Nonviolence International Canada

Global solidarity must remain engaged for the long haul to support the civil resistance to military rule in Myanmar/Burma.

On 1 February in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, elected members of the national parliament were prepared to take their seats for the first time since the November 2020 election. On that morning an ‘interim president’ invited the head of the military to take all power in the country- judicial, legislative and executive.

This was not a spur of the moment action, but one for which the military had well planned. Within the coming hours you could practically keep beat with the passing minutes as notice after notice was issued by the military Commander in Chief dismissed national and local government officials, and judges. These in turn were followed by notice after notice of new appointments to those positions, appointed solely by the Commander in Chief of Myanmar’s armed forces.

In the following days, the military formed a council which was half civilian, including members of some ethnic groups as the core of government. The military seizure of power was endorsed by 23 existing political parties (most of whom had not captured seats in the November elections). Before even a week had gone by, the military appointed government’s Foreign Minister had held his first briefing with the diplomatic corps within the country to explain the legal nature of the transfer of power.

The events of 1 February reveal a well prepared and thought out action by the military to seize total control, again, of Myanmar. They have taken pains to avoid international censure by cloaking the power grab in legal clauses in the 2008 Constitution. Clauses the military wrote, which allowed it transfer to itself all state powers when vague, undefined circumstances were met.

All the actions of the military reveal that they need one thing that all their military power cannot seize for them. Legitimacy. International solidarity actions must make sure they never obtain it.

Civil Resistance

The seizure of state institutions by the military has not been welcomed by the majority of the citizenry who have for the past days gathered in the tens of thousands to say one thing to the military- it isn’t you who we elected.

A campaign of civil disobedience was launched on 3^rd February, when hundreds of doctors and nurses from the government hospitals launched a civil disobedience movement calling for the release of those arrested since the coup, and called for parliament to convene with the parliamentarians democratically elected in the Nov. 8 general election.

Civil servants walked off the job or wore a red-ribbon campaign to show their defiance against the coup while continuing to work.

More broadly, citizens have banged pots and pans at 8pm every night since Tuesday to oppose military rule. By 5^th February thousands of government staff, doctors, nurses, students, professors and teachers at 91 government hospitals, 18 universities and colleges and 12 government departments in 79 townships across the country were on strike.

The citizenry have urged police in Myanmar’s major cities to disobey any orders to repress them and to join the citizens in rejecting military rule.

Myanmar’s veteran activists from 1988 uprising, the 88 Generation for Peace and Open Society, called for people to take multiple approaches, including a boycott of military-run businesses, to oppose military rule. People must find other ways to reduce military revenue, they said in a statement. The military is involved in areas like banking, breweries, buses, telecoms, tobacco and TV channels. “People should stop using their services and boycott shops where their products are sold,”

Officially recognize the non-military government

Some parliamentarians did not obey the military order to ‘go home’, and remained in the capital of Naypyitaw. Three days after the military seized power they held a ceremony to swear themselves into the parliament, despite the military order to leave. They are now acting on their own as elected people’s representatives. 70 lawmakers from the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) took parliamentary oaths of office at an improvised swearing-in ceremony on 4^th February at the government housing, where lawmakers normally stay during parliamentary sessions. One elected representative stated that they were “convening of the Parliament”, saying the venue didn’t matter as long as there were lawmakers in attendance. “No one can take away the legitimacy of the MP status granted to us by the people. That’s why we took oaths as parliamentarians-for the people,” Other MPs who had obeyed military orders to leave were to take their oaths online.

All governments who care about democratic values should immediately state that they officially recognize the parliamentarians who were elected by the people, not the military government. They should ask any diplomatic staff of a Myanmar embassy in their country which group they will represent. If they say they represent the elected officials support them. If they say they represent the military regime, expel them. This is the sole way by which nations can withhold legitimacy from the military formed government.

Financial Pressure and sanctions

Telenor is a Norwegian telecoms company in which the Government of Norway is the major share holderª. It is one of 4 major telecoms providers in Myanmar (the other 3 are Myanmar Post and Telecommunications, a joint venture between the Vietnames and Myanmar Army, and Qatari based telecom company.

Telenor has blocked social media (Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, Instagram) on its mobile internet at the request of the Myanmar military. It notes on its website that this request is ‘legal under Myanmar law’, but states that it said to the authorities that the order contravenes international human rights law.

