNCOLLEGIAL EXECUTIVE DECISIONS BY ALLAN ROCK

An illustrative example of how Rock operates, is shown by student reactions to his "School of Management" brainchild, as follows (LINK).

On January 29, 2013, Sarah Tayyem, President, Public & International Affairs Association, Representative of Students from the Public & International Affairs Program, writes (in part):

"Lack of student input into the consultation process ... The consulting group did not include students in their process, and so this report does not address or cover student concerns. ... There was no student input solicited for the original consultative document, and there has been a lack of effort on the part of the University to solicit feedback from students even though we are at the heart of this proposal. GSPIA students would appreciate a consultation session, especially as we stand to be strongly affected by the proposed SoG."

Similarly, on March 4, 2013, the president of the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO), Professor Christian Rouillard, wrote THIS damning letter to Allan Rock (in part):

I am writing to you in regards to the projected School of Government. Listed as one of the initiatives on the horizon in the plan Destination 20/20, where it is introduced as «a premier centre for governance and public-policy research» (...), this project remains a mystery to most members of our university community.

About a year ago, at the Ottawa Mayor's Breakfast: Ottawa Business Journal and Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, you  explained to the members of the business community present that ... Yet, one year later, as attested by the feedback we received from many members who are themselves part of «the exceptional cluster of expertise that is already at the  University», i.e. faculty conducting research in the areas of governance, public administration, international affairs,  security and human rights, everyone on campus it seems, has been kept in the dark. No relevant information on the projected school has been formally shared by the administration. Not a word on it is to be found in the minutes of the  Senate meetings held in  the  2012-2013 academic year (...). Similarly, not a word on it is to be found in the minutes  of the Board of governors meetings held in the 2012-2013 academic year ...

Such public letters are unprecedented at the University of Ottawa.


THE LATEST ALLAN ROCK SURPRISE: A FOREIGN-FUNDED SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE FOR CANADA

On September 8, 2014, the Allan Rock university put out THIS previously unannounced press release:

MEDIA ADVISORY: Launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development at the University of Ottawa

OTTAWA, September 8, 2014  —  The University of Ottawa invites members of the media to attend the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development. The new institute will offer a unique professional development program for decision-makers working in the public, para-public and private sectors whose responsibilities require them to pay particular attention to national and international security issues.

The courses offered by the Institute will focus on sharing knowledge and best practices to help students take more informed decisions.

In honour of the Institute’s launch, internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman will present the first in a series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issues given by world-leading specialists.

Serge Blais, Director of the Centre for Continuing Education at the University of Ottawa, will be on hand to answer questions about this new professional development program.

WHAT: Lecture and inauguration of the new Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development
WHEN: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Ballroom of the Chateau Laurier, 1 Rideau Street, Ottawa

It is interesting to note that the press release announces an event to be held off-campus, that a university communications person will answer questions rather than Rock himself, that there is no mention of the funding source of this new institute, and that the guest speaker is a US military intelligence expert (more below).

THIS university webpage informs us that "Symantec is the main sponsor for the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of professional development."

Symantec is a US Fortune 500 corporation, which deals in software/internet "security" (including "cyber war"), and which has strong US military and IDF ties.

Symantec's nine-member Board of Directors (LINK) includes one "Major General and Commander, United States Air Force (retired)".

Symantec has strong corporate ties with Israel and the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Symantec's country manager for Israel is Shmulik Angel. His web bio at Symentec states (LINK):

Previously, he served in the Israeli air force for 25 years. He retired from service as a Colonel and continues to perform active reserve duty in the air force and in the Ministry of Defense. Mr. Angel holds BSc. degree in Industrial Engineering and an MBA from Ben Gurion University, Israel.

The Mossad's cyber weapon "Stuxnet" is said to be "the world's first cyber-weapon of geopolitical significance". It is believed to have been developed in collaboration with the US military, and it is linked to Symantec, as per THIS media report.


IMPLICATIONS OF ROCK'S SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE

Nothing could be a better illustration of Allan Rock's zeal to make the University of Ottawa an instrument to dissolve Canada's sovereignty and to serve the US-Israeli military complex.

Now let us examine Rock's proposed inaugural lecture to launch his institute, given by "internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman". Who is George Friedman?

George Friedman is the Chairman of the US global intelligence firm Stratfor (LINK).

Stratfor is dubbed a "shadow CIA" firm, and Wikileaks has shown that 13 Canadian government agencies have high-cost subscriptions to Stratfor (LINK). "National Defence paid Stratfor $78,225 in 2011, $80,175 in 2012 and $82,200" for 2013.

