Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

rancourtvtisraelgazaattack2014

In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.”[Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).


SOURCE ARTICLE

Police kill shooter and lose suspect in Ottawa — Canada’s 911? by Denis G. Rancourt

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/10/23/police-kill-shooter-and-lose-suspect-in-ottawa-canadas-911/

Rancourt Shooter PM

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 1.04.27 PM

I live in Canada’s capital city Ottawa, walking distance from where a Canadian soldier was murdered at the War Memorial on the morning of October 22, 2014.

The shooter, with the help of an accomplice and driver (according to authentic eye witnesses media-interviewed at the scene), then made his way into the particular parliament building (Centre Block) in which the Prime Minister was meeting his cabinet — where he was shot dead by police.

The entire Parliament Hill, City Hall, provincial courthouse, Rideau Centre shopping mall, University of Ottawa, and so on, went into “lock down” for the morning and most of the day. Car traffic dropped to almost zero, as folks were told to stay away from the downtown core.

This morning (October 23rd) the city police chief announced that there was “only one shooter” who had been killed, that there was no remaining threat to the public, and made no mention of the driver. The Mayor put things in perspective by pointing out that there have been a total of four murders in Ottawa this year. Ottawa’s population is approximately 1 million.

Canada has been at war in multiple countries for over a decade, in full support of the US-Israel war machine that regularly attacks civilian populations with aerial bombings and violent occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Gaza, …, as part of geopolitical terrorism aimed at overthrowing governments and controlling territory and resources.

Canada is a waring nation annexed to the US superpower. It is amazing that the Canadian public appears to generally accept the notion that this murder of a soldier in Canada is an act of “terrorism”. It is either an act of war, if it was directed by those being attacked by Canada, or it is a murder. It is not an act that can realistically intimidate a nation. Rather, it is being spun into “terrorism” to justify increased militarization and police-state policies.

The persons most likely to benefit from this murder are Prime Minister Harper and his political party, if the spin and public reaction work out to their benefit. The military-surveillance establishment and those committed to sycophantism towards the US are the other clear beneficiaries of this murder. Those attacked by Canada will derive no benefit whatsoever from the killing of the soldier, to the contrary, and no external group has claimed responsibility.

The last time there was a “terrorism” attack in Ottawa it was the 2010 arson of the entrance of an empty bank, in relation to G20 held in Toronto. The video of the attack showed three criminals (including the videographer) but only two persons were charged, and only one person was prosecuted and found guilty and jailed.

It turned out that the condemned arsonist had for years been closely followed and accompanied by a police infiltrator who was never cross-examined, and who disappeared from Ottawa.

Now, we have a similar scene. Who is the driver? Who is behind the premeditated murder and attack on Centre Block? We can dream that a thorough police investigation of the homicide will be made and made public, but without a live suspect there will not ever be a trial.

Days prior to the October 22 murder, a former soldier struck two soldiers with his car in a parking lot (in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec), and killed one of them. The driver was chased. His car overturned in a ditch. When he emerged he was shot dead by two police officers, alleging he had a “large knife”. The only suspect was shot dead rather than apprehended. Harper mused in Parliament that the hit-and-run was a “terrorist” attack. There won’t be a trial.

Understanding domestic crimes and informing the public appears to be the last concern. Justifying Canada’s militarization and its wars is high on the agenda.

____________________________

OCLA letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne: Protecting freedom of speech in Ottawa

OCLAWynneLetHdr

OCLA_logo_only_250

October 2, 2014

By Email

Kathleen Wynne, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Re: Protecting freedom of speech in Ottawa

Dear Premier Wynne,

I write on behalf of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA), in response to media reports about your promise to defend freedom of expression in China, when you travel there on official visit later this month (e.g. “Amid Hong Kong protests, Wynne vows to promote free speech on China visit”, Adrian Morrow, The Globe and Mail, Oct. 1, 2014).

We are concerned that your taking on a role of international ambassador for freedom of speech would not be appropriate, since your government has not defended this vital right here in Ontario.

For example, you have:

• Allowed a private defamation lawsuit to be funded entirely by a public university (the University of Ottawa) against one of the university’s most outspoken critics. The plaintiff’s legal fees totalled more than $1-million, and the suit ended in a Kafkaesque show-trial that lead to loud public outcry about the lack of fair process in Ontario courts and the chill imposed on freedom of expression by this case. The OCLA’s letter to the Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities of March 7, 2014 about this matter is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-contents/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-07-Letter-OCLA-to-Minister-Duguid.pdf

• Refused to examine the deleterious impact of defamation law on freedom of expression, and instead moved forward with a bill that will only place an inadequate patch on deep and archaic problems with a law that by its nature opposes freedom of expression. The OCLA’s position paper calling for the abolition of defamation law is available here. The OCLA’s letter to the Attorney General of Ontario about Bill 83 is available here. This refusal to re-examine

2

defamation law allows many unjust and censorious legal proceedings to continue in Ontario.

• Not taking a stance against “hate speech” provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code that threaten freedom of speech everywhere in Canada. For more information about our position on this topic, see the OCLA’s public statement regarding the hate speech proceedings against Mr. Arthur Topham here. Although Mr. Topham’s case takes place in BC, the same unjust laws apply in Ontario. The OCLA’s letter to the Attorney General of BC in this matter is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

Not to mention that it was a Liberal government (in which you were a cabinet minister) that oversaw the egregious and history-making violations of freedom of speech and freedom of association that took place during the G20 protest crackdown in Toronto in 2010. We note that yesterday’s media articles place your “vow” in the current context of large-scale political protests in Hong Kong.

