Why is the USA attacking Iran and Venezuela?

This is the English version of an interview I made for Kayhan news of Iran, on April 15, 2019. The interview was published in Persian.

My interview was made prior to the USA announcement of April 22, 2019, that it would enforce zero-export of Iranian oil with heavy penalties against any non-compliant nation.

My interview explains why the aggressive warring sanctions should be expected, from the consistent USA campaign for world dominance, and why the USA wants war in both Iran and Venezuela.

<< Overall, the USA will continue its vile wars of sanctions against the peoples of all independent nations that have energy resources — Iran, Syria, Russia, and Venezuela — in a bid to reserve profit from oil and gas for itself and the allies it controls. The USA will also do everything it can to limit the development of China. China is responding with Eurasian trade development, by developing its massive coal reserves, and by energy security agreements with free nations. >>

I explain that the drive to war follows a clear longstanding pattern, anchored in preventing development of independent countries and regions, by imposition of the US dollar as the world currency, rather than being primarily the result of partizan politics or the interests of allies (see interview with Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif).

Here is the full unedited interview:


K:  What is the aim of America by designating IRGC as a terrorist group? What is Trump looking for by doing such an irrational international act?

DR:  The USA wants to control the Middle East because it wants to control both a high price of oil and who can benefit from selling oil; and gas, by extension.

Let us start at the beginning. The USA has been negotiating a dilemma since 1971 when it unilaterally cancelled the Bretton Woods trade agreement with its post-World-War-II allies and its controlled jurisdictions. The allies were developing too much. I explained this in my recent report entitled “Geo-Economics and Geo-Politics Drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalization and Social Engineering”.

The dilemma, since 1971, is that on the one hand the USA must have high oil prices and force oil contracts to be signed in US dollars in order to secure the US dollar as the de facto world currency, its main financial instrument of global exploitation, whereas on the other hand, nations not under USA control can produce oil and gas and greatly benefit from the high price, thus driving their independence and development.

Development of sovereign nations outside of USA control inescapably leads to a multipolar world with balanced competing regional interests, rather than a world dominated by the USA and largely held in underdevelopment. The USA is desperate to delay the inevitable natural emergence of economic and military multipolarity. The USA is insecure, rationally fearful of revenge, and addicted to its power. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov states this in his characteristically pithy and diplomatic words as: “The United States has a fear of fair competition”.

High-price commodities other than oil and gas also serve to artificially maintain the US dollar as the world currency. These include the payments on forced loans made in US dollars, US military hardware sales imposed on its subservient allies, and opium (Afghanistan) and USA-patented pharmaceuticals. 

In this context, Iran threatens USA domination in two ways. First, Iran is the anchor of an axis of resistance against USA-Israeli domination in the region. Iran is a rare entirely sovereign and strong nation. Second, Iran produces oil, which can be used to fund its own sovereign security, its own popular development, and its defensive influence and ties with neighbouring countries Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. As such, Iran has been identified by the USA regime as the main threat against USA-Israeli domination of the Middle East. Iran is a focal point of opposition against USA hegemony, so USA aggression against Iran will not end until the USA experiences sufficient backlash, producing a more balanced world.

That is the aim of putting the IRGC on the USA list of terrorist organizations. The unprecedented move is part of a USA declared war of sanctions, aimed at destabilizing and weakening Iran, in order to create opportunities for political interference, terrorist attacks, and military strikes, to provoke a collapse. The targeting of Iran is a long-term goal of Republican administrations. This goal was rejected by the Democratic Obama administration as too risky. Democrats wanted “containment”, although Hilary Clinton is an extreme war hawk. Republicans want war.

In terms of partisan factions, war in the Middle East (or Venezuela) helps the Republican energy (shale oil and gas) and arms sectors. Whereas contained stability with USA domination helps the Democrat base of financiers (Wall Street). War in the Middle East also props up Israel by giving it an expanded role within the USA regime.

Overall, the USA will continue its vile wars of sanctions against the peoples of all independent nations that have energy resources — Iran, Syria, Russia, and Venezuela — in a bid to reserve profit from oil and gas for itself and the allies it controls. The USA will also do everything it can to limit the development of China. China is responding with Eurasian trade development, by developing its massive coal reserves, and by energy security agreements with free nations.


