The Spanish Civil War (1936-39)-Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory- The CWI View

History Spanish civil war 27/04/2009


Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory

Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales)

The Spanish civil war (1936-39) was the bloodiest stage in the ten year-long Spanish revolution that began in 1931. Spain was a further confirmation of Leon Trotsky’s theory of ’permanent revolution’, which was earlier borne out in the Russian workers’ socialist revolution of 1917.

But unlike Russia in 1917, where the revolutionary leadership under Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks was decisive, in Spain the workers’ leaders vacillated between reform and revolution, thereby allowing the capitalists to reassert control and the triumph of Franco. In this, the Spanish capitalists were aided by the Stalinist Communist Party.

On 1 April 1939, General Franco declared victory after three years of civil war, which followed an attempted coup by army officers against Spain’s democratically elected Republican government.

Franco’s victory, backed to the hilt by the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany, marked the opening bars of the bloodiest war in human history - the second world war - which began exactly five months later. In Spain Franco’s dictatorship continued until his death in 1975.

During the civil war the ’white terror’ of Franco’s nationalist armies cost 200,000 lives, according to historian Anthony Beevor. Franco’s regime went on to consolidate its power with the blood of Spanish workers - with up to 200,000 killed in the aftermath of the war. It was only last year that the Spanish government officially recognised the suffering that took place under the dictatorship, when it accepted that those who had suffered repression or had lost family were ’victims’.

The net result of this bloody war was an appalling defeat for the working class. Yet there is another side to it: the incredible heroism and self-sacrifice of the Spanish working class in its struggle against fascism and for social and economic liberation. Leon Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary, said, "One can neither expect nor ask for a movement of greater scope, greater endurance, greater heroism on the part of the workers than we were able to observe in Spain."

Even those capitalist historians who have studied Spain seriously, have felt compelled to reflect the courage and determination of the Spanish working class. Beevor, for example, describes how the working class in Barcelona responded to the fascist uprising with "a desperate selfless bravery". He vividly pictures how the unarmed working class of Barcelona prepared to prevent the nationalist army seizing control of their city:

"Isolated armouries were seized and weapons were taken from four ships in the harbour. Even the rusting hulk of the prison ship Uruguay was stormed, so as to take the warders’ weapons. The UGT dockers’ union knew of a shipment of dynamite in the port, and once that was seized, home-made grenades were manufactured all through the night. Every gun shop in the city was stripped bare. Cars and lorries were requisitioned and metal workers fixed crude armour plating while sandbags were piled behind truck cabs."

Beevor goes on to describe the key moment the next day when the battle turned in favour of the workers:

"At one moment during the fighting, a small group of workers and an assault guard rushed across to an insurgent artillery detachment with two 75mm guns. They held their rifles above their head to show that they were not attacking as they rushed up to the astonished soldiers. Out of breath, they poured forth passionate arguments why the soldiers should not fire on their brothers, telling them that they had been tricked by their officers. The guns were turned around and brought to bear on the rebel forces. From then on more and more soldiers joined the workers and assault guards."

Fear of revolution

In addition to boundless heroism and sound class instincts on how best to conduct the war, the Spanish working class and poor peasantry had enormous international support. This did not come from the capitalist democracies, which under the guise of ’neutrality’ refused to aid the Spanish Republic. The reason for this - mortal fear of the revolution - was explained clearly by George Orwell in Homage to Catalonia, based on his own experiences in Spain:

"Foreign capital was heavily invested in Spain. The Barcelona Traction Company, for instance, represented ten millions of British Capital; and meanwhile the trade unions had seized all the transport in Catalonia. If the revolution went forward there would be no compensation, or very little."

However, the international working class, along with many young intellectuals, were enthralled by the Spanish revolution. Worldwide, workers followed the conflict with baited breath.

Around 40,000 people from 53 different countries went to Spain to join the war against Franco. They included writers such as Orwell, Upton Sinclair, Ernest Hemingway, and, more decisively, thousands of young workers - more than 2,300 of whom came from the factories and mines of Britain and Ireland. And yet, despite this tremendous international class solidarity, the workers in Spain were defeated.

Stages theory

Seventy years on, the reasons for the defeat in Spain are not just of historical interest. Some factors, particularly the role of Stalinism, are not present in the same way today. As Orwell commented, "in reality it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain."