Telenor’s actions demonstrate that it is willing to accept that the military government is a legitimate by stating that its laws are legitimate. Telnor agreement to act against human rights norms legitimizes the military regime, despite a 5 February UN Security Council statement which urged “respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law” in Myanmar.

Telenor is not the only company engaged with the military in Myanmar, but it is the one whose actions allow repression of dissent at this critical time, which the United Nations Security Council stated must be protected. The U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) identified at least 120 businesses involved in everything from construction to pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, insurance, tourism and banking being owned by two military owned business conglomerates, Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC). The FFM called for imposition of an arms embargo, citing at least 14 foreign firms from seven nations that have supplied fighter jets, armored combat vehicles, warships, missiles and missile launchers to Myanmar since 2016.

Illegitimate laws must never be obeyed. The military regime has kept colonial laws, or written new ones with which it controls, oppresses or punishes the population. Like Burma’s former colonial rulers, it rules by law. There is no rule of law.

Without legitimacy, the military government will not be able to normalize its rule. This will undercut the main power of the military regime, as they need the international community to treat the situation as normal and themselves as legitimate. To stand in solidarity with the struggle in Myanmar, international citizens should persuade or pressure their governments to withhold that legitimacy.

ªCaisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec is Telenor’s third largest institutional investor.

Nonviolence in Asia Series Number 2,

Nonviolence International, 2005

22 January 2021 Nuclear Weapons Are Banned

Today, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons becomes international law.

Civil society has struggled for decades to bring about a global convention banning nuclear weapons, the last weapon of mass destruction now to have a treaty which comprehensively prohibits the use, production stockpiling or trade of the weapon.

This is an enormous achievement in which we can all celebrate. The civil society network which coordinated global action to bring this treaty into being is the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). Nonviolence International is part of this campaign, as it is other humanitarian disarmament movements (see Humanitarian Disarmament)

While Canada does not possess any nuclear weapons, and while many Canadian provinces have passed resolution declaring themselves nuclear weapons free (and many Canadian municipalities have signed the ICAN cities pledge), our neighbour to the immediate south has many.

British Columbia shares the Salish Sea with the US state of Washington, and the channel through which it sails its largest fleet of nuclear armed vessels, the Trident nuclear weapon submarine fleet. It also houses the world’s largest known arsenal of nuclear weapons just 50 mi. off the BC coastline.

Residents of both BC and Washington State who live along this waterway joined together to proclaim today that nuclear weapons are now banned.

This photo action was produced in cooperation with Washington Against Nuclear Weapons and Mines Action Canada.

Old Growth Blockade at Western Forest Products, Observations

About 20 citizens from various corners of southern Vancouver Island gathered on the morning of 2 December at the entrance to the Western Forest Products log yard in Ladysmith, southerm Vancouver Island, British Columbia. I took part as a legal observer.

Background- Despite significant public opposition to further cutting in Vancouver Islands remaining old growth, or ancient, forests, the BC government has been slow to implement any decision on the future of the timber industry. People who valued the old growth as an irreplaceable habitat had asked for the government to halt further cutting, and to demand transition to second growth as a sustainable forest product. As early as 1995, the timber industry agreed with environmentalist that a transition plan away from old growth cutting should be put in place, however successive BC governments have not done so. Most recently, the current government delayed publication of a government mandated review on old growth forestry until near the end of the timber season for the year. The review has, as one of its suggestions, government-to-government negotiations on old growth, meaning until agreements are reached with all of the many first nations in BC, no plan will go forward.

Frustrated at a lack of action while remaining forests are cut, some Vancouver Island local residents organized a one day blockade of trucks carrying old growth from southern Vancouver Island to a log yard.

When the activists arrived, they kept to local pandemic protocols with everyone wearing masks and anyone outside of a shared household remaining 2 meters apart. Long banners were used which allowed 2 meter spacing to block the road.

Shortly after the road into the log yard was blocked by these citizens, a company representative came out and asked people to move off the roadway of the entrance to the log yard. The blockade was announced to him, to which the company representative responded, “I’ll call the RCMP if that’s what you want. Of course its what you want. You want the media here.” He then walked away. Clearly in his mind there was no need for dialogue or negotiation, as there was nothing to negotiate- the protesters could not possibly have legitimate grievances, and were just publicity seeking.