K:  What would be the security and intelligence consequences of America’s decision for the region?

DR:  The USA has become an unlawful rogue regime, and the illusion that it created in the United Nations now frustrates its intentions to intimidate and destabilize in order to delay the inevitable emergence of independent nations and regions.

The unlawful, vicious, and rogue USA behaviour is now clearly seen on many fronts: Economic and trade sanctions used as weapons of mass suffering, covert wars by supporting terrorists, such as in Syria, support for the genocidal war against Yemen, fomenting deadly instability in Ukraine, the recent cold-blooded murder of the nation of Libya, interference and direct war threats against Venezuela, deciding that it can use its courts to prosecute alleged crimes in foreign sovereign nations, in absentia, demanding arrests of citizens of foreign sovereign nations (Julian Assange, Meng Wanzhou), running torture camps (Guantanamo), declaring sovereignty over militarily occupied territories (Golan Heights), and so on.

The USA is the main global security threat at this time, without any close competitor. Naming the IRGC as a terrorist organization is the new norm in its outrageous behaviour. Imagine that: Unilaterally deciding that a national military organization, created to defend against the main rogue regime on the planet, is a “terrorist organization”.  The USA is asserting that those who defend themselves are terrorists.

This is an interesting development. It means that the USA is setting the precedent that a national military can be termed a terrorist organization. There is no basis in international law for such nonsense. But if such are the new rules, then surely the greatest terrorist organization at present, occupying entire continental regions, has to be the USA military and the CIA.

In other words, Trump’s irresponsible move puts USA occupiers and covert operatives at risk everywhere, of being detained and prosecuted as terrorists. That is why top USA intelligence and military officials, including General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

The USA is in the throes of trying to slow the development of the free world. There will be more and more episodes of USA miscalculations. The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization may turn out to be such a miscalculation. If so, it will not be the last.


K:  American intelligent services are blamed for murdering innocent people and covertly supporting terrorist groups, still they point to IRGC for terrorist acts while the entity has devoted itself to fighting terrorism. How does this paradox get answered in West?

DR:  My definition of stupidity is a chronic inability to perceive objectively, due to class immunity and subservience. The paradox (reality) is not perceived because of self-image-based allegiance to the USA regime. Therefore, there is no paradox, no perceived reality that could cause cognitive dissonance.

This explains why ordinary citizens do not actually oppose the USA regime’s domestic and foreign violence. The regime does everything to indoctrinate by effective propaganda, rather than allow individual thought. When propaganda and institutionalized indoctrination are not enough, then the USA regime jails its own citizens, at the highest incarceration rate in the world (almost 7 incarcerated citizens per 1000 population).

On the other hand, USA elite planners should be concerned about the paradox that you describe, because such incongruities produce vulnerability for the empire. An empire can topple very quickly by a cascade of reactions if it produces fertile ground for such reactions.

The USA has lost its ability to produce and promote great statesmen and has become a cauldron of often pathological special interests. At the same time, it pursues an arms race, and is itching to use nuclear weapons. The world needs to limit USA adventures and ambitions. This is the most urgent problem of our era. Thankfully, Russia, China, Iran, and others are highly mature nations, with strong institutions and internal incubation of thoughtful leaders.


K:  It is reported that the Pentagon severely disagrees with the Trump decision. What is the reason?

DR:  Yes, as I mentioned earlier, the Pentagon seems to be the voice of reason in this matter. Military men have strong classical educations, at military academies, and this education includes the societal conditions for national stability and successful military campaigns.

Wars are not won solely by technology. Advanced technology can be defeated in unpredictable ways. Furthermore, coercive systems are by nature unstable. I think the Pentagon often does everything that it can to inject components of “reality on the ground”.

Unfortunately, the Israel model is too often followed by the USA, both domestically and in its foreign projects. The Israel model is one of brutal occupation by overwhelming force, combined with a massive system to recruit, bribe and blackmail collaborators. This may or may not, in the end, achieve the desired genocidal outcome in Palestine, but it is not a model that realistically can be applied on the global scale, without major diplomatic concessions, in my opinion.


