Stephen Lendman

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional bill of rights, states:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

dom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association."

Article 7 assures

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

According to Yale Law Professor and constitutional scholar Thomas I. Emerson (1908 - 1981):

"Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society."

With no free expression right, all others are at risk at a time dissent is called a threat to national security, terrorism, or treason. Howard Zinn called it "the highest form of patriotism," and according to Voltaire, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

In a post-9/11 climate, it's more than ever endangered, academic tenure affording no protection; to wit, Professor Denis Rancourt's University of Ottawa (U of O) March 31, 2009 firing, ostensibly for pedagogical reasons, but as he said:

"I was fired under the false pretext of having arbitrarily assigned high grades in one course in the winter 2008 semester. [To do so], the university had to dispense with due process. In the words of the professors' union's lawyer, my dismissal was 'both a denial of substantive and procedural rights....and a contravention of the basic principles of natural justice.' "

More »

Victor Korgun

The development of the situation in Afghanistan over the last 12 months has been influenced by the new US strategy approved by President Barack Obama in April 2009. As opposed to the strategy of George Bush the strategy of Obama’s government implies not only strengthening US and NATO military presence in the country but also trying to solve the country’s domestic problems: poor economy, corruption, drug traffic, inefficient government, weak local armed forces and police. However drug traffic is not seen as a very important issue because considering that the consumption of Afghan drugs in the US is smaller than in Europe. Also within the new strategy Obama also linked Afghanistan with Pakistan into one knot of problems called “AfPak”.

Until recently we have not seen any significant changes in the Afghan policy of Washington. In January-September of 2009 the US government officials were mainly busy with the problem of presidential elections in Afghanistan, shuffling numerous possible candidates in Kabul. Another couple of months they were thinking about the controversial results of the elections and finally with heavy heart they agreed to recognize Hamid Karzai (who they were sick and tired of) as the reelected president. Than the White House and the Congress began to work on a ruling on bringing more troops to Afghanistan. In December 2009 and January 2010 Washington was preparing for an Afghan conference in London and only in February operation Mushtarak was launched in Helmand province, which was the beginning of practical implementation of the new strategy.

More »

Anait Brutian

On February 2, 2010, the Israeli Knesset held the inaugural meeting of The Lobby for Greater Israel. According to Knesset members Arye Eldad (National Union), "This kind of lobby should have been unnecessary … We could have expected that after disengagement [from Gaza and parts of northern Samaria in 2005] all talk of creating a Palestinian state would have been taken off the table and that no one would try to get rid of settlements … Instead, we are once more hearing about a two-state solution and a [construction] freeze. I am certain that with this unity we can save the Land of Israel"(1). Made up of 39 Knesset members, out of which 12 from Netanyahu's Likud party and others from Shas, Israel Beiteinu, Habayit Hayehudi, the National Union, United Torah Judaism and Kadima, the lobby aims at acting as a "protective wall against any threat to the settlements"(2). Minister-without-portfolio Bennie Begin (Likud) went further than the official mission of the lobby, suggesting that the creation of a Palestinian state threatened Jewish security and rights to the Land of Israel(3). Yoav Sorek and Moriya Taassan, representing The Israeli Initiative, expressed a similar sentiment during the meeting: "We hope that this important lobby will grow to support Eretz Yisrael and help stop the discrimination against Israeli citizens living in Judea and Samaria"(4).

The claims of "discrimination against Israeli citizens living in Judea and Samaria" are unsubstantiated. Of course, there is discrimination, but it is aimed at Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. The charge of discrimination clarifies the mindset and the aims of The Israeli Initiative.

More »