The blockade was at a 4 way intersection. Cars were free to travel on any of the other roads without hindrance, including all trucks going to areas other than the log yard. Also workers vehicles going to the log yard were not prevented from entry, although the protesters did try to engage workers in dialogue. None did. One aggressively and very dangerously rammed his vehicle through the citizens and banner on the entrance to the log yard.

Ordinary passersby on other roads and side walks generally expressed support for the blockade with its clearly stated message of saving old growth. However, workers at the saw mill generally made rude gestures and calls.

The first 2 logging trucks carrying old growth approached the intersection, saw the banners blocking access to the log yar and instead of turning into the log yard, turned into an adjacent open lot and stopped.

The RCMP arrived and asked for the groups intention. He stressed his respect for their right to protest and claimed his main interest was public safety. He asked that the blockade be removed and stand to the side and ‘then you can protest all you want as long as you do not hinder traffic into the work place’.

These were extremely revealing comments, whilst affirming a right to protest, he also wanted to marginalize any effect of it. This shows a breathtaking lack of understanding about what protest is, despite the affirmation a right to do so. In essence what he was telling the protesters is ‘we really don’t want to know what you have to say, so stand out of the way so we can go about our business and completely ignore you’.

After offering this supposed compromise, which apparently the officer thought was reasonable, came the threats. He stated that with the pandemic gatherings above a certain number are prohibited and observing that the gathered citizens was larger than that stated he could levy a $2,300 fine on the group. Whilst the group pointed out that they were observing pandemic protocols with mask and distance, the officer stated this is something he would consider doing. [Note, this is a discretionary fine, not mandatory, the officer has to determine that the group is posing a public health risk. This would be difficult, but it wouldn’t necessarily stop the officer from doing so. The activists would have to later take it to court to have it overturned. Also it is not clear how he arrived at the $2300 figure, as the Order states $2000 for an organizer of an event or $200 for participants.]

The RCMP then left to speak with company officials.

Some time later, two more logging trucks arrived and were met in the middle of the roadway by a WFP company representative. Each truck pulled forward, into the intersection, effectively blocking the intersection to all traffic on the adjoining roads.

While the RCMP had warned the group that they may be cited for blocking public roads, they were blocking only the entrance to the log yard, not the public roadway, but that roadway was effectively closed by the logging company trucks pulling across it diagonally.

This led to some hostility by local traffic who had to try to get through the intersection. One driver became aggressive and plowed through the intersection driving erratically and at high speed. Bad luck for him, he did this directly in front of an RCMP officers who was speaking to the protesters, and the RCMP went after the driver, it is unknown if he received a citation. Some logging company employees who had gathered on an adjacent lot had laughed and cheered as the car became aggressive. One driver sitting in the truck blocking the intersection shouted obscenities at the protesters in front of him. All this in video below.

More RCMP officers subsequently arrived and said that anyone who remained on the blockade would be subject to prosecution. The charge was criminal mischief for blocking a road. Anyone so charged would have additional conditions on them, such as no return to the area where the charge occurred. The threat of a criminal offense was quite a high penalty with lots or possible long term ramifications for anyone so cited.

One of the arriving RCMP officers said, echoing the first one “you can stand to the side and protest but you can’t prohibit someone from doing their work”. A very strange statement since just now during the pandemic, many businesses have been ordered shut for the public good. They have been ‘prohibited from working’. A lot of them. No one has a right to work, it is a privilege and comes with responsibilities, and if a job is no longer considered to be good for the society it becomes prohibited. Happens all the time. Many government policies result in both job creation and job elimination. Also, unfortunate shouts from company workers at the protesters to “get a job”. I can’t believe people still shout this, but it again shows a mind state which does not accept that these people could have any form of legitimate grievance. Of course, some of them may well be very afraid that this would negatively affect their work, despite the fact that the blockade activists attempted to make clear by their signs that was not logging they they were opposed to, only old growth logging.

Negotiations dragged on for some time on this, and a set of people willing to be arrested separated from those unwilling to be arrested that day. As negotiations continued until the time when the blockade was to end, everyone then left after notifying the RCMP and company that they were ending the blockade for that day.

As a legal observer, I maintained neutrality and stood away from the group of people forming the blockade or holding signs and banners. I only came close when there were interactions between either the blockade participants and the RCMP or the company representatives so I could fairly record the interaction.