K:  Could this decision relate to the Israel election?

DR:  Of course, yes. Netanyahu publicly thanked Trump on twitter for declaring the IRGC a terrorist organization: “Thank you for accepting another important request of mine.” This would have given Netanyahu a boost of credibility in time to influence the Israeli election.  This would explain why the designation was done in such a rush by the Trump administration, according to insider accounts.

Amnesty International Report - June 2018: Undeniable USA mass war crime in Raqqa - Syria

The Amnesty International report of June 5, 2018,

Syria: “War of annihilation”: Devastating toll on civilians, Raqqa – Syria

5 June 2018, Index number: MDE 24/8367/2018 

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE2483672018ENGLISH.PDF

presents undeniable evidence of USA criminal disregard for civilian life, on a mass scale, in a populated city, and calls for official investigations leading to war crimes prosecutions.

The Report is an administrative description of USA evil deeds, performed under a cover of media silence and war propaganda at home.

The disregard for human life and urban installations on such a scale, under questionable pretext, while illegally attacking a sovereign nation, is as criminal as war crimes get.

The USA has no legitimacy in its proxy war for regime change in Syria.


Here are excerpts from the June 2018 70-page Amnesty International Report:

Amnesty International researchers travelled to Raqqa in February 2018 and spent two weeks visiting 42 locations of strikes and interviewing 112 witnesses and survivors. The organisation analysed satellite imagery and reviewed other publicly available material. This report documents the experiences of four families whose cases are emblematic of wider patterns.

The cases provide prima facie evidence that several Coalition attacks which killed and injured civilians violated international humanitarian law. ... Coalition forces did not take adequate account of civilians present in the city and failed to take the precautions necessary to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects. ...

To date, the Coalition has not explained why it continued to launch strikes which killed so many civilians while a deal granting IS fighters impunity and safe passage out of the city was being considered and negotiated. Many survivors of Coalition strikes interviewed by Amnesty International asked why Coalition forces needed to destroy an entire city and kill so many civilians with bombardments supposedly targeting IS fighters – only to then allow IS fighters to leave the city unharmed. ...

In all the cases detailed in this report, Coalition forces launched air strikes on buildings full of civilians using wide-area effect munitions, which could be expected to destroy the buildings. In all four cases, the civilians killed and injured in the attacks, including many women and children, had been staying in the buildings for long periods prior to the strikes. Had Coalition forces conducted rigorous surveillance prior to the strikes, they would have been aware of their presence. Amnesty International found no information indicating that IS fighters were present in the buildings when they were hit and survivors and witnesses to these strikes were not aware of IS fighters in the vicinity of the houses at the time of the strikes. Even had IS fighters been present, it would not have justified the targeting of these civilian dwellings with munitions expected to cause such extensive destruction.

The Coalition has so far refused to even acknowledge the scale of harm caused to civilians by the military campaign. At the height of the Raqqa battle, in September 2017, outgoing Coalition commander, Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend, wrote that “…there has never been a more precise air campaign in the history of armed conflict”. However, this precise air campaign killed hundreds of civilians. At the same time, US Marines’ activities described by Army Sergeant Major John Wayne Troxell (senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), suggests that the Coalition operation was far from precise: “In five months they fired 30,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets… They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam War.”

Given that standard artillery shells fired from an M777 howitzer have an average margin of error of over 100m, launching so many of these shells into a city where civilians were trapped in every neighbourhood posed an unacceptable risk to civilians. Yet despite incontrovertible evidence of civilian casualties and wholesale destruction in Raqqa, and the high level of civilian casualties, the Coalition narrative remains unchanged.

The international Coalition [allegedly] to defeat IS in Iraq and Syria was formed in 2014. Named “Operation Inherent Resolve”, it sought to present itself as an international Coalition with broad-based support from nations and institutions around the world. But the military action it took in Raqqa against IS was an overwhelmingly US military affair. Under the command of a US General, US forces fired 100% of the artillery into Raqqa and carried out over 90% of the air strikes. British and French forces were the only other Coalition members to strike Raqqa from the air. ...