Serious and urgent work must be done to stop the rapid erosion of freedom of speech in Ontario. In order to give meaning to your position about freedom of speech in China, we ask that you make a vow to take positive and thoughtful action to defend freedom of speech in Ontario during the remainder of your mandate as Premier.

Yours truly,

Screen Shot 2014-10-02 at 11.22.18 AM

Joseph Hickey

Executive Director

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca

613-252-6148 ©

joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

Cc: Members of Provincial Parliament

Cc: Adrian Morrow, The Globe and Mail ( amorrow@globeandmail.com)

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

The OCLA vigoriously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Source: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-02-Letter-from-OCLA-to-Premier-Wynne.pdf

The crisis of access to justice and self-represented litigants — as I see it by Denis Rancourt

RancourtJusticeCrisisHdr

The crisis of access to justice and self-represented litigants — as I see it

By

Denis Rancourt, PhD

DenisGRancourt

Screen Shot 2014-09-17 at 9.06.00 PM

There is a crisis of access to justice in Canada. It is a crisis of systemic judicial partiality against ordinary citizens who cannot afford brand-name “justice”.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin frequently warns of a crisis of “access to justice” in Canada. This crisis involves a large and growing number of self-represented litigants who cannot afford lawyer’s fees, which are inflated by corporate clients.

The Facebook group “Canada Court Watch” is focussed on self-represented litigants and has over 4,000 members. Self-represented litigants regularly picket outside courthouses and lawyers offices across the country. Researchers, such as law professor Julie Macfarlane, have described a widespread disillusionment and distrust of the legal establishment by ordinary self-represented litigants from all walks of life.

Beyond what is acknowledged by the chief justice and the legal establishment, there is a widespread conviction among self-represented litigants that the courts are biased against them. I am the coordinator of the Self-Represented Litigant Workgroup of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and I have experienced this bias directly as a self-represented defendant.

In a single case of alleged defamation for words on a blog, I have been required to go before 17 different judges, at all courts up to the Supreme Court of Canada, in over 30 open court hearings, over more than three years — in the motions, appeals of motions, and case conferences in the action against me. I have prepared thousands of pages of legal documents, and I have been ordered to pay legal costs of the suing party of more than one quarter of a million dollars to date, prior to the trial that is now on-going.

In light of my recent experience as a self-represented litigant, it is difficult for me to believe that the pleas of the chief justice are authentic. I tend to think that the chief justice means only that lawyers should be affordable and available for ordinary persons, and that she wishes that the legal processes were less wasteful. However, access to lawyers alone does not provide access to justice, and neither does strong-handed case management by judges.

I feel like I have seen it all in terms of the behaviour of judges, in terms of the tremendous systemic bias against self-represented litigants, and that is described by legal researchers. This bias exists irrespective of my level of education (PhD) and irrespective of my ability to present an argument (former university professor), and so I believe what I have heard about what it is like for a single parent navigating issues of child custody.

In my case, the potential for systemic bias is increased by the fact that the plaintiff is a high-status lawyer within the legal establishment, and two of the lawyers who oppose me have formerly represented Canadian prime ministers. In addition, the private plaintiff is funded without a spending limit by a non-party using public money, a situation that has been denounced by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (LINK).

At the mandatory mediation I was not allowed an accompanying person (because he was not a lawyer) even though I faced five lawyers on the side suing me. But obvious asymmetries of means are not the only problem.

The evidence for routine judicial bias, as I see it, is overwhelming and includes:

•    the trial judge cancelling my main and pleaded defence, off-the-cuff and in the middle of my opening address to the jury

•    judges and lawyers disrespectfully referring to me in court as “he”, and discussing me as though I were not present (until this behaviour was denounced on the Ontario Civil Liberties Association website)

•    judges’ frequent, repeated, and disorienting interruptions of me in court

•    allowing opposing counsel to make repeated and hyperbolic prejudicial comments, despite my objections

•    not allowing me time to make my arguments, despite my good preparation and organization

•    refusals to hear evidence of misconduct by opposing counsel

•    refusing to acknowledge transcript evidence of opposing counsel leading his witnesses in out-of-court examinations

•    allowing procedural dirty tricks by the lawyers, such as calling motions on one day’s notice

•    constructive barring of my evidence on motions and at trial, using both procedural technicalities and legal abstractions

•    allowing the plaintiff to pick and choose which questions to answer in cross-examinations

•    orders that I pay outrageously high costs, which in effect punish me for trying to defend myself, despite the fact that I have no money

•    orders that I, rather than the opposing party, pay costs even in the cases where I won all or the majority of the points argued in the motions

•    disadvantageous deadlines for document submissions and disadvantageous scheduling of court appearances, despite objections with reasons

In fact, there appears to be no limit to what the court thinks it can get away with when dealing with a self-represented litigant.

In my own case, for example, I discovered that a motions judge (in a motion to end the action) had a blatant conflict of interest. In the middle of the proceedings, I learned that he had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party intervening for the plaintiff in the case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court. He had not disclosed any of these ties. The judge’s ties made it inconceivable that he would rule against the plaintiff.

When I presented the evidence of the judge’s ties, the judge lost decorum, threatened me with contempt of court (a criminal judgement), and recused himself, but refused to rule on whether there was apparent bias, and continued to release decisions that stand to this day.

I raised the matter through available procedures with three more judges of the Superior Court, three judges of the Court of Appeal, and six judges of the Supreme Court (in two applications for leave to appeal), but all of them refused to allow bias as a ground for appeal.

In my first attempts, I was not even allowed to access the Supreme Court. It is a demonstration of apparent systemic judicial bias at the highest level that the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to accept my duly prepared application — and then refused to accept my motion to denounce his refusal to accept the application. This was resolved only because the Ontario Civil Liberties Association made a request, directly to the Chief Justice of Canada, that the Registrar’s conduct be investigated.