Standing on the side I overheard the company employees who were gathered in the yard where the earlier logging trucks had parked, who said “What is taking the police so long? It is a no-brainer! Just bring a truck and haul all these protesters away!” From these remarks it is apparent that they believed the role of the police is to remove inconveniences.

The RCMP for its part, could have taken a stance of non-interference in the protest and just routed traffic to assure public safety. They didn’t do much of that, but focused their attention on trying to remove the protest instead. If the RCMP had not interfered, it would have led to a situation where the company would need to decide if it wanted to suspend operations for the blockade or perhaps negotiate with the protest.

I wonder if any of them watched CBC news the previous day. In India, a group of farmers were blocking roads to the capital New Delhi and being harassed and persecuted by police for doing so. The only foreign leader to give them support was the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated, “Canada will always be there to defend the rights of peaceful protest. Healthy democracies allow peaceful protest. I urge those involved to uphold this fundamental right.”

Currently, old growth forests can be legally cut down. This could continue until none are left standing in British Columbia. A very few ancient forests continue to live happily in a very few protected areas. And virtually all those enclaves of old forest have only been established after citizen action, frequently involving blockades. Blockades are a peaceful form of free of expression guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They may be inconvenient, but they are peaceful.
The RCMP should uphold the free expression bringing up moral issues of public policy, however in Ladysmith the RCMP instead demonstrated they seek play the role of the blunt instrument for the financial interests which profit off ancient forest destruction.

A further observation is that the blocking of the public intersection by the WFP trucks, which escalated action by the RCMP in their threats of legal sanctions on the blockade participants, occurred immediately after the RCMP went to speak with the company representatives, one of whom went to the intersection and instructed the arriving trucks to pull forward to that spot. All subsequent RCMP activity was solely focused on the blockade, not traffic management.

The RCMP is not the enforcement arm of the forest industry. Their officers should be trained to adapt a policy of strict non-interference and public safety and allow social interests to be expressed and pursued freely.

Note: Nonviolence International Canada has supported the training of legal observers at public demonstrations. Legal observers should know law relevant to public gatherings, rights and freedoms and local ordinances and remain strictly outside the activities of events which they monitor and be prepared to report clearly on any infractions observed from by any party.

Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons a challenge to all permanent members of the U.N. (In)Security Council

On 24 January 1946, the first resolution of the newly created United Nations General Assembly established a commission with a mandate to make specific proposals for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Today, seventy four years later, on 24 October 2020 the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) came into force when the 50^th state ratified it.

To repeat the words uttered yesterday by Setsuko Thurlow, a Hibakusha who survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, “This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.”

This is a victory for citizen action, led by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of almost 60 civil society groups around the planet. States are only following where citizen action has led. Now, for the first time, people on whom nuclear weapons were tested will now have rights.

The nine nations, who terrorize us all with omnicide, and who have kept the entire world and all its citizens hostage for the past 75 years are now being called out on their actions. Their nuclear weapons are not just immoral now but illegal.

The TPNW bans development, testing, production, manufacture, transfer, possession, stockpiling of nuclear weapons. It bans the use, or threatened use of nuclear weapons. It prohibits any state party to the treaty from allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. It also prohibits states party to the treaty from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any of these activities.

States party to the convention are obliged to provide assistance to all victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons and to take measures for the remediation of contaminated environments.

The preamble acknowledges the harm suffered as a result of nuclear weapons, including the disproportionate impact on women and girls, and on indigenous peoples around the world.

States which join the convention must agree to destroy any nuclear weapons in their possession with a legally binding, time-bound plan. Any state which joins the convention and has another states nuclear weapons on their territory must agree to have them removed by a specified time.

The obligation to universalize the Treaty can have profound impact.

Following the 50^th needed ratification, the convention enters into legal force in 90 days time, on 21 January 2021.

The embrace of the TPNW by the global community stands in stark contrast to the United States where just a few days ago it sentenced one of its citizens to almost 3 years in prison for protesting the continued existence and threat of use of nuclear weapons by the US.

Nonviolence International webinars: People Power in Sudan

We hope everyone has been well since the last webinar on the collaborative work of our partners, the Palestinian Holy Land Trust, and the Center For Jewish Nonviolence. Our webinar series entitled, We are All Part of One Another, brings diverse nonviolent campaigns and voices directly to you. We are excited to host another on People Power in Sudan. You can register using this link.