Eight months after military operation ended, most of the city’s residents remain displaced and those who have returned are living in dire conditions among the mountains of rubble and the stench of dead bodies trapped beneath, facing the threat of mines/improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and unexploded ordnance. Virtually every resident of Raqqa who spoke to Amnesty International asked why those who could spend so much for a costly military campaign to destroy the city cannot provide the relief so desperately needed in its aftermath, including the heavy-lifting equipment needed to clear the rubble and recover the bodies and clear the IEDs.

My comment in square brackets.

NOTE: This Amnesty International Report follows massive 2017 criticism of the organization's nasty propaganda work regarding Syria, when it was widely dubbed "Shamnesty International": LINK TO LINKS. Maybe it understands now that true human rights defenders are well informed?

UN legalistic final sanitization plan for the post-genocide phase of the global aboriginal problem

The real face of "cultural appropriation"


By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

(Originally a status post on the Facebook page of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.)

The latest United Nations (UN) Western-world-led globalist scam plan is upon us: Criminalization of "cultural appropriation":

<< Cultural appropriation: Make it illegal worldwide, Indigenous advocates say - Delegates in Geneva from 189 countries are looking at the issue, and some want UN to speed it up - CBC News, June 13, 2017. >>


My take on this travesty:

When the damn lawyers decide to make work for themselves and further exploit aboriginal peoples!

Intellectual Property is a euphemism for corporate and investor theft not unlike protection money and landlord exploitation.

You don't lose your culture when others use and transform or adopt it into their own.

Culture is not a limited resource that is consumed. It is constantly created or destroyed at every location, where it is rooted in economic and human activity. Its transfer is an influence, not a loss.
You lose it when they control, rob, imprison and kill you and your community and family members.

You lose your culture when you are suppressed to the point of not being independent and viable, and you can't muster the will to fight back. The said suppression involves invasion by the predatory system and its culture, and forceful dismantling of the local culture tied to the local original economy.

The occupying system is doing everything it can to separate culture from actual persons, economics and self-determination, so it can be "studied", "taught", "preserved" and "protected". Don't let them make you into a museum and an education curriculum.

The planned legalistic criminalization of "cultural appropriation" is not the way to make reparation or justice. The way to make reparation and justice is to make reparation and justice. Occupying-system laws and their managers, enforcers and collaborators are the opposite of justice. This legal apparatus will be part of the occupation and exploitation.

Another insane "goodness trap" that will benefit the occupying-system managers and collaborators and will lock-in the apartheid.

Latest development in my academic freedom case: Supreme Court refuses to fix administrative tribunal law

By Denis G. Rancourt

SUMMARY: The Supreme Court of Canada today refused to clarify and fix the Canadian common law of affidavits needed to remedy an absence of transcripts in administrative tribunal hearings.

I was fired under a false pretext in 2009, at the University of Ottawa where I was a tenured Full Professor of Physics. [1][2][3]

Following a lengthy legal process, in 2014 a labour arbitrator upheld the dismissal. [4]

My union immediately filed for a judicial review (appeal) of the arbitrator's decision, on many grounds, including violation of my natural justice rights. [5]

The arbitrator's decision incorrectly relied on a report prepared by a student who was hired by the university to covertly spy on me, on and off campus, including using elaborate false cyber identities and misrepresentations to third parties. The student spy did not testify at arbitration and her report was not accepted as evidence.

The problem arises because there is no transcript or recording of the arbitration. The arbitrator ruled from his chair that the report would be used solely as a memory aid regarding witness questioning, but then incorrectly relied on and quoted from the report in his decision.

Therefore, my union filed an affidavit by one of its layers in attendance to tell the appellate court what had occurred at arbitration; again, since there is no transcript or recording of the arbitration.

The university, which has used every possible delay tactic over the years, did a motion seeking to strike the affidavit. My union squarely won that motion and the affidavit was allowed. The motion judge had this to say about the student spy [6]:

MAUREEN ROBINSON

[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robinson's written notes were referred to "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student"

[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.

[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.

[18] The University referred to the "report" thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.

[19] Given the unique circumstances, paragraphs 3 - 13 are necessary and in keeping with Keeprite and Kingston Utilities, this affidavit evidence should be admitted on the judicial review to "show an absence of evidence on an essential point".

