Friday, July 2, 2010

They’re not just pigs

G20-Toronto participatory inquiry in full swing

by Denis G. Rancourt


The 2010 G20 police state mass aggression in Toronto has led to unprecedented alternative and popular media coverage. Photos, raw video footage, video reports, Indy media articles, independent radio reports, documented testimonies, and social media commentaries are pouring in.

Taken together, this spontaneous and autonomously produced information is the evolving factual, interpretative, and recommendation parts of a self-organized participatory inquiry into the police state crimes of G20-Toronto. It will be more complete and more true than any official report from a government-appointed inquiry or than any ruling from a group action lawsuit.

We don’t need daddy to tell us what happened or that “mistakes” were made. We need daddy to be subjected to the consequences of having designed and allowed this mass aggression. A few of those consequences are and should be the lawsuits, the official inquiries, the human and civil rights organization condemnations, the negative media coverage, demotions and firings, the loss of credibility and legitimacy, and much more.

One of the most disturbing results of the participatory inquiry, at a systemic level, is that these cops aren’t just pigs.

The targeting, intimidation, and terrorizing of protestors - treated like “the enemy” in a war – was, like with all recent anti-globalization protests, systematic. The patterns described by the thousands of victims (from psychological intimidation to broken skin and rape, e.g., HERE, HERE) are identical. These are no ordinary pigs. These thugs had to be trained to execute these manoeuvres against civil society.

It is the modus operandi of US anti-democratic terrorism to train the military hit squads of client states (for example in Latin America) to search out and destroy civil society: union leaders, activist teachers, independent media, community organizers, etc.

Exactly the same tactics are being used against activists and organizers in Canada. The cops are trained to view activists, not as the much needed societal agents that they are, but as “the enemy” that must be destroyed. Pre-emptive arrests, bogus charges, ad-hoc interrogations, imposed restrictive undertakings, and much more.

This extends to campuses such as the University of Ottawa where bogus criminal charges are routinely levelled against activist students (see reports on the UofOWatch blog). And it extends to the streets where anti-poverty organizers and the homeless themselves are targeted and into every workplace and school where anything but “cooperation” is quashed.

These cops are not just racist (all-ists) individuals because of their particular personal circumstances. Their language and actions show that they are trained into a military culture where protestors and activists are the enemy and are to be rooted out and intimidated away from societal participation. They aren’t just pigs. They are anti-democracy commandos.

All the cops that let the one cop brutally attack Guardian journalist Jesse Rosenfeld (HERE) and that did not arrest their criminal colleague are as guilty as the main physical attacker. There has to be a strong militaristic culture among these cops for them to allow their own brutality in full public view, often with cameras rolling.

Let us demand (publicly pressure) that the official public inquiry and legal disclosures include an investigation into police training and tactics regarding the profiling of activists and the intimidation protocols for demonstrators.

Of course the cops are people too. That’s why it’s not a waste of time to be straight up with them and to face them down and to expose them and to justly punish them and their bosses. They’re not just pigs.


Addendum: I make the following concrete tentative suggestion for detainee support. Organize workshops about the legal process and how to represent yourself. Represent yourself, plead not guilty and go the full distance to trial. The Crown has the burden of the proof and must completely disclose its case and evidence to you before you make your case. Ask for disclosures as soon as you can. The disclosures can be shared after trial with the media. This will so expose the false and ludicrous bases for arrests… and it will put the cops on the stand and the disclosures will name the cops. Team up with others who can help. Don’t let a lawyer representing you make a (for your own good) corrupt compromise deal with the Crown.

Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. 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 www.academicfreedom.ca] [Other social activism essays by Denis G. Rancourt are listed HERE.]

Monday, June 28, 2010

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!


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

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Social activism: Black thug violence must stop (with VIDEO)

Corroborated again at G20-Toronto:
In social activism by far the greatest threat of physical violence against persons is POLICE - dressed in black, faces covered, hard to identify, not answering questions, and bashing people about for no apparent reason.

by Denis G. Rancourt


In our PREVIOUS POST we made the obvious and repeatedly established point that the greatest risk of violence against persons at anti-corruption demonstrations is from police.