Stalinist policy was not motivated by the interests of the working class, but rather by fear of upsetting the USSR’s diplomatic relations with the major capitalist powers, and terror that the revolutionary upsurge of the working class in Spain would infect the working class of the Soviet Union, by now crushed under Stalin’s monstrous bureaucratic machine. Even the Stalinist secret police agents, sent to Spain to crush the revolution in blood, were themselves mostly killed once they returned to Russia for fear that they had been infected with the heady aroma of a genuine revolutionary upsurge by the masses.

The Stalinist regimes are no more. However, the Stalinist justification for their policy in Spain - the stages theory - that is that it was necessary to first win the war against fascism and to have a period of capitalist democracy, only worrying about the question of socialism at some future date - has already come up in a different form today. It will do so on a broader scale in the future, particularly in the neo-colonial world, where many of the conditions that existed in Spain in the 1930s still apply today.

Even now the left government in Bolivia, to give one example, which has been elected on a wave of popular support, and has introduced some reforms to assist the working class and the poor. At the same time, socialism is something for the future, and, today, the government emphasises the need to compromise and negotiate with the brutal, capitalist right-wing opposition which has kept the Bolivian masses in dire poverty for generations. Giving this need for compromise as the reason, government troops have forcibly evicted land occupations of the poor peasants.

Today we do not yet live in a global era of revolution and counter-revolution such as existed in the 1930s. Nonetheless, the profound economic crisis that is developing worldwide will, over the coming years, lead to revolutionary struggles, which, if they are to be successful, will need to learn the lessons of Spain.

Weakness of capitalism

Just as it is the weakest economies of Europe - largely in Eastern Europe, but also Spain where unemployment has leapt to 14% - that are suffering worst in the current economic crisis, Spain was devastated by the 1930s depression. As in Russia in 1917, capitalism broke at its weakest link in Spain. Spain, once the most powerful country in Europe, had suffered what Karl Marx called a ’slow, inglorious decay’ over centuries. In this respect a certain comparison can be drawn with Britain today. The Spanish elite - the monarchy, church, the army and hangers on - had amassed enormous wealth as a result of the plunder of South America. This, however, became their downfall, as the backward feudal regime crushed the nascent capitalist class under piles of gold and silver. Capitalism, as it belatedly developed, was weak and intertwined with both the old feudal regime and the world imperialist powers. In the 1930s what very limited industry had developed was largely foreign owned. Spain was responsible for only 1.1% of world trade.

In 1931 of the eleven million that made up Spain’s economically active population eight million were poor, their work provided no more than subsistence, and often less. The monarchy and the Catholic Church, which were closely intertwined, were hated by the majority of the working class and poor. In April 1931, the revolution began when, under phenomenal mass pressure including a series of general strikes, the king abdicated and a republic was declared led by the capitalist republican, Manuel Azaña. The popular hopes that this would mean a better life for the majority were, however, soon deflated as the republic acted in the interests of the same ruling elite. Not for nothing did one moderate describe Azaña’s government as one of ’mud, blood and tears’.

The republican government was incapable of carrying out the basic tasks of the capitalist democratic revolution. For example, around 70% of the population still worked on the land. The division of land was the worst in Europe, with the poor peasantry owning only one third of the most infertile land. The only solution to this would have been the nationalisation of the two thirds of the land held by the big landowners. But Spain’s financial and industrial capitalism had completely merged with the big landowners. No capitalist government was therefore prepared to challenge their power. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, landowner was the Catholic Church. While the population began to take measures into its own hands, including the widespread burning of churches, the government moved at a snail’s pace - proposing measures that did no more than trim the fingernails of the church.

At the same time peasants’ revolts and workers’ strikes, and particularly the anarchist trade union - the CNT, were met with increasingly brutal repression. In one particularly vicious example in early 1933, peasants in a village called Casas Viejas, who after two years of patiently waiting for land reform, had independently begun to till the local aristocrats’ land, were gunned down by the Civil Guard, with twenty of them being killed.

No wonder that, in the elections that followed in 1933, the government parties lost. As a result the forces of outright reaction came to power. The new government, however, had a very limited social base. In 1934 it was replaced by a reactionary dictatorship. This was met with an enormous uprising of opposition by the working class and poor peasantry. This culminated in the Asturian Commune which the dictatorship called in Franco to crush - 5,000 were killed mostly after surrendering.