DEAN LALONDE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF STUDENTS P AND V

[20] It is difficult to separate the input of the evidence or lack of evidence of Ms. Robinson and the circumstances of her somewhat bizarre involvement in this matter, from the other areas of concern identified by the Applicant, APUO. [...]

The university appealed that decision by the appellate court's motion judge to a panel of three judges of the same appellate court.

The panel overturned the first judge's decision and completely struck the affidavit. The panel decision was wrong in that the panel quoted from a document it erroneously said corroborated content of the spy report. In fact, the quoted words were from the spy report itself. Furthermore, the panel relied on Ontario common law (the so-called Keeprite test) that puts an unjust burden on litigants needing to bring affidavits to remedy an absence of transcripts of the proceedings being reviewed.

My union therefore sought leave to appeal to the highest appellate court in the province (Court of Appeal for Ontario). Even though the common law for affidavits filed to remedy an absence of transcripts is both unjust and arguably unclear, and even though the panel made obvious and substantial errors, the Court of Appeal can simply refuse to hear an appeal, without giving any reasons.

In fact, errors of law themselves are not a consideration when the Court of Appeal decides whether to grant leave in such circumstances, no matter how egregious those errors may be.

The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal, and did not provide any reasons.

Therefore, my union sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, on the grounds that the Canadian common law of affidavits to remedy an absence of transcripts is unclear and unjust. It also pointed out the egregious error of the panel that struck the affidavit, of finding corroborating evidence where there was none.

The Supreme Court's decision was released today. The Court refused to grant leave for an appeal (no reasons are provided, as usual) and it ordered my union to pay the university's costs in opposing the leave application.

Thus, the Supreme Court of Canada today refused to clarify and fix the Canadian common law of affidavits needed to remedy an absence of transcripts. This is significant because absence of transcripts is the norm in virtually all administrative tribunals in Canada, whether they are labour arbitrations or human rights tribunal hearings.

Just like that, the Supreme Court of Canada can decide not to fix a common law that is at odds with principles of fundamental justice and with international norms of fair judicial processes, such as those prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has signed.

Here are the Supreme Court of Canada documents about its today's decision:

• court's press release (link)
• decision to deny leave (link)
• summary of the case (link)
• court docket (link)

Endnotes

[1] Statement By Denis Rancourt Regarding His Dismissal By The University Of Ottawa, ZCommunications, 2009-04-16. https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/statement-by-denis-rancourt-regarding-his-dismissal-by-the-university-of-ottawa-by-denis-rancourt/

[2] Dismissing critical pedagogy: Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa, by Jesse Freeston, rabble.ca, 2009-01-12. http://rabble.ca/news/dismissing-critical-pedagogy-denis-rancourt-vs-university-ottawa

[3]  Ottawa's Dismissal of Denis Rancourt, by Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, 2009-08. http://www.kwesthues.com/Rancourt09.htm

[4] University of Ottawa v Association of Professors of The University of Ottawa, 2014 CanLII 100735 (ON LA), 2014-01-27, <http://canlii.ca/t/gxcr2>

[5] APUO statement, 2014-03-10. http://www.apuo.ca/denis-rancourt-arbitration/

[6] University of Ottawa v Association of Professors of The University of Ottawa, Endorsement of Justice Robert Scott, Divisional Court for Ontario, 2015-10-26. https://archive.org/details/20151026MotionToStrikeAPUOVUniversityOfOttawaEndorsement

Professor Francis Boyle's opinion of the ICC on Israel-Palestine

"International Criminal Court Prosecutor's Report 14 Nov. 2016

p. 32 “…Additionally, the Office engaged with the law faculty at Hebrew University….”

LOL! On Land Stolen from the Palestinians in violation of the Laws of War and thus a War Crime. Meanwhile the ICC refused to go to Gaza to investigate the situation there after Israel’s slaughter of over 2000+ Palestinians in Gaza. So the War Criminal Law Professors at Hebrew U were worth a meeting and an “engagement” by the ICC. But the 2000+ dead and 11,000+ wounded Palestinian Victims in Gaza were not even worth the time. What a joke and a fraud the ICC really is!"