Not a single person was hurt or threatened by black bloc demonstrators at G20 in Toronto.

The same cannot be said about police behaviour: See the Real News video below.

They don't make it easy to identify the violent officers either. Here is a picture of G20-Toronto cops with no name tags - No way to identify an individual cop who hits you.


And below is a video with the police chief publicly shrugging off criticism with a suggestion that a bashed journalist can file a complaint... The video shows how small the name tag is when there is one, and there ain't no nice big officer number tag ever.

This video shows a series of disturbing scenes where, for no apparent reason, police run down a pedestrian with their horses, take down a deaf man for not following instructions, punch and throw about several peaceful demonstrators, punch a journalist and steal his microphone, throw back the microphone when other journalists move in, and, last but not least, show the police chief lying to justify the horrendous police behaviour in question.



A nice police state atmosphere with little counter protections: "This is what democracy looks like" - to remix a demonstrator's slogan.

This is the kind of police behaviour that changes one's emotional response to a picture of a police cruiser in flames, especially when it has been made clear that there will not be an investigation.

Partial solution for the immediate danger: The black thugs need big visible reflective officer numbers (front and back), with name lists posted to the web, and all the footage from those surveillance cameras made public every time they come onto the streets with clubs.

Safety first!




RELATED MATTER:
Where was the CCLA's Nathalie Des Rosiers in all of this? -Filing an injunction to prevent the use of sound canons and doing a press presentation about the injunction... but clubs, horses, "rubber" bullets and gas canisters fired at close range, and irrational police violence, with no investigations in sight for attacked journalist and peaceful protesters are just part of the decor? Will the CCLA demand an investigation?
.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Social activism: The violence must stop

In anti-corruption activism by far the greatest documented physical threat to persons is police violence

by Denis G. Rancourt


Never mind property damage to out-of-control corporations, what about actual harm to persons?

Who gets hurt and has their democratic right to protest and civil rights violated?

The protesters do. They get physically corralled, sound cannoned, pepper sprayed, shot at close range with "rubber" bullets, beat to hell with batons, thrown about like rag dolls, tear gassed for just being there, arrested on false pretext, illegally detained, cuffed for hours, and more.

And this is without even analyzing the impact of agent provocateurs, a widespread practice that has not been punished by state prosecutors or denounced by police (HERE).

Sooner or latter the police are going to forcefully cause someone to bang his/her head and die (when they don't kill dissenters and civilians while in custody).

Why the hell doesn't the corporate media report the widespread police violence in proportion to its occurrence...? We need a check and balance on police behaviour.

There is a far greater probability of a person being physically harmed by police at a legitimate demonstration, or being forced through the ordeal of being falsely arrested, than of a person being physically harmed by a 3am lobby fire at a local bank branch.

Let us put the risks to persons and to democracy in perspective.

The Ottawa RBC fire says "pay attention and look at the role of financial institutions in causing misery". The police repression says "activists and critics will not be tolerated".

It is no longer an exaggeration to state that Canada has adopted a police state stance and practice. The police intimidate, interrogate, and round up activists on false charges before high-profile demonstrations, to quash democratic expression, and publicly vilify their targets with outrageous propaganda (HERE).

Those who vehemently call for the suppression of activists are those who most feel the need to defend their deference to authority. They are the slaves by choice who vie for the master's recognition and who insist on being oppressed fairly. They advance that one must earn the privilege of being fairly oppressed.

The rest of us want freedom and democracy, the real deal.
.
BREAKING NEWS - June 26, 2010:
Radio interview: Police violence against journalist Jesse Freeston (Real News Network)
.
See also these posts about the Dalai Lama and pacifism: HERE.
And this post about hatred: HERE.
.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Beyond Against Chomsky - Hypocrisy on Israel

by Denis G. Rancourt


In two recent articles [1][2] I described Noam Chomsky as a service intellectual who serves to neutralize his readers by advancing intellectualization instead of concrete opposition to institutional controls.

Beyond this, especially Ghali Hassan has argued [3][4] that the intellectualization itself is US-Israel pro-establishment propaganda that serves to shield Israel and to cloud the mechanisms of power.