That whole bias episode, involving 13 judges from three courts, shows the degree to which the entire judicial structure will tolerate a judge’s apparent bias, at least when the bias complaint is brought by a self-represented litigant being sued by prominent members of the legal establishment.

The only remaining remedy in the matter resides in international law. I am preparing a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee for violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees an impartial court to every litigant in signatory countries, including Canada. Few self-represented litigants can defend themselves this effectively, and there are far too few resources among civil rights organizations to address the gargantuan need.

All of this has only been repeated at the trial itself, which started on May 12, 2014, and which is on-going. Prior to trial, I had asked then Regional Senior Judge Charles Hackland (who resigned on May 8, 2014) to name a case judge who had no connection with the University of Ottawa, and I had made a formal motion for the trial judge to recuse himself because of the judge’s shared interests with the University of Ottawa (LINK). None of this mattered and the trial judge refused to recuse himself. This, and the judge’s in-court actions, led to my walking out of the trial, which was reported in the media (LINK1, LINK2).

My case, the ordeals of countless others, and academic research show that there is a systematic bias against self-represented litigants. Such evident, overt, and pervasive bias proves that the judges are not impartial, but rather are significantly influenced by the social status and power of the litigant. Corporate and government litigants know this well, and count on it. It is the elephant in the courtroom for self-represented litigants.

For self-represented litigants the crisis in “access to justice” is really a crisis in access to an impartial court, a court that is not influenced by social status. This crisis will not be solved by increasing access to lawyers and reducing court backlogs. The solution will require that litigants themselves and civil rights organizations insist on and monitor impartiality of the courts.

In my case, high-profile American political activist Cynthia McKinney has started a petition demanding that the chief justices of Canada allow a new trial with a trial judge having no ties to the University of Ottawa — which is funding the lawsuit without a spending limit — and this has been reported in the media (LINK-petition, LINK-media). Only this type of protest-application of the open court principle, in combination with media exposure and civil society association pressures, has any chance of catalyzing a reform in a system that has now degraded itself beyond self-repair.

There is indeed a crisis, and it is of the court’s making. It is a crisis of partiality against ordinary citizens who cannot afford brand-name “justice”.

——-

Professor Rancourt has taken a courageous stand and like myself he needs your help in order to defend himself against all of these spurious charges that have resulted from his expressing his opinions on matters relevant to Canada’s democratic principles. For further information and contact please see:
—-

This article was originally published HERE May 25, 2014

Background Links:

Petition site — Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt

Ontario Civil Liberties Association campaign page

The motions judge’s apparent-bias legal saga

Court documents in my motion for the trial judge to recuse himself

All (most) court-filed documents in my case

Kourosh Ziabari Interview with Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt – Fars News Agency

KouroshInterviewRancourtHdr

RPEdNew400 copy

Editor’s Note: The following interview with Professor Rancourt is undoubtedly one of the finest contributions toward a greater understanding of how the West has been slowly taken over by the Zionist agenda. Whether we wish to view it (as Professor Rancourt appears to), as the American Empire using Israel for its own greater hegemonic agenda or whether we tend to see it as World Jewry’s take-over of the American government via stealth in order to commandeer its resources and exploit them for Zionism’s global conquest, Rancourt’s analysis of how this process has unfolded to the ongoing detriment of the Palestinian people is superlative.
 
The interview also succinctly explains the depth and degree of collusion which the various Zionist forces and their sycophants here in Canada went to in order to illegally remove Professor Rancourt from his academic position at the University of Ottawa and then to further exacerbate his unjust treatment by pursuing him with a defamation suit that basically bankrupt the man. Such extremely vexatious acts on the part of Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa, aided and abetted by Canada’s Zionist-controlled media, border on sadism and are a vivid reminder of just how cruel and criminal the Zionist cartel can be when it comes to protecting its own racket of death and destruction at any cost should Canadians have the audacity to exhibit their lawful constitutional right to freedom of expression. In this case Professor Rancourt’s only “crime” was to question the right of Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.
 
I suppose Denis Rancourt might be expected to consider himself lucky that he wasn’t also slapped with a sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge on top of all the other woes he’s been subjected to by the Zionist-controlled judiciary here in Canada. I’m sure that they would love to send him to jail for a couple of years just as they are trying to do to me in order to reinforce their intimidation and threats to all of Canada’s academia never to question their authority or their evil designs.
 
Professor Rancourt has taken a courageous stand and like myself he needs your help in order to defend himself against all of these spurious charges that have resulted from his expressing his opinions on matters relevant to Canada’s democratic principles. For further information and contact please see:
Email contact: denis.rancourt@gmail.com

Funding campaign

Bio

————

KouroshPortrait copy 2

Kourosh Ziabari – Fars News Agency: A Canadian scholar and academic, who was fired from the university where he was teaching because of his pro-Palestinian viewpoints, believes the US government is funding and supporting Israel for its continued bloodletting in the Middle East.

According to Prof. Denis Rancourt, Israel’s plan in the Middle East is ethnic cleansing and the total obliteration of Palestine and its citizens in order to realize a colonial, imperial agenda backed by the US military, economic and finance empire.

“Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation,” said Prof. Rancourt in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

“Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners,” he noted.

Prof. Denis Rancourt has also praised the resistance movement in the Gaza Strip for its steadfastness against the Israeli aggression during the past two months, maintaining that it was awe-inspiring that Hamas could kill some 70 invading Israeli soldiers.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. In the fall of 2008, he was removed from all teaching duties under the pretext that he had granted A+ grades to 23 students in one course during the winter 2008 semester; however, it’s quite clear to everybody that his outspoken criticism of Israel and his pro-Palestinian activism had triggered his dismissal from the university. Prof. Rancourt’s classes were always attended by tens of students and he was considered as one of the popular university professors at the Faculty of Science.