-- Francis A. Boyle, Law Professor, University of Illinois
 

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

US “sue Saudis for 911 law” would be a geopolitical tectonic shift because…

New law approved by Congress on September 9 violates international law, would destabilize the US regime

By Denis G. Rancourt

We live in particularly unstable and dangerous times. The US behemoth is forced to adjust to an increasingly multipolar world, as Eurasia and alliances such as BRICS coalesce.

The coup in Brazil, tripling US expenditures for suppression in Latin America, Israel’s frantic genocidal pace, the NATO build up to intimidate Russia, Syria’s miracle resistance against US-desired “regime change”, Trump’s nationalistic impulses, and a Philippine president’s angry words… are all signs of the changing world.

The US regime did not need a domestic crisis that threatens its geopolitical posture, but it certainly deserves one.

I don’t mean pipeline resistance or Black Lives Matter. Those can be bulldozed and bought out without much difficulty. And the occupying police gang is not about to be displaced by any rival. No, I mean the “sue Saudis for 911 law” crisis: a real shit-could-hit-the-fan doozy.

Let me explain. For this, I need to present the following elements: Relevant international law concepts, present US law that violates the state immunity principle, characteristics of the new “sue Saudis for 911 law”, and the three reasons that this lawmakers’ project is a threat to the US regime.

About the obscenity of the legal mind and its grotesque displays of arrogance

Reflections on our Ottawa RBC fire and on our genocidal prison system

by Denis G. Rancourt
This essay was first posted at the Activist Teacher blog.


FALLACIOUS PROPERTY DAMAGE VERSUS HARM TO A PERSON

I was reminded again recently in court about the charade that passes for logical and objective propositions made by the brilliant legal minds that are the gatekeepers of society’s “justice” system.

The issue at hand was the attribution of bail for a political crime in which the entrance lobby area of a neighbourhood branch of a multi-national bank was set on fire in the middle of the night. No person was harmed and the fire did no damage to any personal property. [1][2]

The value of the so-called (see below) property damage was reported in the media first as three hundred thousand dollars, then as five hundred thousand dollars, then as one million dollars, and in court today as 1.2 million dollars. The value of the damage increases as more and more estimates are made. And these ballooning estimates of course are not questioned, in the media or elsewhere. It seems obvious to this observer that an entire new building could be erected with all its furnishings for far less than one million dollars, never mind an entrance lobby area and two cash dispensing machines?

In any case, the point is that the accused has no past criminal charges or convictions of any kind and that, as correctly stated by the defence, the relevant legal precedents show that alleged multiple murderers are regularly released on bail under the principle that one should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, except if there is compelling evidence of significant risk of danger to society (to people).

Next the defence lawyer is found arguing that, in terms of the severity of the charge, one should compare multiple murders to relatively less serious million-dollar property damage.

Hello? Does anyone in the courtroom recognize an error in argumentation? Nope – not a peep. Both sides and the judge appear to concur.

The problem is that “property damage” is a loaded term. No person wants his/her personal property to be damaged. And one million dollars worth of damage to one’s personal property would to most persons be an excessive amount of damage that would cause significant personal grief and suffering. But this is not personal property damage. It is insignificant financial liability to a multi-national bank with yearly profits which fluctuate by the billions depending on undemocratic decisions about interest rates and user fees.

To use the psychologically loaded term “property damage” in the proceedings should be disallowed in favour of a more accurate and objective term such as “corporate financial liability perturbation”. The corresponding damage to the bank clients is not detectable when superposed on the vagaries of bank policy regarding “user services”. So where is the damage to a person compared to murder? After all, this is about people being harmed, is it not?

And should we not compare the harm to bank clients from a fire to the harm to working persons when banks are allowed to merge and to monopolize national economies or to participate in mass financial fraud for which no one goes to jail? [2] (Not to mention the physical harm of keeping the “assumed innocent” accused in jail for months on end while the Crown and police “continue to investigate.” [3])

The fact that a just system would consider and evaluate the likely benefits to society (to persons) of the political action in question of course does not even arise. It cannot. This makes it quite plain that our brilliant legal minds are working for the corporations and the corporations’ undemocratically controlled interests. [4]

And of course the Crown characteristically argues that the term “property damage” unduly minimizes the severity of the crime. This despite the fact that it is a legal term and it is the legal charge in question… He argues that the “property damage” in question is a reckless and politically motivated crime rooted in anti-establishment and anti-oppression ideology steeped in disrespect for the law… a very serious offence… (to which no harm to a person can be attributed).