In his latest article Ghali Hassan quotes Chomsky from an Israeli TV media interview posted to youTube:



Hassan points out that Chomsky states "I don't regard myself as a critic of Israel. I regard myself a supporter of Israel." Hassan also quotes Chomsky as saying "I think the U.S. should continue to support Israel" [3]. However, I was not able to find the latter statement in the audio of the TV interview.

At 10:02 on the video Chomsky reaffirms his astonishing opposition to the academic boycott of Israel, consistent with his longstanding separation between radical "dissident" writing and reform by action [1][2]; and with his shielding of the Israeli state [3][4][5].

The truest statement in the video is uttered (in error) by the media host at 8:30 "[Israel's] right to exist is questionable."

In the video Chomsky goes to great lengths to explain that he is not a critic of Israel but is only trying to prevent Israel from hurting itself. Chomsky primarily wants to prevent Israel from hurting itself rather than primarily being concerned with stopping Israel's continuous barrage of war crimes against Palestinians.

Chomsky spends most of the 22-minute interview justifying himself and casting his benevolent role rather than explicitly describing and persistently denouncing Israel's murderous interventions and constant disregard for international law. His message is not intended to be effective using needed aggressor self-image leverage tactics [5] but is instead concerned with his own image and standing within the Israeli establishment.

His again expressed conflict with Alan Dershowitz is seen for what it is: Two service intellectuals vying for attention and favour with the US-Israel establishment, vying for preferred recognition of service.

Chomsky's paternalistic stance that he is trying to help Israel away from its most self-damaging behaviour is analogous to explaining to any oppressor that the oppression hurts the oppressor's public image and security. Obviously Israel puts significant resources in making this cost-benefit calculation [5] and does not need Chomsky's opinion in the matter. In my opinion Chomsky can't possibly believe that his explanation of his intentions will make any positive difference to the conditions for Palestinians and his spin must be understood as deference to the US-Israel establishment.

Chomsky states that he views himself as a dissident but I fail to see how he can be considered a dissident. He compares Cold War Russian state treatment of Russian dissidents to his own treatment by "irrational hysteria" from his co-citizens while maintaining his professorship and establishment status in the US.

It appears that with all his book knowledge, Noam Chomsky does not know himself.


Notes

[1] "Against Chomsky", July 2008;
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-chomsky.html

[2] "Data in the study 'Against Chomsky'", May 2009;
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2009/05/data-in-study-against-chomsky.html

[3] "Chomsky's Hypocracy", June 2010;
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60367.shtml

[4] "Protecting Israel: Chomsky’s Way", April 2006;
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60393.shtml

[5] "Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel", June 2010;
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/psycho-biological-basis-for-image.html

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Who is Allan Rock and why was Denis Rancourt fired?

Analysis of a temper tantrum gone viral

“When Liberal Party heavyweight Allan Rock took over as president at the University of Ottawa this September [2008], many wondered what would be in store for Denis Rancourt.”
--Jesse Freeston, journalist [1]

“We conclude that the charges advanced against Denis Rancourt are a contrived pretext, that they are preposterous as reasons to summarily remove a tenured professor, and that, therefore, the real reasons must lie elsewhere.”
-- Members of College and University Workers United [2]

“I have been following, with interest, the case of Marc Kelly - an under-graduate at the University of Ottawa who appears to be the victim of an outrageous vendetta brought against him by the President of that University, Allan Rock.”
--blogger (sophos) [3]


It is difficult to know how decisions are made because hierarchical institutions do everything they can to hide their true inner workings.

Nonetheless the chronology of events and the leakages of some documents allow one to advance plausible versions.

PRE-ROCK POST-ROCK

Until Allan Rock became president of the University of Ottawa in 2008, the previous administration, starting in 2005, was involved only in relatively moderate schemes to contain radical physics professor Denis Rancourt in his incessant applications of pedagogical advances and social justice and community outreach practices.