This was the background to the elections in February 1936 which brought the Popular Front government to power. Azaña was again prime minister. PSOE, the mass social democratic party, won the largest number of seats of the parties that made up the Popular Front. All the government ministers, however, came from the capitalist parties. Having been burnt by their experience of taking part in the 1931-33 Azaña government, the left wing of PSOE prevented the right wing from joining the government. The programme of the government was exceedingly limited, even when compared to 1931-33.

Both the working class and poor and the representatives of capital had learnt lessons from the last five years. The workers and poor peasants did not wait for the new government to act. Around 30,000 political prisoners were liberated. Between February and July there were 113 general strikes and 228 other major strikes. Peasants started to occupy the land.

At the same time the capitalists drew the conclusion that they could not defend their system by democratic means - and began to prepare the ground for Franco’s coup.

When the coup came the working class responded, as has already been described, with enormous heroism. They were horribly hampered by a government which, as Beevor quotes one Seville carpenter as explaining, "were not prepared to give us [the workers] arms because they were more afraid of the working class than they were of the army." Nonetheless, as Upton Sinclair witnessed, "these educated workers and their wives ...charged machine guns with carving knives and pieces of board with nails sticking out."

Where they successfully pushed back the fascists the workers held power in their hands. Felix Morrow, in his book, Revolution and Counter Revolution in Spain 1931-1937, explained how the anti-fascist militia in Catalonia, based on workers’ organisations, conquered the Aragon region in five days from 19 July. "They conquered Aragon as a social liberation army. They formed anti-fascist village committees, expropriated land, harvests, cattle, tools etc, from the landlords and the reactionaries. Then the village committee organised production on its new foundation, usually in the shape of a collective and created a village militia to implement the socialisation and to fight reaction."

In republican Spain the capitalist class did not exist, having fled with the fascists. Beevor describes how in Barcelona the anarchists installed their headquarters in the former premises of the Employers’ Federation. The Ritz was used as ’Gastronomic Unit No 1’, a public canteen for all those in need. He goes on to explain how: "In Barcelona worker committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Vulcano, Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises."

Class collaboration

However, the myth that was perpetuated, in essence, by the leadership of all the major workers parties, and above all by the Communist Party, was that in order to preserve ’unity’ with capitalist forces in the fight against fascism it was necessary to postpone the struggle for socialism to some later date. Beevor accurately states that "the most outspoken champions of private property were not the liberal republicans, as might have been expected, but the Communist Party."

At the same time the power of the working class was never organised via democratic workers’ committees, linked up locally, regionally and nationally in the way that took place twenty years earlier in the soviets of the Russian revolution.

The Communist Party did not bear sole responsibility. In Barcelona, for example, Garcia Oliver, the anarchist leader (the anarchists were the strongest force in Barcelona), explained how the anarchists could easily have taken power in July 1936 ’because all the forces were on our side’ but did not do so because, they did not ’believe in doing so’. This did not prevent the anarchist leaders, including Oliver, later joining the Popular Front government together with capitalist parties. In this way the role of the leaders of the workers’ parties allowed the capitalist class, initially no more than a shadow, gradually to regain substance before physically repressing the socialist revolution in May 1937.

Far from strengthening the fight against fascism, the policy of the workers’ leaders resulted in the defeat of that fight. Desperate to re-establish the rule of big capital, and to avoid upsetting the world imperialist powers, the heads of the workers’ organisations refused to adopt the policies that were necessary to win over ordinary soldiers fighting on the side of Franco.

Programme, party and leadership

The fascist coup was launched from Morocco, and many North African soldiers fought on the side of Franco. Yet the Republican government did not inscribe independence for Morocco on its banner. To do so would have quickly and dramatically fermented revolt in Franco’s army. Nor was the republican government prepared to call for expropriation of the big landowners, which would have been invaluable in winning those poor peasants who did not support the republic over.

There are obviously only very limited comparisons that can be drawn between the struggle to defeat Franco’s armies, backed to the hilt by the Spanish ruling class, and the campaigns socialists are involved in today against the far-right, racist British National Party. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learnt. The approach of the majority of Unite Against Fascism, which has widespread trade union support, is to limit its demand to the plea ’don’t vote BNP’. UAF’s organisers argue that to put forward anything else would alienate the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians who support the campaign. However, it is the anti-working class policies of the big three parties that have played the main role in driving a layer of workers to vote for the BNP. A genuine workers’ party, putting forward a clear class programme, is the only means by which the BNP can be undermined. It is for this reason that the decision of the railway and transport workers’ union, the RMT, to initiate a challenge in the European elections is so important.