OKeeey.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VERSUS AUTHORITARIAN REPRESSION

And I want to end with a general example of a pervasive legal “argument” that is an obscene muddle intended on the face of it to project paternalism and authoritarian control over people’s lives: The accepted notion that one’s individual rights are limited by infringement of the rights of others.

It would be interesting to review the history of this concept, no doubt first put forth by some illustrious academic service intellectual (renowned philosopher).

How could such hogwash have passed for authentic ethical reasoning? How could it have been sucked up so organically by the entire legal establishment? The answer is that it so conveniently negates the concept of individual rights.

You have a right to life. When would your right to life interfere with the rights of others? In which circumstances would you need to be killed in order to preserve the rights of others? Given a high probability that you will kill others and as evaluated by whom? No. Your right to life is absolute. It does not interfere with the rights to life of others but your actual attempt to kill another does and is a crime which can be stopped and punished. But the punishment cannot violate your individual rights. A right is a right is a right or it is nothing.

You have a right to free expression. This right never negates the rights of free expression of others. If you are screaming loudly to prevent another from being heard you are both expressing yourself and preventing another from doing so. The first is absolutely protected whereas the latter is inadmissible and can be stopped and punished. But the punishment cannot violate your individual rights.

If you are an army general and you give an order to commit a war crime then you are both expressing yourself and committing a war crime. The first is absolutely protected but the latter can legitimately be stopped and punished.

Just punishment is justice, not a violation of the criminal’s rights. A punishment cannot be a violation of a criminal’s rights. The general can be demoted and discharged, and forced to provide reparation, but his/her right to life and his/her freedoms of expression, association, and movement must not be violated beyond the negotiated requirements of reparation.

Social status and class and hierarchical status are not rights and can be removed as punishments. Mass or disproportionate accumulation of wealth and power is not a right. Likewise, you have no right to hide your proven crimes from public knowledge.

However, freedom of movement and association are fundamental rights. Prisons are illegitimate violations of individual rights and negate the possibility of reparation and rehabilitation.

Personal property ownership is a right. Reparation for theft is immediate and need not involve negating rights. The thief keeps his/her right to personal property but must repair the damage caused and does not keep the illegally acquired property. Harm to persons is the reference.

Weapons are allowed for defence but cannot be used offensively. Rebellion is defence against an illegitimate master.

And so on. There is no need ever for a system to violate individual rights. The notion that criminals surrender their rights is barbaric. It only arises in hierarchical societies, which are violently oppressive by design.

The prison system is a system of mass torture and mass violations of human rights. It is a systemic symbol of hatred of humankind and a testament to a very sick society. The existence of a few pathological serial killers on the planet cannot begin to justify the crime against humanity that is the modern prison system.

And the entire genocidal prison system is enabled by exactly the kind of “brilliant legal mind” madness that is the concept that individual rights are constrained by the individual rights of others. This logic relativizes rights thereby negating them and simultaneously wrongly justifies removing the rights of criminals.

Rights are rights. Wrong is wrong. Lawyers and judges are sick; as sick as a society with prisons and that practices genocide. There is no need for the obvious class and racial analysis of the prison population to assert the latter conclusion. Sick, sick, sick.

Endnotes:

[1] “Sacco and Vanzetti in Ottawa: How Media and Police are Politicizing the RBC Arson Case” by Jesse Freeston

[2] “Ottawa RBC firebombing – Terrorism seeded by the University of Ottawa?” by Denis G. Rancourt

[3] At the first failed bail appearance the Crown actually argued that the accused could not be granted bail because “the police investigation was ongoing”. The defence and the judge did not bat an eye at this preposterous position. The arrest had followed two months of intense police surveillance after the RBC fire and over a year of police agent infiltration and occurred days before G20 in Toronto.