Rancourt has published more than 100 academic papers. He was a member of Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics and the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre. He is the author of the book “Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.”

During the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip that just ended on August 26 following the victory of Hamas and the declaration of ceasefire between the Israeli regime and the resistance movement, FNA did an interview with Prof. Denis Rancourt on the influence of the Israeli lobby over the media, politicians and universities in the West, the history of Israel-Canada relations and the international reactions to the recent Israeli war on Gaza. The following is the text of this in-depth interview.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the influence of the Israeli lobby on the universities and academic unions in the West, especially in the North America? The case of your dismissal from your position as a professor at the University of Ottawa was simply one of numerous instances showing that the Israeli lobby can easily manipulate the university officials in the West into making illegal decisions and expelling the disobedient academicians, just like the Prof. Steven Salaita who has been recently fired from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his comments criticizing the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip. How has Israel gained such an influence over the academic institutions in the West?

A: The Israel Lobby has the role of chief-whip for the US military-economic-finance empire; Empire, for short. That is, the Lobby ensures doctrinal discipline among Western, that is, US-aligned politicians, intellectuals, and the media, regarding the Empire’s Middle East policy. I mean “intellectual” in the broad sense of any professional who has influence, and “media” in the broad sense of anyone who communicates to others.

The Empire’s main geopolitical focus presently is the Middle East, where the Empire is dedicated to actively and continuously prevent liberation and coalescence of Arab nations, so as to keep control of the territory and the energy resources. To achieve this, the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel, which is charged with continual war and sabotage against all Middle Eastern entities that would vie for independence from the Empire.

Thus, the Empire, via Israel, is embarked on a vicious and murderous project without an end in the Middle East, and this unsavory project must be sold to the Empire’s home populations, including both managers and ordinary citizens. That is the role of the Israel Lobby; to sell Israel and the continuous and deliberate carnage as acceptable and unavoidable.

That is why the Israel Lobby is actively engaged is creating Islamophobia, in exaggerating anti-Semitism, in constructing Nazi-holocaust remembrance, in suppressing academic freedom, in suppressing freedom of the press, in “finding” and pursuing alleged “terrorists”, in developing anti-speech [or] “anti-hate” laws, in promoting cultural ties with Israel, in attacking Muslim associations, and so on.

As such, the work of the Israel Lobby includes hundreds of ongoing campaigns to intimidate, discipline, fire, and vilify academics who dare to be critical of Israel or of US Middle East policy. The list of shut-out and targeted academics is a long one and includes the well-known cases of Joel Kovel, Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Terri Ginsberg, William Robinson, David F. Noble, Steven Salaita, Iymen Chehade, and many others. The more an academic is threatening to the Lobby, the more aggressively that academic is attacked.

My own case is also an example. I was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. I am an internationally recognized researcher and I taught in both the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Arts. I was publicly critical of the university president’s paid trip to Israel. I invited Palestinian speakers into my classrooms to talk about Gaza, and geopolitical analysts who were critical of Israel. These moves led to condemnation of me in the Zionist mainstream media, and to discipline, which was overturned. In 2008, a new university president – Allan Rock – who is a staunch and unconditional supporter of Israel and who had been Canada’s Zionist ambassador to the UN, became immediately motivated to fire me, tenure or not, and irrespective of my popular courses and my large science research funding.

A.RockMug

With the help of an entire team using specially-hired union-busting lawyers, after contriving for years including intensive covert surveillance of me using a hired-student spy to monitor my every spoken and written word and my every activity on campus and at other university campuses, the university finally settled on the false pretext for dismissal of alleging that I had improperly assigned high grades to all 23 students in an advanced physics course. They needed a “clean” pretext that they hoped would be supported by public opinion and that would not bring out all of their dirt. When public opinion and some mainstream media sided with me instead, a high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times suddenly wrote not-one but two articles to discredit me, and was invited to Canada to falsely defame me, regarding my teaching, on a trend-setting Canadian TV talk show whose producers are Zionists.

Even after I was fired, as I continued to be publicly critical of the institution, the university funded a large defamation lawsuit against me which, after almost four years, has entirely washed-out my personal savings, and over which I was ordered to pay a total of legal costs and damages in excess of one million dollars, that I can never pay. I am presently struggling to generate the funds to pay the costs of court-transcripts for the appeal that has been filed. My funding campaign is endorsed by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which also has a campaign that condemns the university’s unlimited funding of the lawsuit against me using public money.

Although the university had many and mixed unstated and illegitimate reasons for wanting to fire me – such as my defiance and outspokenness in several areas, my popular courses and public events, and my support of student and community activism, I have no doubt that I was fired because the new Zionist university president Allan Rock – former Ambassador to the UN, and former Canadian federal government minister – wanted me out and silenced at any cost, and knew that he could count on support from the Zionist establishment. Under cross-examination, the dean testified that the pre-dismissal lockout of my graduate students and I from our laboratory was directed from above by Allan Rock. This president knew my firing would be seen as a good deed by the powerful Zionist establishment that he is part of. Years before I was ultimately fired, it had already been pronounced in the media that my firing was necessary and was desirable because of the “anti-Semitic” nature of my courses, to the great dismay and protests of many of my students.

After I was escorted off campus in handcuffs by police and charged with “trespassing” while I was still a tenured professor, and since my firing in 2009, Allan Rock has been systematically transforming the University of Ottawa into an institutional instrument at the service of Canada’s accelerating “globalist” agenda, and at the service of legitimizing Israel’s role in that agenda — rather than actually prioritizing the learning environment for students in Ottawa, an environment that is in dire need of an overhaul.