The working class of Spain instinctively had the right approach to how they could win victory. Unfortunately, no party existed which was capable of, and willing to, put forward and campaign for a programme that expressed and codified the approach taken by the working class. Today, the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) is known internationally to a younger generation chiefly as a result of Ken Loach’s excellent film, ’Land and Freedom’. The POUM was an anti-Stalinist party that, once the revolution had been crushed, suffered horrific repression at the hands of the Stalinists, including the murder of its leader Andre Nin.

Despite being decried as ’Trotskyist’ by the Stalinists, the POUM was no such thing. If it had followed the programme put forward by Trotsky from afar, the outcome of the Spanish struggle would have been completely different. Under the impact of the revolution the POUM grew in membership very quickly - from 8,000 on the eve of the civil war it quadrupled its membership in a few months - and potentially could have grown far more. Tragically, however, rather than putting an independent class programme forward, it trailed behind the anarchist and social democratic parties - standing a little to the left - but not putting forward any clear alternative.

Trotsky, in his tremendous article, ’The Class, the Party, and the Leadership’, takes up those who argued that the working class in Spain did not take power because they were ’immature’.

"What does the ’immaturity’ of the proletariat signify in this case? Self-evidently only this, that despite the correct political line chosen by the masses they were unable to smash the coalition of Socialists, Stalinists, Anarchists, and the POUMists with the bourgeoisie."

"The workers’ line of march at all times cut at a certain angle to the line of the leadership. And at the most critical moments this angle became 180 degrees. The leadership then helped directly or indirectly to subdue the workers by armed force."

The twentieth century was littered with attempts by working-class people to overthrow capitalism and to carry out the socialist transformation of society. In a litany of tragic failures, none is more heart rending than the events in Spain, nor so rich in lessons of what might have been, had the working class had a leadership worthy of it. Today we are just beginning to witness the full brutality and bankruptcy of twenty-first century capitalism. There is no doubt that in the future we will see struggles to transform society which will dwarf even the greatest events of the twentieth century. If, this time, we are to succeed in building a new society that meets the needs of all, it is essential that the new generation of young people now looking to socialist ideas study the lessons of the great battles of the century, including the lessons of Spain, only a few of which are touched on here.


Spanish revolution timeline
• April 1931 revolution establishes the second republic. King Alfonso goes into exile. Pro-worker reforms introduced.
• July-August 1933. Strike wave. General strike in Seville crushed by Republican government artillery.
• November 1933. Elections to Cortes (national parliament). Rightists and monarchists form government with Lerroux as prime minister (PM); begins to repeal reforms.
• October-November 1934. General strike of socialists and anarchists defeated. Lerroux calls in Franco to crush uprising of Asturian miners.
• August-September 1935. Communist International (Comintern) proclaims Popular Front policy. Founding of POUM.
• February 1936. New elections brings Popular Front to power; Azana is PM; anarchists and POUM support Popular Front in the election.
• July 1936. Spanish Communist Party declares full support to government. Fascists rising begins in Morocco and spreads to Spain. Companys (leader of the Catalan regional government - the Generalitat) refuses to distribute arms. Workers seize arms.
• September 1936. Largo Caballero (left wing leader of Socialist Party) becomes PM on condition that CP join government. CNT and POUM join Generalitat.
• October 1936. Central government ends independence of militias. Siege of Madrid begins.
• November 1936. Central government reorganised to include Anarchists. International Brigades arrive in Madrid.
• December 1936. POUM expelled from government. Letter from Stalin to Caballero insists on protection of private property.
• May 1937. Government attempt to seize Barcelona telephone exchange from Anarchists leads to new workers’ upsurge; Negrin (right wing leader of Socialist Party) replaces Caballero as PM.
• June 1937. POUM outlawed by central government; leaders arrested.
• April-June 1938. Franco’s forces reach coast, cutting Republican Spain in half.
• November 1938. International Brigades withdraw from Spain.
• January 1939. Barcelona surrenders to Franco.
• February 1939. France and Britain recognise Franco while Republicans still hold a third of Spain.
• March 1939. Madrid and Valencia surrender.
• April 1939. US recognises Franco.
• August 1939. Stalin-Hitler pact.