Sudan’s revolution in 2019 was truly remarkable: A successful removal of a 30-year Islamist dictatorship by a secular revolution with nation-wide support and major leadership from women. Sudan has an exciting future, but also tremendous challenges. They are not getting the full support from the US and other nations that they need and deserve.

One year after the successful overthrow of the al-Bashir dictatorship, NVI will host Sudanese leaders and a US congresswoman in a webinar about the revolution and the current situation of the Sudanese people and government. Our Sudanese speakers will share their hopes and plans for Sudan’s future and articulate ways in which the international community and specifically the USA can help.

Our speakers will include Khartoum-based experts: Asma Ismail Ahmed – a well known civil society activist, Anthony Haggar – a prominent businessman and influential leader, as well as Jalelah Sophia Ahmed – a leader in the Sudanese diaspora in Washington DC. We will also have US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal speak about what US and global citizens can do to help get the US government to de-list Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism and provide more support for the fledgling democracy.

Our host will be Michael Beer, NVI Director, who provided much needed support for the Sudanese people during the uprising.

Please help us spread the word about this global conversation on Wednesday, July 1st at 10:30 AM EDT. Again, you can register here.

Peace,

Mubarak Awad

President, Nonviolence International

P.S. As you know, Nonviolence International provides resources to movements all around the world. These tools are needed now more than ever. Check out our growing database of Nonviolent Tactics, and our NV Training Archive, which is a partnership between NVI and Rutgers University International Institute for Peace.

http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/

Peacefulness in Canada?

How do we measure peace? The 2020 Global Peace Index (GPI) has just been released (June 2020), and has the un-enviable task of determining the peacefulness in our globally diverse societies.

Compared to other countries, Canada’s ranks near the top in sixth position is unchanged from 2019. For smugness, yes, we rate far above our southern neighbour, who came in at 121 (out of 163 countries measured). This years ranking does include the beginnings of recent demonstrations on race relations, environmental concern and police violence in North America.

The ranking across countries takes into account governance types, claims that its indicators cover 99.7 per cent of the global population, and uses 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators in three thematic domains: the level of Societal Safety and Security; the extent of Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarisation.

The GPI also seeks to identify trends in Positive Peace: the attitudes, institutions, and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, and examines the relationship between the actual peace of a country, as measured by the GPI, and Positive Peace, and how a deficit of Positive Peace can be a predictor of future increases in violent conflict.

The indicators are: External Conflicts Fought; Perceptions of Criminality; Internal Conflicts Fought; Incarceration Rate; Intensity of Internal Conflict; Violent Demonstrations; Terrorism Impact; Nuclear and Heavy Weapons; Deaths from External Conflict; Weapons Imports; Violent Crime; Political Instability; Neighbouring Countries Relations; Access to Small Arms; Police Rate; Armed Services Personnel Rate; Weapons Exports; Homicide Rate; Military Expenditure (% GDP); Refugees and IDPs; Political Terror Scale; Deaths from Internal Conflict; UN Peacekeeping Funding.

According to the 2020 GPI, “Canada’s overall level of peacefulness improved slightly, thanks to improvements in scores across all three GPI domains. The single largest improvement occurred on the terrorism impact indicator. Canada had a spike in terrorism between 2017 and 2018, with 16 people killed from 16 confirmed terrorist attacks. However, the number of attacks and deaths dropped in 2019, leading to the improvement in score on the 2020 GPI. Canada also had improvements both its incarceration rate and police rate. However, there was a slight increase in the homicide rate, which rose to 1.8 per 100,000 people, and also slight increases in military expenditure and weapons exports” It should be noted here, that the police rate is the number of police per 100,000 people. Canada’s police rate is almost identical to the Nordic countries, ie very low numbers of police per citizen. Civil unrest is primarily non-violent demonstrations, followed by general strikes and riots.

There are subsections of the GPI which look at each of the above indicators in itself and regionally. Specific changes, either positive or negative for individual countries can be found. The report is important reading for everyone concerned with the building of more peaceful societies. That should be all of us….