In addition to obtaining actual contracts for secret services, George Friedman also spews out public "intelligence" reports, which are unabashed propaganda, about every conflict of concern to the US-Israel military. These "reports", masked as objective "intelligence" serve to legitimize the global empire's every intervention, including Israel's so-called "self-defence" against the surrounding Arab aggressors who do not accept Israel's existence and who pose a "long-term threat to its survival".

Allan Rock's star speaker is an Israeli apologist, invited just days after Israel's recent bloody massacre in Gaza. And this invited guest will deliver a "series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issue" to Canada's captive minds.

The Emperor will be pleased to learn that President Rock did not show leadership by condemning Israeli war crimes, or the massacre in Gaza. Quite the opposite, their man has stifled such discussion and replaces it with US-Israel propaganda.

Welcome to "Allan Rock's university", in Canada's capital city.

***

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009: LINK. 

Appendix: Rock's dealings up to 2010

PART-I : At the University of Ottawa

• Made a commitment at university Senate (April 12, 2010) to repair the Ann Coulter freedom of expression fiasco and then "clarified" at Senate (February 7, 2011) that this "was not a commitment"

The "clarification" only occurred after physics student Senator Joseph Hickey insisted that the commitment should be honoured as agreed by Senate (LINK, LINK).

• Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics, again (February 2011)

In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management (LINK, and below).

On February 7, 2011, the University announced a new exchange program with Israel "generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation" (LINK, LINK)

• Lied about the origin of the infamous March 2010 Francois Houle letter to Ann Coulter  

“Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff.”
– National Post, June 30, 2010.

BC Blue blog report: HERE.

• Hypocrisy regarding respect, restraint, civility, consideration, and a reasoned and intelligent approach…

“I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. ... [This will] lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”
– Rock-Houle letter to Ann Coulter, March 19, 2010.

Versus Allan Rock to Houle and staff:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

• Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics

In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management, anonymous no less (LINK).

It seems to us that anonymity would be an important discussion point in any “donor recognition” or donation ethics policy.

• Was publicly accused of lying by a student representative about budget consultations

On June 2, 2010, Martin Schoolts-Mcalpine, Senator-elect for undergraduate students of the Faculty of Arts publicly called for Rock to be impeached and publicly accused Rock of have lied to him about the Faculty of Arts having been consulted in an imposed budget exercise. Rock responded by belittling the student representative who had made every effort to be consulted by his faculty. (VIDEO LINK HERE)

• Mislead the Board of Governors with incorrect budget information

At the April 27, 2010, Board of Governors meeting Rock told the Board members in his briefing that the projected budget deficit was 25 M$ whereas he had previously told the media that the projected deficit was 19 M$ (without ever explaining how the figure jumped from 25 million to 19 million).

Rock only corrected himself to the Board near the end of the budget discussions and only after being confronted on the question during a break by graduate student union representative Sean Kelly (LINK).

• Lied to the media to cover up his attacks against freedom of expression

““Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.”
– University press release, March 24, 2010.

Rock had been sent a letter in 2009 from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) explaining that the University had violated the principle of freedom of expression by banning a student poster. And in 2010, the national media had the CCLA and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) explaining to the Rock administration that its March 2010 letter to potential speaker Ann Coulter was a violation of freedom of expression.

Therefore Rock knew that the University of Ottawa had not always promoted freedom of expression (LINK).

• Hired a student newspaper editor in the president’s office, effectively as a reward for favourable editorial support, in violation of the paper’s rules of ethics

Quite remarkable: LINK. The student retained a senior position at the paper while he was fully salaried by Rock.

Related background articles: LINK.

• Practiced flagrant disregard for student democratic and procedural rights

THIS letter from the student union was sent to Rock requesting urgent attention to student rights being violated by his administration.

The student concerns were disregarded and the student representatives were simply brushed off.

PART-II : Before becoming University of Ottawa president

• Accepted what was effectively a bribe – This put an end to Rock’s political career and showed him to be “ethically challenged”

"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
– Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

In 2002 when the then Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson discovered that Minister Rock had in summer 2001 accepted a private jet stay at the Irving family salmon fishing lodge, he issued a ruling that Rock was to avoid all ministerial dealings benefiting Irving enterprises for one year. During that blackout year Rock made three significant ministerial decisions benefiting Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

On investigating the latter multimillion-dollar violations, "Wilson said it 'would have be better' if a minister other than Rock had signed the $55-million grant, but noted the signature was made by a machine on instructions from Industry officials." (Ottawa Citizen)

Rock accepted the latter whitewashing that the opposition leaders called a "complete joke" but it put an end to his political and federal judgeship ambitions.