Anarchism vs. the revolutionary fight for state power -From The Pen Of Friedrich Engels

Militant

Vol.64/No.45 November 27, 2000


Anarchism vs. the revolutionary fight for state power


Printed below are excerpts from the writings of Frederick Engels on anarchism, a petty-bourgeois current against which Engels and Karl Marx, founders of the modern communist movement, waged a political struggle within the working--class movement in the 1860s and 1870s.

The main anarchist grouping at the time was headed by Russian radical Mikhail Bakunin. They preached that the state, not capitalism, was the problem facing working people. Workers should abstain from political activity and instead declare a general strike to wait for the old regime to collapse. The Bakuninists postured as "anti-authoritarian" while in reality "constitut[ing] themselves as a secret society with a hierarchical organization, and under . . . [an] absolutely dictatorial leadership" directed by Bakunin himself, Engels explained.

The first and the third items reprinted below can be found in Marx and Engels’s Selected Works, volume 2, and the second piece in their Selected Correspondence, both published by Progress Publishers.

BY FREDERICK ENGELS
("Apropos of Working-Class Political Action," a reporter’s record of a speech delivered on Sept. 21, 1871, at the London conference of the International Workingmen’s Association.)

Complete abstention from political action is impossible. The abstentionist press participates in politics every day. It is only a question of how one does it and of what politics one engages in. For the rest, to us abstention is impossible. The working-class party functions as a political party in most countries, by now, and it is not for us to ruin it by preaching abstention. Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not, be it for political or for social goals. To preach abstention to them is to throw them into the embrace of bourgeois politics. The morning after the Paris Commune, which has made proletarian political action an order of the day, abstention is entirely out of the question.

We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics! The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers’ party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.

The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press--those are our weapons. Are we to sit back and abstain while somebody tries to rob us of them? It is said that a political act on our part implies that we accept the existing state of affairs. On the contrary, so long as this state of affairs offers us the means of protesting against it, our use of these means does not signify that we recognize the prevailing order.


(From a letter to T. Cuno in Milan, Italy, Jan. 24, 1872.)

Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism. The chief point concerning the former is that it does not regard capital i.e., the class antagonism between capitalists and wage workers which has arisen through social development, but the state as the main evil to be abolished.

While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers are of the same opinion as we i.e., that state power is nothing more than the organisation which the ruling classes--landowners and capitalists--have provided for themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production.

But since for Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can keep the state--that is, any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy, or anything else--alive. Hence complete abstention from all politics. To commit a political act, especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to carry on propaganda, heap abuse upon the state, organize and when all the workers, hence the majority, are won over, all the authorities are to be deposed, the state abolished and replaced with the organization of the International. This great act with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.

All this sounds extremely radical and is so simple that it can be learnt by heart in five minutes; that is why the Bakuninist theory has speedily found favor also in Italy and Spain among young lawyers, doctors, and other doctrinaires. But the mass of the workers will never allow itself to be persuaded that the public affairs of their countries are not also their own affairs; they are naturally politically-minded and whoever tries to make them believe that they should leave politics alone will in the end be dropped by them. To preach to the workers that they should in all circumstances abstain from politics is to drive them into the arms of the priests or the bourgeois republicans.


(From "On Authority," an article published in December 1873.)

Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the authoritarian political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets, and cannon--authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

From The Quebec "War Zone"-ISO Interview with Quebec Strike Leaders-Wear Your Red Badge Of Solidarity

Markin comment:

This is a very informative interview that covers and explains many of the main points and organizations involved in the struggle in Quebec.

http://socialistworker.org/2012/06/04/a-monster-that-will-haunt-them

They created a monster that will haunt them
June 4, 2012

Students have been on strike for months in the Canadian province of Québec in an attempt to stop the government's proposed increase in the cost of tuition at public universities.

With the education system effectively shut down and faced with almost daily demonstrations of students and their supporters, Québec's government, led by Premier Jean Charest of the Liberal Party, has attempted to repress the movement with mass arrests and escalating legal restrictions. Québec's parliament passed Bill 78 to curtail the right to assemble.

However, that law has only spurred the movement to greater heights. On May 22, about 300,000 students and workers protested the tuition increases and Bill 78. Since then, there have been nightly illegal demonstrations of thousands throughout Québec--and solidarity actions have spread to the rest of Canada.