Global Peace Index 2020, June 2020

Special Report: COVID-19 & Peace, June 2020

Both by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP). IEP is headquartered in Sydney, with offices in New York, The Hague, Mexico City, Brussels and Harare.

Project to Save the World video interview with founder of Nonviolence International

Project Save the World Watch Video Talk Show with activists in Nonviolence International by Metta Spencer

Mubarak Awad was a Palestinian Christian psychotherapist who realized that his clients did not need therapy; they needed freedom. Which led him to found the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence, which the Israeli government did not appreciate — it created an effective nonviolent intifada. The work continues, and Metta speaks with Awad and three other leaders in Nonviolence International: Michael Beer (working in the USA), Andre Kamenshikov (working now from Kiev, Ukraine), and Yeshua Moser Puangsuwan (working from both Southeast Asia and Canada). They are optimistic about the importance, and the liklihood of being able to, continue their work, even in the hard post-Covid society and economy.

Video: https://youtu.be/DAInkwifZf4

Audio Podcast: https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/projectsavetheworld/id/14574656

Metta Spencer, is the Editor of Canada’s Peace Magazine and producer of the video magazine Project Save the World. The video’s can be found on the inter-disciplinary Platform for Survival on the Project to Save the World website. The Platform is a set of public policy proposals, if adopted together, will greatly reduce the risk of six grave, inter-dependent threats to humankind: War & Weapons, Global Warming, Famine, Pandemics, Radiation Exposure, Cyber Attacks, Enabling Measures and Fatal Combinations. If you accept at least 20 of the 25 planks outlined under the above grave threats, scroll down on the site and add your endorsement, and ask your organization to endorse too, listing its website there.

Canada institutes a comprehensive ban on assault weapons with immediate effect

Today, International Workers Day 2020, the Canadian government banned, with immediate effect, the sale, transfer, importation and use of assault style weapons. The ban covers 1,500 models and variants of assault style firearms, and will be amended to include new models in the future.

At a national press conference by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Justin Trudeau and several cabinet members including the Minister for Public Safety Mr. Bill Blair, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ms. Chrystia Freeland and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mr. David Lametti, outlined the scope of the ban.

The Prime Minister opened the Press Conference by recalling his own college age experience of learning of the 1989 mass shooting at the École Polytechnique in Montreal where a gunman separated out and killed female students. Mr. Trudeau reflected on his disbelief about how such an event could happen within the country. In perhaps an oblique critique of American policy he stated, “Prayers and thoughts are not enough.” and continued,“Because of gun violence, people are dying, families are grieving, and communities are suffering. It must end. Assault-style firearms designed for military use have no place in Canada. By removing them from our streets, we will limit the devastating effects of gun-related violence and help make our country safer.”

Mr. Blair, the Public Safety Minister, noted that there had been wide support for an assault weapons ban by the public in Canada for years and today’s actions were a response to that. He also noted that public concern regarding the militarization of the police was directly tied to the militarization of the public which had occurred through the acquisition of military grade weapons by some members of the public. He noted that this ban will increase public safety from individuals motivated by racism and misogyny.

Ms. Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister noted that a disproportionate percentage of the victims are women, and that the fetishization of weapons and femicide it enabled needed to stop. She provided statistics on the numbers of women specifically targeted by violence, and further noted that owning a weapon designed to kill many people was part of making one look like they could kill many people. She noted that this law will protect women and is firmly within the Canadian government’s feminist policies.

While the ban on use, transfer, sale, and importation is in effect immediately, a two year amnesty is in place for current owners regarding possession. Gun shops may apply for a permit to export back to manufactures, and current private owners may apply within those 2 years to export a now illegal firearm. The government will propose legislation to Parliament for a ‘fair market’ buy back as well. There are exceptions under the amnesty for Indigenous peoples exercising Aboriginal or treaty rights to hunt, and for those who hunt or trap to sustain themselves or their families. These exceptions will allow for the continued use of newly prohibited firearms in limited circumstances until a suitable replacement can be found. By the end of the amnesty period, all firearms owners must comply with the ban.

Nonviolence International is a founding member of the International Action Network on Small Arms, a global movement against gun violence that links hundreds of organizations working to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons.