Allan Rock needed me out of the way. The Empire needs critics of the Empire out of the way. And the Israel Lobby needs anyone who threatens the acceptance of Israel’s crimes out of the way.

Q: Why has the criticism of Israel become so costly in the West? Why are the academicians, media personalities and other public figures who dare to question the policies and practices of Israel being immediately vilified and denigrated as anti-Semitist? Moreover, why don’t the mainstream media in the West ever give coverage to the viewpoints critical of Israel or exposing its violations of international law?

A: The mainstream media is a highly perfected arm of the Empire’s propaganda apparatus, as are Hollywood, the music industry, video games, and so on. The barely-maintained illusions of freedom of the press and of artistic freedom only make the propaganda more effective.

The propaganda apparatus is an integral part of the Empire’s military structure. The Israel Lobby is an added structure for direct and forceful control of politicians and intellectuals concerning the role of Israel as the Empire’s main thug in the Middle East.

The Empire’s Israel-based violent control in the Middle East, in turn, gives control over energy and wealth, via both the energy itself and energy transportation routes, and helps to ensure that the US-dollar remains the petro-dollar and, thus, the World currency, which the US prints at will.

In this way, the Empire both maintains its main instrument of global exploitation, namely finance-extortion based on the US-dollar and enforced with military might, and suppresses the development of its main competitors by strategically controlling the energy market via sanctions, pricing, and directed profits. That is the Empire’s working theory, which is realistically achievable thanks to absolute military dominance.

Within this scheme, the Israel Lobby at home is in a symbiotic relation with the Empire. The two are inseparable as long as the Empire’s main geopolitical focus is the Middle East, and as long as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel. This is why one finds a strong and visible Israel Lobby satellite in every Western nation that is aligned with the Empire: Canada, France, Australia, and so on.

The two elements that give the Israel Lobby its raison d’etre – namely, the Empire’s main geopolitical focus on the Middle East, and Israel as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East – are not necessarily good for the Empire. But the Israel Lobby has gotten too powerful; to the point of being able to largely dictate the Empire’s geopolitical priorities, and the Empire’s goals.

Thus, the Israel Lobby has to a large extent overrun the US democracy. It is not presently possible for US politicians to objectively and freely discuss Israel’s role and the Empire’s foreign policy. Virtually no US politician has the backbone to do so. US critics of Israel who are sufficiently threatening are crushed, and the US establishment fully participates in these mobbings.

When the stakes are so high, it is impossible for the Israel Lobby to relax its aggressive stance against all ideological threats. The Lobby considers its intimidation campaigns to be necessary for its own survival. It uses bribery, extortion, and propaganda at every level to discipline all who need to be reminded of which peoples most need to be killed on the planet.

Q: Canada has usually been one of the major advocates and supporters of the Tel Aviv regime since its establishment in 1948, either financially, politically or militarily and has always justified its racist policies in the Occupied Territories publicly. Somewhere in a 2011 article, you noted that Canada does not have much significant trade ties with Israel, and is a net exporter of oil and gas itself. So, why do you think the Canadian politicians continue to offer their “unwavering support” to Israel and rationalize its atrocities against the besieged people of Gaza? Why does Canada always lobby to dissuade world countries from voting against Israel in the UN resolutions? In what ways does Canada benefit from backing Israel?

A: Interestingly, it was Allan Rock – the same man who engineered my firing from the University of Ottawa – who, in 2004, under Paul Martin’s Liberal government and as Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, changed Canada’s longstanding position on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine.

The complete selling of Canada to the US started prior to Martin, notably at the hands of Conservative Prime Minister Brian “free trade” Mulroney who thereby destroyed the Conservative party for more than a decade. Martin continued the job of selling Canada. Paul Martin engineered a takeover of the Liberal Party of Canada from the last Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who was moderately independent, or wanted to appear to be, and Martin proceeded to wreck that party into oblivion, with the help of other Zionists such as Rock and Harvard-based import Michael Ignatieff who also wrote academic arguments to legitimize torture “in an age of terror”, and others. At present, all three major parties [of] Conservative, NDP, and Liberal are led by ultra-Zionists, which is no accident. Harper, in particular, vehemently demonizes Iran, in what can only be understood as a criminally irresponsible call for a war of aggression, in line with a well-known Israeli desire.

The reason that Canada gives unconditional diplomatic support to Israel is the same as with all states aligned with the Empire. There is no choice on that issue because Israel is a major component of the Empire’s World-domination apparatus. The Israel Lobby is existentially committed to keeping things that way. The widespread tolerance and political adoration of the anti-democratic Israel Lobby in the US suggests that it is now not unreasonable to entertain an analysis of the Empire as a US-Israel Empire, as though the elite-bosses that run the global military-finance exploitation enterprise had effectively merged across US-Israel lines.

The other main Western states vie to align themselves in order to be on the receiving side of the Empire’s global exploitation project. This alignment is the most disgusting and vicious enactment of global racism in human history – largely surpassing its immediate predecessor that was the British Empire – that directly targets indigenous populations in the developing and emerging world, whether or not these populations support resistance movements. In this regard, a color-coded world map of diplomatic stance regarding Israel is identical to a world map of the global exploitation by the states aligned with the Empire.

Canada, in particular, is more than aligned. Canada is truly a vassal state of the US, with virtually complete integration in the political, corporate, security, military, cultural, and intelligentsia spheres. It is not uncommon for high-ranking “Canadian” politicos to have been trained at Harvard. The entertainment and sports enterprises are seamlessly the same, except for Quebec to some degree. This deepening integration has been accompanied by a loss of Canadian nationalism, a dramatically increased Israel Lobby presence, a dumbing down of the provincial education systems, an abandonment of natural-resources ownership, a near-total loss of resistance to foreign corporate ownership, frightening mimicry in the cultural, political, statutory, military, police, etc., fields, and so on.