The largest student union organizing the strike is CLASSÉ, which stands for Coalition large de l'association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante , (Coalition of the Association for Student Union Solidarity). CLASSÉ is itself a coalition of different Associations for Student Union Solidarity (ASSÉ). Guillaume Legault is the general coordinator of CLASSÉ and Guillaume Vézina is the secretary of information for CLASSÉ. They spoke to Ashley Smith about the role the union has played and how activists organized.

Student demonstrators defied the recently passed repressive law known as Bill 78

WHAT ARE the key issues in the struggle?

Vézina: We are on strike against tuition hikes imposed on us by the Charest government. Our union, CLASSÉ, is founded on the idea that education should be free and a social right. When Charest proposed tuition increases, we said we wouldn't accept this. That's the main issue in the strike.

We reject the idea that the universities need more money from us. They have increased their enrollment and are meeting their budgetary needs that way. But there are deeper reasons we raise as well about what education should be about. They want it to be about research and development for Nike and the other companies. We think education should be about improving society, not making profit. 


WHY IS the Charest government trying to impose the tuition increase?

Legault: Since 2007, they just started to do really intense things. Even before the 2008 economic crisis, they announced they were going to put in place a big austerity plan. They decided to dramatically bring down the level of taxes for enterprises. They even abolished the last tax on business capital starting in 2007.

Then they said, "We don't have enough money. We need to increase the cost of public services to balance our budgets." You know, the song is always the same. They put little taxes on every service. In health care, they put some fees on medicine. They did the same for many other services. But faced with that situation, resistance by unions and other organizations really began in 2010.

We knew that they would come for education next. So in 2010, when they proposed this tuition increases, we were like, "Whoa, what's going to happen? What are we going to do with this?" At this time, ASSÉ, which spearheaded the formation of CLASSÉ, just decided that we're going to try to make a big information campaign for everyone concerning the tuition hike

At that time, it was already clear for ASSÉ that nothing could stop the government except a general strike. At that time, everybody was looking at us, saying, "Ah, look at all the dreamers who all want to go on strike." They never thought that we would be able to get 150,000 people out on strike.

After the two hard first months of general strike, many protests and direct actions had already been organized, and we set up a huge rally in Montreal that united the voices of more then 200,000 people. For that event, on March 22, we had more than 320,000 people on strike for one day. This was just--I'll use a bad word--fucking amazing. We saw the local student associations coming out, one after the other. The list of student associations on strike was starting to get long!

So maybe we had big ambitions, but I think today's struggle just confirms that anything is possible. Now the masses of people have actually gone even further to our left. We don't have any more control on what's going on, and it's beautiful.

Just look at the protest on May 22. It was one of the biggest protests in Canada's history. We were really surprised by its size because this strike is getting really, really, really long.

But the government just went into attack mode. They systematically tried to bring us down with Bill 78, which basically criminalizes organizing. But that law just outraged people and expanded the struggle. Everyone turned out on May 22. So they've created a monster of determined new activists that will haunt them for at least the next decade.

WHAT IS Bill 78 and what has been the response to it?

Vézina: The law does several things. First, it suspended the semesters until August. So they basically shut down all the universities, whether they were on strike on or not, to try to paralyze the strike.

Second, the law gave the cops the right to ban a protest of 50 or more people if the organizers don't submit the hour, date, time and route of the march to authorities. The cops can even change the route if it breaks the "social peace." I mean, if we're making a protest against the prime minister being somewhere, they can just tell us "go protest in another city on another day." This is absurd.

This law affects more than just students. It affects everyone, including the traditional trade unions. They can even suspend automatic dues collection to the unions if people violate this law.

Legault: This law has given the police a blank check to go after activists. But CLASSÉ has announced that we will not respect that law. By doing that, we're exposing ourselves to massive fines.

Vézina: Despite this intimidation, I think the law has backfired. You could see this on May 22. On the 22nd, some student organizations gave the authorities one legal itinerary that almost everyone did not like. So it was put to the demonstration whether they wanted to go the legal route or the illegal one.

Everyone, the entire demonstration, opted for the illegal itinerary. So the whole march of hundreds of thousands was illegal. This was the biggest act of civil disobedience of the last 40 years in Québec.

Legault: Ever since the passage of the law and especially since the 22nd, people are marching every single night, banging pots and pans together in what we call casseroles. People gather together every night on a volunteer basis. There is no organization, no speakers, no sound system and no security. People just gather in a park, and march every night. And every night, there are anywhere from 2,000 to 100,000 people in the streets if you add up all the small protests that take place in lots of towns and cities across Québec.