Pre-Rock containment attempts included [4]: removing the professor from all large first-year courses which he had developed, barring him from reserving an auditorium for his popular weekly documentary film and discussion series, arbitrarily imposing new academic rules in violation of Senate procedures (until overturned via a union grievance), an in-class dean’s intervention for which the university was later forced to apologize, allowing unethical attacks by a departmental chairman until the university was forced to intervene, fabrication of a student complaint (which the university withdrew), multiple contrived disciplinary campaigns that were dropped without explanation, and unjustified discipline for course content that was overturned by a labour law arbitrator.

In all of this tug of war over academic freedom the previous administration did not appear to contemplate outright dismissal and did not ever threaten dismissal. The first threats of dismissal came with Rock.

Only after Rock’s arrival did the administration’s methods become much more severe and physical, to include everything up to denial of due process, complete banning from all teaching, an unannounced laboratory lockout, unjustified firing of a research associate of 12-years (later settled out of court), threatening graduate students with loss of scholarships, banning of the professor from his weekly campus radio show using threat of police arrest, and forceful police arrest with handcuffs and removal while attending a campus event [5][6].

MORE THAN THE ISRAEL LOBBY AT WORK

Although the professor had received several disciplinary attempts and internal criticisms for hosting invited speakers who were critical of Israel in his classes in 2005 and 2006 and had widely expressed and published his own criticisms of Israel, and although Allan Rock is a known staunch supporter of Israeli policies and has directly intervened on campus on multiple occasions to impose his views on Israel [7][8][9], the sudden and fast-tracked decision to fire Rancourt may not have been primarily driven by Israel-Palestine politics, as is often the case in high-profile firings in North America [10].

In hind-sight, the chronology of events suggests otherwise, suggests that something suddenly irked Rock at an even more visceral level than his allegiance to the Israel lobby.

For example, renowned critic of Israeli policy and colleague professor Michel Chossudovsky (editor of GlobalResearch.ca) was not executed by Rock but only pressured into early retirement and retained part-time status.

It was more than the Israel lobby that drove Rock to his extremes of both urgency and intensity.

CHRONOLOGY TALKS

Let’s examine the chronology, including key campus events that involved Allan Rock. Here is how it went down.

Physics-mathematics student Marc Kelly (now of youTube fame [11]) took a fourth-year quantum mechanics course that Rancourt gave in the winter semester of 2008. The pedagogical method was unusual for a physics course and involved a non-competitive student-centered approach with an emphasis on in-class discussions. This caused some students in the class to question the pedagogical methods being used in their other courses.

Marc Kelly questioned the nature of the tests and assignments in a statistical physics course that he was taking concurrently with professor James Harden. Harden, was not receptive to the student’s questions and belittled Marc in front of the class and verbally intimidated him out of his office while nonetheless allowing the student to do a project instead of the final examination, only to refuse the project after the course was over and to attribute a failing grade without considering the project.

Student Kelly appealed this first to Harden, then to the physics department chairman Bela Joos, then to the vice-dean of science Leonard Kleine, then to the dean of science André E. Lalonde, then to the vice-president academic Robert Major, and finally to the president Allan Rock. In these appeals Kelly documented every step and put all those concerned and their superiors in cc. The saga is reported in a series of posts on UofOWatch and elsewhere [12].

Rock chose to not acknowledge or respond to Kelly’s emails. So, on Monday November 3, 2008, Kelly went to Rock’s office to chat with him about his ordeal.

That is when things took a nasty turn. Rock went ballistic on Kelly and repeatedly yelled at him to verbally intimidate him away in a disrespectful episode that could be enough to get a professor fired.

Fortunately, Kelly voice recorded the encounter and was therefore able to defend himself. Kelly posted the voice recording on the web and sent the link [13] by mass email to all the students and staff at the University of Ottawa (over 40,000 emails). (Even this exposed culmination of mistreatment did not result in justice for Kelly and his final project in the statistical physics course was never considered.)