Years ago, as one personal anecdote, I was shocked to find that the airport security in Ottawa, for an internal flight in Canada, was being managed by a US firm, that the security employees were US citizens, spoke with heavy US accents, and did not speak French – Canada is bilingual, and Ottawa is its capital. I was on stolen Canadian soil being processed by US security personnel. That is now the norm. Canadian citizens have a lot of work to do if they want to effectively oppose US and Israeli crimes against humanity.

Of course the local Canadian establishment needs to benefit from Canada being a vassal state of the Empire. So your question of how does Canada benefit is a fair one. The first answer is that Canada is allowed to share in the plunder practiced by the Empire, to a limited and controlled degree. In addition, Canada is given a share of the Empire’s military economy, in terms of military manufacturing contracts, and is temporarily allowed to have a First World standard of living, even though it must permit its natural resources to be plundered.

Also, Canada is a major producer of oil from tar sands that are relatively expensive to exploit. Wars and imposed sanctions in the Middle East increase the price of oil, which serves the Canadian energy sector well, in terms of political benefits. The price of gas is also increased, which inadvertently serves Russia. Thus, Russia must be sanctioned and cut off from the European market. Enter Ukraine, etc. Energy is geopolitics and Canada, as a major energy producer, “chooses” to be on the side of the big guns.

Q: What do the ordinary Canadian citizens, and the young generation of Canadian people think about Israel and its ongoing campaign of carnage and genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip? Do they sympathize with the major Canadian parties, including the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP in their unwarranted support for Israel?

A: Political participation in Canada is a farce. By statute – thanks to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – all local political candidates must be approved and certified by the party leader. Therefore, unlike in the UK where local party members can choose their representatives and where parliamentary rule actually means something, there is no representative democracy whatsoever in Canada. It does not take a PhD in political science to understand this. The employment and career of each Member of Parliament depends on obeying party discipline, and the party bosses are selected and positioned by powerful private interests predominantly represented by the Israel Lobby.

Ordinary Canadians, young and old, understand that politics does not include them. Consequently, political participation is low. The smaller the citizen’s possible influence, the less [they] participate, logically. In Canada – like in most places where citizens do not feel overly threatened by their governments or by foreign influences or by war – effective political allegiance is hired directly using widespread partisan employment, by the government, the public institutions, the private corporations, the hired lobbies, and the non-government organizations. In addition, superficial popular acceptance of fake agendas is bought via disguised propaganda projected by the “educational” system, the media, and the hired “experts” from all sectors. This works brilliantly because most professional workers are fully indoctrinated into the system.

Among aware Canadians, however, there is great concern about Israel’s crimes in Gaza. This concern and resulting outrage are significant, as is evident from the massive media and public-relations counter campaigns to legitimize Israel’s war crimes.

Canadian civil society is recognizing and organizing against the Israel genocide that continues to unfold. There has been a significant backlash against the public positions of the leaders of the three major parties, and this backlash has caused the NDP in particular to do some damage-control. A Member of Parliament even resigned from the NDP over the issue, which is a first in Canada. Furthermore, in reporting the carnage in Gaza, the mainstream media was feeling the pressure to not completely follow the most absurd dictates of the Israel Lobby regarding media strategy.

The recent public demonstrations in support of Gaza, held in every major Canadian city, were massive, by Canadian standards. The pro-Palestine demonstrations that I attended in Ottawa had hundreds and thousands of participants and were among the largest that I have ever witnessed. More importantly, the demonstrators were from across Canadian society and were profoundly moved and committed, more than I have ever seen for any broad Canadian foreign policy matter. Consequently, the mainstream media was forced to report these demonstrations in a somewhat balanced fashion, under the threat of losing credibility.

Thus, there is a significant enough gap, between the extreme Zionism of the political party leaders and public opinion on Gaza, that it is possible that there could be a large and lasting popular backlash that would change the public political discourse and force the Lobby to be less overt. I more than hope that this backlash will be of formidable magnitude and that it will occur at an accelerated pace, in order to create and recover the dignity of Canadians, to bring Canadians into the World, and to bring maximum support to the Palestinian resistance.

Q: During its more than 50 days of incursion into the Gaza Strip, Israel continually bombed the civilian areas, hospitals, mosques and schools. The deliberate targeting of the civilians is a crime under international law. Why is Israel persistent on violating international law while its leaders know what they’re doing is not humane and defendable? Is it because Israel has been enjoying immunity from accountability thanks to the public diplomatic, political and financial support it receives from the United States?

A: It is criminally and morally disgusting that Israel continued to bomb Gaza during the negotiations for the agreement that led to a halt to further Israeli attacks for an “unlimited period”. It is utterly disgusting that Israel murdered the wife and a daughter and a son of the Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif during negotiations. Israel continued to murder Hamas opponents during negotiations. This is abominable. It is difficult to comprehend this degree of disregard by Israel for basic human decency, not to mention international law. This tells us that Israel never negotiated in good faith, and that the “negotiated” agreement cannot possibly represent any measure of interim justice.

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza is awe-inspiring, having killed some 70 invading soldiers that were part of one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the World, and Gazans having sustained unspeakable civilian death, displacement, and destruction. However, Israel is in fact mainly contained by the global political and popular reactions to its crimes. The US cannot afford to convince the World that it is a genocidal-maniac nation, whether it is or not. This would seriously impair the Empire, domestically, with allies, and in its arenas of exploitation.

This is why the Empire funds and supports Israel for the constant bloodletting in the Middle East, and covertly trains and funds proxy thugs wherever it cannot sell a direct intervention, such as in Syria. Make no mistake, the US runs a global empire, with over 1,000 military bases spread in every corner of the globe, but it cannot be perceived in Western circles as an outright purveyor of ruthless and unlimited terror. Just don’t ask Latin Americans what they know from lived experience.