Vézina: Last year's biggest demonstration was on Mach 31. It was the biggest event of last year's campaign--I was arrested there--and we had between 5,000 and 10,000 people in the street. It was a huge demonstration, and we were proud. And now that's happening every night. People are violating the law and showing their opposition to the government.

HOW STRONG is the strike across Québec?

Vézina: It depends on the campus. On some campuses, it is very strong, and others not so strong. It depends on how effectively students are organized. On the strong campuses,, they understand the meaning of the problem: they don't strike for meaningless concessions, they strike for their rights. This is what they want, after being out on strike for so long--they really want their rights.

Legault: We have over 160,000 people who are on general strike for various reasons. From them, more than 100,000 are striking for more radical demands. Some are on strike until we get a reasonable offer from the government; others until we get back the 2007 level of tuition; still others until we get free tuition; and there is even one campus that recently voted to be on strike until the social revolution, even though this is not part of CLASSÉ platform.

These 100,000 people are not coming off the strike until we get a reasonable offer at least on tuition fees.

Until now, we didn't have a single offer from the government on tuition fees. This is astonishing, because right now, they've lost way more money than they would have gotten from the tuition hike. They have not even finished counting how much this strike is going to cost them. This truly shows the political and ideological objectives behind the tuition hike.

WHY DO you think the struggle go so large this time compared to previous student struggles?

Vézina: I think the international context helps explains why the struggle is so big. After the big strike of 2005, the government came back at us in 2007. They implemented a tuition hike of $100 dollars each year over five years, and the mobilizations just went down and nothing happened. In 2011, the Arab Spring inspired us.

Legault: On top of that, the Occupy movement showed people that it's possible to make a move and to protest. But there are also specific reasons here in Québec. I think this year, one of the main differences is the size of CLASSÉ and the place that ASSÉ had in this whole struggle.

We built a huge national team of volunteers, organized the campuses, laid the groundwork and built general assemblies to prepare for the strike. Many of us went through the mistakes and setbacks of 2007. We learned a lot from that.

In all the organizing, many teased us for being so romantic, thinking that we could ever do something as big, as large, as long and as dynamic as the 2005 student strike, which was the biggest in the history of Québec. But with this strike, I mean we just completely broke all historical records of student militancy.

HOW IS CLASSÉ organized, and how does it differ from the other two student unions, FEUZ and FECQ?

Legault: I think the main difference is direct democracy. In our organization, we never wanted to tell people what to do, but we wanted people to tell us what to do. We just don't organize an entire campus in one union. We organize our local unions by academic departments, so that we can have as deep roots as possible, involving as many students as possible.

Two other major differences between the national organizations are definitely principles and actions. ASSÉ and CLASSÉ proclaim ourselves as part of combative syndicalism. This main principle of our organization defines the actions we make to get heard.

This type of unionism made us build our movement completely independent of the political parties. Another key idea for us is that we need to be a fighting union based on the complete rejection of collaboration. We also are principled feminists. These principles have structured our struggle. CLASSÉ is really a grassroots movement.

I could not say that for FEUQ or FECQ. They try to have really tight control. However, with the growth of CLASSÉ, we have been able to have a lot of influence on the other student unions, pushing them to the left and into a more combative stance. That is a real breakthrough compared to the past.

SO HOW do you coordinate this grassroots democratic unionism across the whole of Québec?

Legault: We have a strike committee of 12 to 20 people that is elected. On top of that, we have almost 55 volunteers who are part of various committees to organize things throughout Québec. These people are really committed, risking their jobs, taking time away from their families, girlfriends and boyfriends. They go throughout Québec just trying to keep the strike going on and helping people organize actions.

SO HAS CLASSÉ grown larger and more influential as a result of the strike?

Legault: ASSÉ has grown from 42,500 at the beginning of the strike to 55,000. CLASSÉ has grown to about 100,000 members. We've grown because CLASSÉ was the major leader of the strike. In fact, CLASSÉ started the strike. Lots of people just turned to us and said, "Well, they're fighting. They're leading the strike, they're leading the struggle so why not join them." I think that's pretty much what initiated that big enlargement of ASSÉ. We completely and totally took the lead.

HOW DO you collaborate with the other student unions?