[4] “G20-Toronto property damage is a good thing” by Denis G. Rancourt


ADDENDUM (August 16,2010): If your rights depend on the circumstances, on charges, accusations or convictions, then they're not rights. If you only have your rights as long as you obey or aren't noticed, then they're not rights. If you only believe in your own rights because you obey (because you are deserving) then you do not believe in human or individual rights. It's like freedom of expression: If you don't want those you disagree with to have it, then you don't believe in freedom of expression.

RELATED POSTS:
G20-Toronto and lost sovereignty - A critical examination of the role of the CCLA
G20-Toronto property damage is a good thing - Their law versus sanity and justice
They’re not just pigs
On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism

Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See rancourt.academicfreedom.ca]

On the question of Israel’s “right to exist” and on Israel’s racism

.
New Visitors READ:
"Psycho-biological ... case of Israel"
.

On the question of Israel's "right to exist" and on Israel's racism

by Denis G. Rancourt



Surely the Israeli government would agree that the right of a nation state to exist is a question of international law.

Under international law, no other country has ever demanded or been granted that another nation state be forced to officially recognize the claimant nation’s “right to exist”, under the threat of military reprisal no less.

But since this is an original and unresolved question of international law and since Israel has forcefully put it on the table, it is relevant to examine whether Israel is following established principles of international law, such as the Geneva Conventions for example, or foreign country assassinations and kidnappings, or international waters commando attacks of civilian ships, etc.

These specific questions of international law are not complicated. The laws and international treaties are written in clear language, and Israel’s actions are also clear. Global civil society (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Red Cross, etc.) and all independent international law experts that I have heard or read are unanimous in the answer. See HERE.

The absurd “right to exist” posturing of Israel deserves to be ridiculed.

Did Nazi Germany have a “right to exist”? Germany exists today and its criminal behaviour has been stopped. It has no nuclear weapons and its security arises from its respect for international law and for its neighbours. Its internal security arises from respecting human rights. I wish the same for Israel. The right of return is a human right.

No country has the right to extort a statement of “right to exist” from any other country.

Every country has a right to its opinions and official positions about the legal and historic legitimacies of other states. What matters are actions and crimes and these matter in proportion to their magnitudes – the numbers matter, not the rhetoric.

No country has a recognized God-given or otherwise right to exist, only responsibilities under international law and moral responsibilities.

Persons have absolute rights not to be forcibly displaced, occupied, collectively punished by arbitrary sanctions, murdered, etc. – this includes Palestinians and Israelis, all persons. States are criminal states to the extent and to the degree that they violate persons’ rights – the numbers matter.

To compare home-built rocket attacks on desert land to military onslaughts on cities and national infrastructures is a grotesque charade to justify mass murder and collective punishment.

The numbers matter. The numbers result from a large power asymmetry and this asymmetry (in both power and suffering) is the FIRST reality of the illegal Palestinian occupation. A language that does not start with this reality is one which masks and condones state criminality.

Likewise, the religious fanaticism and racism of many Israelis does not matter. What matters are the physical crimes being committed (in the name of “security”) that must be stopped.

World powers and influential organizations and civil society need to become rhetoric and racism insensitive in order to clearly see and gauge the actual physical crimes and to stop them, as the surest way to security for all (and to reduce cultural racism).

Commentators, lobbyists and service intellectuals who emphasize the rhetoric and societal racism of the oppressed work for the oppressor. Let us not have a competition about which side is most racist. Criminal racism is not rhetoric or vehement emotional reaction or hate – it is killing brown people. Leave opinion racism alone. Stop criminal acts. Focus. The cart needs to be put back behind the horse.

Israel needs to be stopped, for the greater safety of the most people – including Israelis.

And the US and Canada need to be stopped in their support of Israel state crimes. The Israel lobby needs to be stopped for the same reasons, exposed and stopped, on campuses, in governments, everywhere.

Security first!

RELATED POSTS:
Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel
On the need to embrace hatred
Rabbi Weiss criticizes Zionist occupation of Palestine (youTube)

.
[Photo: ID card of Rabbi Weiss, a Jew not a Zionist.]