BC Capital paper stigmatizes protest

On 27 March the Times Colonist of Victoria British Columbia published an opinion piece titled:

“P olice OT costs rise sharply thanks to protests, rallies” The editorial notes that the costs the police spent in attending to climate protests in the BC capital had increased dramatically. The paper reported that “department had spent $183,000 to police 34 protests, compared with $82,765 on 40 events all of last year…almost as many events as they did in 2019, the department says the protests have been “longer, larger and more resource-intensive” in the first two months of 2020.”

While appearing to be a factual statement of events, the editors appear to lay the blame on the protests for additional costs. Really? While the Times-Colonist wrote that protests are longer and larger than previous, they failed to ask why? The rejection of a policy of environmental exploitation by a ‘larger’ section of the public, which at that particular time was focused on an indigenous land dispute, were the mobilizing factors.

Why not a headline of ‘Public opposition to gas pipeline leads to increased costs for city’? Well one reason may be the ownership of the capital city’s newspaper. It was purchased nine years ago by Glacier Media, whose energy division publish the Daily Oil Bulletin and Oilweek magazine, and the Canoils brand of data products and the Heavy Oil & Oilsands Guidebook. To say that the Times-Colonist ownership is invested in fossil fuels is an understatement, it is a part of the industry. Glacier Media’s purchase of many local newspapers in the metropolitan Vancouver area, especially those through which the Trans-Canada pipeline expansion will pass is something to pause and consider as well.

It has long been noted that the press is free to those who own them, and today they are mostly owned by corporations. They are not a public good which does its reporting without fear or favour any more. Despite the fact that pipeline construction is continuing during the corona virus crisis, the environmental movement is supporting a commitment to public health by practicing the social distancing requested by our health sector and not putting its numbers out on the street.

Soon, however, restrictions on public distancing will be lifted. What will occur then? A British academic made the following prescient observations that the public will have “… a renewed awareness of the fragility of our complex societies, of global interconnectedness, and the benefits of taking heed of scientific warnings and prescriptions. The pandemic occurred against a backdrop of unprecedented concerns about climate change and accumulated impacts of extreme events. Anyone who thinks that Covid-19 has displaced this may be in for a shock: It could be precisely the opposite.”

Bad Optics: Canadian state projects protesters as a danger to the public

Images and video distributed on the media of highly militarized police personnel used by Canadian authorities to dismantle a protest encampment and arrest the protesters were very disturbing, and certainly problematic from a civil liberties and civil rights perspective.

Encampments have a long history as a civil disobedience tactic, across cultures, as a means of expressing disapproval and defiance.

Civil disobedience is just that, its civil. It does not threaten the existing order by armed insurrection. However it does chose to, temporarily, disregard or disobey some ordinances or laws by a group which does not feel its grievances have been heard, or adequately addressed.

Civil disobedience, also known as nonviolent direct action, may be a path chosen by some citizens if the normal channels of redress do not work satisfactorily, or they feel their concerns are being systematically ignored. Political action, as opposed to violent action, is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is not always a convenient document for the powerful, especially when their actions put them at odds with it.

There are important questions to be asked, and answers demanded, of why the police felt the need to be so heavily armed. Pleas of self protection are unacceptable. It cannot be that they simply had no intelligence on the make up of the inhabitants of the protest encampment. That would imply incompetence beyond belief. While the author cannot speak to their thinking, their actions do send a clear message to the public, and this may be intentional: protest is a danger to society.

The current demand by the ruling authorities for lawful behaviour is another message: protest is outlawed unless you just stand quietly to the side with a protest sign while the outrage happens. This is both unrealistic and unacceptable.

The encampments and blockades have acted as power equalizers, they have brought the government to the table when they had previously felt comfortable to ignore the grievances. It is not reasonable to expect the movement give up all its power first on the promise of talks later.

The authorities are currently cloaking their demands as obedience to the law. But what they are really practicing represents rule by law rather than the rule of law.

Encampments and blockades are a clear nonviolent tactic, and as such, provide no threat to public what-so-ever, regardless of the inconveniences it causes. Whether the inconveniences will bring allies or enemies to the movement is a separate decision which needs to be assessed, repeatedly, by the organizers. Nonviolent civil disobedience has a rich diversity of methods of engagement and resistance and activists are required to regularly update their political assessment of suitable nonviolent actions according to the stage and status of a struggle for the public imagination.

Highly militarized policing sends the wrong signal, unless the state is an authoritarian one, in which case it just an honest statement of contempt for the ruled.