In this regard, a reality that protects the world from US-Israeli ravages is the fact that, more and more, there are Muslim, Latin American, etc., populations in the US and in the aligned countries, such as the Muslim citizens of the UK, and the Latin Americans in the US. This, in turn, explains the growing government fixations on preventing immigration and systemically targeting profiled refugees for deportation. It also explains the police-state occupation and incarceration in the US of the Black and Hispanic less-integrated social classes.

Basically, all the survival, self-defense, and liberation struggles against and from-within the Empire share a common oppressor. These struggles can greatly benefit from Western middle class allies, and from Western middle class indignation. The elite management class has connections to the professional class, which is largely from the middle class, and so on. In this way, “public opinion”, beyond simply most members of the public having some superficial opinion, can pressure towards rejecting the most egregious abuses of the Empire.

Q: In response to Israel’s deadly military operation against the Gaza Strip, the United States simply said that Israel has a right to defend itself, and a right to exist. Are these rights, including a right to exist, contingent upon the destruction of the entire civilian infrastructure in a coastal territory that has been under siege for some 7 years, and the blowing up of its unarmed citizens? Do the US politicians really think this way or are pretending that they’re not aware of the realities of Gaza on the ground?

A: The “right to exist” and “right to defend itself” postures of Israel are ridiculous sophistries that a child can recognize as such. Israelis have a right to not be displaced arbitrarily without a just process. That process must weigh all the facts related to Israel’s long-term genocidal policies and actions of population cleansing and annexing of territory. It must also respect international law, and respect unrescinded UN resolutions. And, it cannot reward continued violations by Israel of the said UN resolutions regarding territorial lines.

The Israeli spin concocted to justify Israel’s gruesome crimes of war is so insulting to the intellect that in itself it could be considered a crime, a crime of language, if it made any sense to have such a category of crimes. Indeed, if it were advisable to condone the development of a criminal law for “hate speech”, then Israel’s spin, uttered in the context of its massacres in Gaza, should certainly qualify as “hate speech”.

As usual, Israel turns everything on its head. The Israel Lobby seeks “hate speech” laws to be enacted in all the aligned states, to prevent criticism of Israel, as being “anti-Semitic” speech of course. This explicitly exists in France, and persists in Canada, where one elderly Canadian citizen was sent to jail in Germany for years for printed publications denying “the” holocaust. Here, the Lobby finds allies in well-meaning middle-class advocates of purified language who wrongly and self-servingly believe that racism can and should be reduced by strict language and social behaviour codes.

If it were serious about discussing rights, Israel would admit the Palestinian rights of return and of self-determination. It would respect the right to life and liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would respect the Geneva Conventions on military occupation. It would release all of its Palestinian prisoners. It would stop using its mass-killing machine against civilians, and so on. After that, it would also agree to be judged independently in making substantial reparations to all Palestinians, especially those occupied and the refugees.

Q: The United Nations has just appointed a fact-finding committee to probe into Israel’s possible war crimes during its recent military operation against the Gaza Strip. Do you see the political will and determination in the United Nations to really hold Israel accountable and investigate its criminal conduct in an impartial and fair way?

A: We’ll see. The more interesting question is whether citizens will provide a significant backlash if the commissioners do not properly do what must be done. And, will Israel and the Empire succeed in derailing this UN commission of inquiry into Israel’s war crimes?

Will this commission allow the UN to salvage some credibility? Will the Lobby succeed in its personal attacks against the commission’s chairman? Will anything significant on the ground come from the legalistic exercise?

Nothing significant has come from the UN in the past. This Gaza massacre was as criminal and as evil as the previous one. The only evolution has been the development of the remarkable Gazan military resistance, from killing three invading soldiers in the previous land incursion, to some 70 Israeli soldiers this time. We can only hope that this progression will continue, enough to deter Israel.

Q: What do you think is the reason for Israel’s obduracy in keeping the blockade of Gaza Strip in place and its continued refusal to lift it? Is the siege going to serve certain purposes, such as the demonization of Hamas and turning the residents of Gaza against it?

A: Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation. Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners.

Over 300 Nazi Holocaust survivors and their descendants recently signed an open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times, calling what Israel is doing what it is, genocide. Israel’s attempted genocide of Palestinians is also expressly cheered-on by many Israeli citizens and by members of the Zionist diaspora of all religions.

Therefore, the Israeli apartheid is not meant as a sustained apartheid. It is an increment in the attempted genocide that accompanies the racist pillaging of land and resources. The massacres in Gaza and the collective punishments against Gazans can be understood only in this context.

As such, Israel will continue the gruesome intimidations of all sorts, which are Israel’s history, and which are intended to cause Palestinians to flee from Palestine. Israel wants Gaza. And, Israel wants all Palestinians out of the greater Israel that it is creating.

The US accepts Israel’s crimes against Palestinians because the US “accepts” Israel’s conviction that this is necessary for Israel’s “security”. The US acceptance of the Zionist genocide is part of the negotiated understanding between the Empire and Israel. The US propaganda about seeking restraint is purely deflection and risk management for the Empire.

Furthermore, Israel knows that a real impediment to its greater design, its final solution, is Palestinian armed resistance, presently limited to Gaza. Israel, therefore, has an illegitimate military objective to strangle the armed resistance and to murder its leaders and closest enablers, and the Zionists willfully disregard international law to pursue this aim. It is a classic dirty war of extermination of popular armed resistance. If Israel cannot kill the armed resistance, then it plans to expel and kill the population that supports the resistance. In any case, it wants Gaza.