Rock in turn sent a message to the university community in which he expressed “regret” by blaming Kelly. What followed was uninterrupted persecution of Mark Kelly. He was arbitrarily barred from his student-nominated position on a key university committee, unilaterally deregistered from a physics project course, pursued on multiple (a dozen or so) bogus criminal charges that were dropped, arrested in a class where he was invited to speak, arrested at an event where he was the main presenter (then let go without charges), barred from registering for all courses required to complete his degree, trespassed from campus, and ultimately pursued criminally again for allegedly violating his trespass. Concerted formal protests from both the student union and the union of teacher assistant have been to no avail. [12]

TV TALK SHOW PUTS IT OVER THE TOP

Following the November 3, 2008, verbal intimidation event in Rock’s office, Rancourt was coincidently invited on a pre-scheduled TV talk show (Talk Ottawa) to discuss his academic freedom struggles at the University of Ottawa. The TV interview was held live on the evening of November 12, 2008 [14]. During the call-in segment of the show, Mark Kelly called the studio and was put on air. The host had heard of the incident with Rock and the recording of Rock’s verbal intimidation was played on air from the web.

Rancourt then commented on air that he was appalled at the president’s behaviour and stated that a professor would be fired for treating a student that way.

Within days of this TV show Rancourt and his eight graduate students and research employee were locked out of their laboratory without any notice or forewarning on November 21, 2008. Following this, Rancourt was banned from campus and removed of all his functions on December 10, 2008, when he was escorted off the grounds by campus police. In an accelerated process like has never been seen at the University of Ottawa, Rancourt was then stripped of his tenure and fired on March 31, 2009, by an executive committee that included the membership of a prominent Ottawa Zionist organizer and Allan Rock himself.

It therefore appears that Rancourt was fired under public Israel lobby pressures because Allan Rock was irked beyond rational response by scholarship and award-nominated student and published scientific author Marc Kelly who remains banned from campus like a dangerous criminal.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) chief, Nathalie Des Rosiers, who continues to receive a salary from the University of Ottawa after serving under Rock as a vice president, has a different opinion about why Rancourt was fired [15].


Notes

[1] Opening line in “Dismissing critical pedagogy – Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa”, best of rabble.ca 3 - book, Jenn Watt (Ed.) (First posted on web January 12, 2009.)

[2] Open letter from members of College and University Workers United (CUWU) (http://cdecde.blogspot.com/2010/03/members-of-college-and-university.html).

[3] http://stopthenightmare-wakeup.blogspot.com/2010/05/curious-case-of-marc-kelly.html (Posted May 18, 2010.)

[4] List of outstanding and resolved labour law grievances and outcomes: http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/formalgrievances.html

[5] Background information at AcademicFreedom.ca: http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/

[6] Report by workplace mobbing expert Dr. Kenneth Westhues:
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~kwesthue/Rancourt09.htm

[7] Statement by Denis Rancourt regarding his dismissal:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/25.html

[8] Allan Rock background and actions at the University of Ottawa: http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/allan-rock-u-of-o-mistake-was-avoidable.html

[9] Allan Rock and the Israel lobby – on and off campus:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/comparing-two-red-tie-liberals-on.html

[10] Nocella et al. (Eds.), Academic Repression, 2010, AK Press, 590 pages.

[11] youTube videos of Mark Kelly being arrested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZ0VVKDGNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbY1nBTtSUI

[12] Articles about Marc Kelly on the UofOWatch blog:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Marc%20Kelly

[13] The true face of Allan Rock – post on UofOVoice blog:
http://uofovoice.blogspot.com/2008/11/true-face-of-allan-rock.html

[14] Talk Ottawa with James Hendricks, Rogers TV (Ottawa), Wednesday November 12, 2008, 9pm to 10pm.

[15] CCLA’s Nathalie Des Rosiers on why Rancourt was fired:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/author-calls-on-canadian-civil.html

Friday, June 18, 2010

"The Province in its wisdom" -- Marc Jolicoeur explains democracy at the BOG (video)

This is a brilliant video by University of Ottawa math-physics student Marc Kelly.

Marc tracks down the Chairman of the Board of Governors just after the Board approves yet another yearly increase in student tuition fees and asks how this is possible...

Marc questions the democracy of the decision and Chairman Marc Jolicoeur lays it all out for Marc just how it works.

Marc entitled his video "Speaking To The Man".

It's priceless.



Jolicoeur recently was turfed or resigned - LINK.