Other well known affairs:

• Deceived Parliament and the Canadian public regarding the cost of the gun registry: The costing reported to Parliament was overshot by one billion dollars.

• As Minister of Justice, Rock paid 2 million dollars to Brian Mulroney for no known reason. This was never justified. (RECENT COMMENTARY)

• As Minister of Health, Rock allowed and found justification for a dubiously discriminating attribution of reparations to tainted blood victims: Victims had to have been infected between 1986 and 1990, not before, not after.

“The offer came despite a recommendation by the report of the Krever Inquiry a year earlier, which called for compensation for anyone harmed by bad blood, regardless of when they were infected.

In just over two months, Ontario would break ranks, saying people who were infected before 1986 had waited long enough for help. The province came up with another $200 million for victims of tainted blood.

"Regardless of legal liability, all governments have a moral responsibility to Canadians who placed their faith in the blood system, and, through no fault of their own, became infected," [said Ontario Premier Mike Harris.]”
– CBC media report, July 2006.

"We've done the best we can under very difficult circumstances."
– Federal Health Minister Allan Rock, February 27, 1998.

The cost of the inadequate federal compensation package was less than the gun registry budget overshoot.

Sweeping agreements will further degrade university education in Ontario, "Canada"

 By Denis G. Rancourt


In mid-summer vacations we learned from the media that the "Ontario government has signed a sweeping set of agreements with universities and colleges that will oblige them to choose areas of specialty and avoid overlapping programs with one another". [1]

This is a structural change that goes to the heart of institutional identity and jurisdiction. Thus, it is important to ask what the large societal forces are that have driven this change, and what the foreseeable consequences of this change might be.

The significance of this massive legal and structural re-organization of the higher-education complex in Ontario is confirmed by the facts that these changes:

• were not subject to public consultation;
• were made entirely my management without seeking university senate approvals; 
• were negotiated behind closed doors without collegial participation;
• were announced when the students are away.

Since their creation, universities in Ontario have been independent bodies. This independence is statutory. Each university derives its legal authority from a law enacted by the provincial parliament. This gives each institution the responsibility to develop its academic programs through a collegial process culminating in decisions made by the university senate, subject to the management of financial funds overseen by the university board of governors.

The idea is that a university is suppose to serve the needs of the local (city and regional) population, although not exclusively, and that the collegial process involving students, professors, and community members, is best suited to identifying academic needs.

The university administrations (the executives) have now sold-off institutional independence without a fight, and without consulting their communities. They have collaborated with the service executives that run the province.

Increased specialization will necessarily have large societal costs, that will be paid by students and their families. Students will need to travel further and live away from home sooner, at great extra costs, without the option of a local institution that offers a desired program.

Increased specialization will eliminate much healthy inter-university competition, both competition for enrollments and intellectual competition between departments in a given academic discipline. Whereas, larger academic departments are known to be more hierarchical, often at the expense of the individual academic freedoms of professors and students.

As it stands, there is more variation in brilliance from professor to professor (and from student to student) than variation in brilliance from university to university. The academic reputation and influence of an individual researcher is relatively easy to gauge whereas the academic reputation of a department or university is ill-defined, and more often than not simply and superficially tied to size, and thus arising from the department's or university's political weight within the discipline.

Increased specialization will force-out individual brilliance by subjecting all the professors and students within a discipline to be subjugated to the authority of a large departmental hierarchy. All such hierarchies tend towards schools of thought, normalization of investigative procedures, and so on -- they constrain and stifle creativity and risk-taking.  

Increased specialization represents monopolizing and cantonizing of academic disciplines. The relative fluid ability that an institution possessed to create new programs and research areas will be replaced by fossilization tied to provincial funding.

Furthermore, the increased specialization will not produce savings for the province. Where are the studies that predict such savings and what are the underlying assumptions of those calculations?

The promise of savings for the province is a false pretext to achieve specialization. As with virtually all institutional changes, specialization is driven by covert underlying forces. Namely, the natural forces towards sharpening and consolidation of hierarchical control of the economy and of people who populate the economy. [2]

Specialization serves "globalization" and "corporatization" -- that is, further vassalization of "Canada" into the US corporate-military-finance empire (Empire).