Within this criminal mentality, there is no way that Israel will voluntarily relax the blockade. The fight to dissolve the blockade, and even just to have Israel respect the general language of the ceasefire agreement to ease restrictions at the Gaza border crossings, will be continuous and arduous.

This is what Israel does. It strangles Palestinians. Only real pressures can slow Israel and, one day soon, turn it around. Things can happen. Populations can enforce democratic rule. Leaders can side with popular movements. Anything is possible when resisters everywhere become committed and determined. It happened in the recent past with liberation struggles everywhere when the British Empire was forced to retract, and with civil rights and democratized institutions in the 1960s. It’s happening in Latin America now. It’s happening on the streets. It can happen again and everywhere.

This interview was originally published on Fars News Agency.

——-

How Canada’s NDP enables and seeks to participate in the Israel genocide of Gaza By Denis G. Rancourt

NDPnoprinci

By Denis G. Rancourt

DenisGRancourt

It is no longer a question of serious debate whether Israel’s intentions and actions constitute genocide, versus less serious crimes against humanity, or simple war crimes [1]. The Israeli establishment, Jewish Israeli citizens, and some prominent members of the Jewish diaspora all expressly call for genocide (extermination, cleansing, “mowing the grass”, etc.). Op-Eds and media statements by Israeli government officials are explicit. Thus, Israel’s actions since 1948 need not speak for themselves, although the actions themselves do speak plenty loud enough. [2][3][4]

All three major Canadian political parties (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP) directly enable the Israel genocide against Palestinians by:

  1. staunchly refusing to condemn Israel for its now-routine mass slaughters in Gaza, or for its latest and most brazen mass slaughter in Gaza of the last month;
  2. expressly, repeatedly, and glibly insisting that Israel — the aggressor, occupier, and perpetrator — has a “right to defend itself”;
  3. accepting and enforcing the US-Israel stance that the forefront formation of Palestinian resistance — Hamas, the elected representatives of Gazans — is a “terrorist” organization;
  4. using this contrived classification of Hamas as a false pretext for allowing the Israel genocide to continue unimpeded, and as a pretext to prevent any meaningful negotiations by allowing Hamas to be excluded from all settlement discussions.

The Green party also plays this role admirably well.

But mostly one has to admire the Conservatives for being consistently vehement with their support for the terrorist state of Israel, whereas the others are pathetic in the apologetic tone of their public statements in support of Israeli crimes, and in their sustained attempts to deceive their potential supporters.

And it is an obvious question to ask how it is that all these parties follow the exact same script? It’s almost like there is an edict being decreed from some unseen body, otherwise known as the Israel Lobby — the US-Empire’s de facto whip on the Empire’s Middle East policy [3].

Back to the NDP. In trying to deceive concerned Canadian citizens while serving the Israeli project of genocide, the Zionist Thomas Mulcair (leader of the NDP) is testing a particularly disturbing tactic: He wants to “bring injured children from Gaza to Canada for treatment” [5][6][7]. Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish is apparently allowing himself to be used in this way, and is fully participating in the proposed scheme [5][6][7].

The NDP would have us follow Dr. Abuelaish who “rejected the politics of hatred and revenge, and instead committed himself to reconciliation and love” [5]. Translated, in its context I take this to mean: to not condemn Israel for its abominable on-going crimes, including incremental genocide, and, instead, to remove children from Gaza in a vast guilt-alleviation scam rather than demand that the blockade be lifted immediately so that all Gazans can begin to benefit from improved medical care and healthier living conditions.

As far as I can tell, this latest public-image-management scheme is not something that originated from Gazan civil society, or from the victims themselves and their extended families. Such systematic child removal is an ethical nightmare: How could this crass proposal have been cooked up and why? Have any of the MDs who want to participate ever asked to volunteer in Gaza, or have they ever spoken out against the Israeli crimes against humanity in Gaza? On so on.

This is lower than low: “Let’s save Gazan children by bringing a token 100 of them to modern medicine in Toronto! Let’s put all the needed diplomatic and logistical resources into this scheme rather than sending aid to Gaza to the people in the field who best know the priorities of what is needed.”

One of the possible defining characteristic of genocide is “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” [1]. Arguably, this is the only characteristic of genocide that racist-Israel had not yet materialized. It would appear that it took Canadian multiculturalism and the NDP — benefiting from Canada’s extensive experience from its own highly successful genocide against the First Peoples [2] — to bring us there.

Bravo Thomas.

To me, the NDP scheme is repugnant, à la Zionist Mulcair, and it shows how naive the Canadian public has become (at least the potential supporters of the NDP) that such projects can be proposed for public consumption, and seriously be echoed in some media, without critical analysis. Have we gone mad?

——–

Endnotes

[1] See the definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes given in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 5 to 8.

[2] “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.

[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] “Israel-US has interrupted its slaughter in Gaza only to press forward with its genocide” by Denis G. Rancourt, August 6, 2014; http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2014/08/israel-us-has-interupted-its-slaughter.html — and at Dissident Voice.

[5] “Act now to help bring injured children from Gaza to Canada for treatment” NDP petition started in the last few days; http://petition.ndp.ca/children-from-Gaza

[6] “Canadians can help to heal wound in the Holy Land — Canadians should help save 100 children wounded in Gaza by bringing them here to be treated, says Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish” Toronto Star, July 30, 2014; http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/07/30/canadians_can_help_to_heal_wound_in_the_holy_land.html

[7] This entire blog article is, obviously, an opinion piece. The author does not question that Dr. Abuelaish authentically holds well-meaning personal motives. The author does not know Dr. Abuelaish. This article is meant as sociopolitical analysis in an attempt to understand the mechanisms of complicity and of cover-up regarding Israel’s abominable on-going crimes, which operate in Canada.

———

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