Specialization of Ontario's higher-education complex enables a tighter control on students and professors in view of accepting "globalization", and of accepting their roles within the globalization project. Specialization facilitates indoctrination into the logic of the US corporate-military-finance empire. The mechanisms are as follows:

• Cross-fertalization between disciplines is physically barred.
• Disciplines that are potential threats are physically isolated and hierarchically controlled.
• Students with different perspectives cannot physically meet.
• Students in a given location are controlled by a single administration, allowing tighter discipline.
• Students are virtually all away from home and thus more vulnerable to hermetical training and indoctrination.

As a result, a student is more tightly indoctrinated into his/her role in the service of the Empire, and is thus made more stupid than he/she otherwise would be. He/she is also less able to adapt to any other role than the prescribed role -- a dangerous attribute in a changing world.

To give ONE EXAMPLE, the main geopolitical obsession of the US corporate-military-finance empire these days is its policy in the Middle East. Empire strategists believe that controlling the Middle East allows the US to control access to energy, and thus control development and a strategic resource. This militarily-enforced control of the Middle East and of the exploited realm also allows the US to impose the US-dollar as the World (energy) currency, and the dollar (which the US prints), in turn, is the empire's main economic exploitation device. [3][4]

In order to keep control in the Middle East, the US must constantly prevent the Arab Wold from coalescing and liberating itself. It must generate controlled perpetual war, as needed. It must kill Arabs. Its main agent in the region is Israel. [3][5]

In order to help make its perpetual waring acceptable to the citizens of the Empire, there must be a "war on terror", and there must be Islamaphobia, including regular discoveries of "sleeper agents", "terrorist plots", and so on [6]. All this is difficult to swallow for many students (professors generally have an easier time).

Overall, their is a risk that the Empire's perpetual waring, including Israel's pet project of its genocide against Palestinians, will become fatally unsavory to liberal citizens of the Empire (except in Israel where killing Arabs is, by necessity, culturally normalized by state indoctrination and enforcement). The main agent at home to align political positions, thought, and discourse on Israel is the Israel Lobby [3][7][8]. But the Lobby is becoming insufficient. Campuses are alight with "Israeli Apartheid Weeks" and with "BDS campaigns". And genocides and war crimes seen on YouTube make people quite angry.

One part of the solution, for universities, is a classic divide and conquer: Specialization. [9]

When campuses become unimodal professional-training boot camps, there is no campus activism that could poison societal consciousness [10]. And the professors are not disturbed by colleagues in other fields having different perspectives.


Endnotes

[1] "Ontario unveils deal with universities, colleges to specialize programs" by Adrian Morrow, Globe & Mail, August 8, 2014. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-unveils-deal-with-universities-colleges-to-specialize-programs/article19969302/

[2] "Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism" by Denis G. Rancourt, Stairway Press, Mount Vernon, WA, 2013; see chapter entitled "Institutions Naturally Evolve Toward More Control".

[3] "The Intended Roles of the Israel-Lobby and of Israel in the US-Empire are Incompatible with Peace" by Denis G. Rancourt, July 30, 2014; http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2014/07/the-intended-roles-of-israel-lobby-and.html -- and at Dissident Voice.

[4] "Global Economic Model of War: Understanding Syria and more" by Denis G. Rancourt, September 3, 2013; http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2013/09/global-economic-model-of-war.html -- and at Veterans Today.

[5] "Israel's attempted genocide must fail -- Lessons from Canada's genocide" by Denis G. Rancourt, July 29, 2014; http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2014/07/israels-attempted-genocide-must-fail.html -- and at Dissident Voice.

[6] "Canadian judge goes bonkers on a thought crime: Case of Mohamed Hersi defended by lawyer Paul Slansky" by Denis G. Rancourt, July 25, 2014. http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2014/07/canadian-judge-goes-bonkers-on-thought.html

[7] "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen; New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.

[8] "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" by Norman G. Finkelstein, Verso, NY, 2000.

[9] Similarly, all the major societal changes that have occurred in Canada since Jean Chrétien was ousted -- prominence of the Israel Lobby, change of position on Palestine at the UN, seeking foreign investments as the main economic "motor", allowing exponential increase in foreign ownership, privatization of public holdings, change of geopolitical stance from peace-keeping to war-mongering, treatment of refugees and immigration policy, politicization/corporatization/globalization of universities, militarization of police, surveillance practices, increased criminalization of citizens, reduction of democratic processes, alignment of the media, ... -- are attributable to the on-going vassalization of "Canada" into the US corporate-military-finance empire, and its pillaging.

[10] See "Disciplined Minds -- A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes their Lives" by Jeff Schmidt; Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.


Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009: LINK.