Vézina: In the beginning of the struggle, you had a big tension between the different organizations. The other two unions were intimidated by Charest and were not friendly toward CLASSÉ and our combative union principle. So we didn't collaborate that much.

But then we worked together on a series of demonstrations against the tuition hike. After that, we formed a joint negotiating committee that agreed to hold firm on the things we agreed on--like stopping the tuition hike.

Legault: We have built unprecedented solidarity between the student unions. This was put to the test as well by the government. It tried to exclude CLASSÉ three times from the negotiations. But we have kept our unity strong so far.

The other unions have not been sucked into separate negotiations without us. However, our differences remain strong, and there is a history with the other national organizations. We experienced this in the 2005 strike when the other unions made separate deals from us. We have to take this into consideration in the political strategies we use.

ONE TRADITIONAL division in the student movement in Québec has been between Anglophone campuses and Francophone campuses. Have you been able to overcome this division?

Legault: We were successful in this effort, really for the first time ever. We had two people on the national team who made it a priority to go to McGill and Concordia, the main Anglophone campuses in Québec, to organize them for the strike. It worked at Concordia beautifully, but not at McGill.

There is a really big cultural gap between unions on the Francophone campuses and Anglophone campuses. They are organized in a completely different manner. They have big unions organized across the whole campus. In most cases, CLASSÉ is organized department by department. We had to work a lot to organize to get their departments on strike, to join CLASSÉ or to participate in actions.

They often have campus-wide general assemblies and mostly use Robert's Rules to run them. These assemblies are not that effective in organizing a strike because only a minority of the campus tends to turn out. The problem then is how to you keep the strike when you have a minority who are at the assembly voting for it.

That's why the smaller organizations established in the departments are more effective. For example, if you have a 2,000-student department and, let's say, 1,200 people who vote for the strike, the strikers will be able mobilize stronger and bigger picket lines.

On the other hand, if you have a campus general assembly that represents 40,000 students and 5,000 attend and vote for the strike--which is pretty impressive--there are still 35,000 people who just didn't vote on it, didn't think about it and don't know how it's going to be applied.

Another difference is probably that historically, the Anglophone campuses had way richer populations than the Francophone universities. L'Université du Québec à Montréal in Montreal has always been the poor people's university, the place where the first people in their families to go to college would go, and that makes a clear difference.

While it's been a struggle to overcome these differences, we've achieved an unprecedented solidarity between Francophone and Anglophone campuses, and we mean to go forward with this work.

WHAT HAS been the relation between the Québec strike and other campuses in Canada?

Vézina: Education is a political responsibility of the provinces in Canada. So one province's decision does not have big impact on other provinces. But solidarity is always welcome, and we have tried our best to cultivate it. But it's just starting. We are beginning to see this across Canada with calls for casseroles in many cities.

HAS THE student strike won solidarity from the trade union movement?

Legault: We have gotten overwhelming support. Most of the unions have passed resolutions in support of our strike. They have given us big donations. They bring people to every protest we have. We even have unions that pay for buses to bring people from one place to another to build the picket lines.

Vézina: Lots of teachers and other public-service workers have joined our picket lines. The whole education sector is really angry with the government, and is really against that the tuition hike and Bill 78. And they are really taking a part in the struggle.

WHAT WAS the response to CLASSÉ's call for a social strike, a general strike against government's policy?

Vézina: We didn't have much of a response to that call because the traditional unions are not legally allowed to stage a political strike. If they do, the government can go after them to try to destroy them. And they have a lot to lose--money, buildings and much more. That's why they did not respond to the call for a social strike.

Legault: Not yet, but there are dynamics that can change that situation. In 2010, because of Charest's radical attacks on public services, lots of unions took a formal position in favor of a social strike. One of the three big unions in Québec, Confédération des Syndicats Nationaux, took a position in favor of a political and social strike. But they did not act on it.

The idea of a social strike came from some of our local unions. But a social strike has to be planned in a serious way. We have work on it, inform people and concentrate on mass preparations.

We are part of the coalition called Against Tarification and Privatization of the Public Services. This coalition is going to be a major leader in discussing plans for social strike. It may be able over the coming months to build momentum for a real social strike against the Charest government.

HOW DO you see the struggle in Québec in relation to the struggle throughout the world against austerity?

Legault: I'm proud to say we're one of the major movements in North America at the moment. We never thought it could happen here. But people see what's going on throughout the world, what happened in the Middle East, and what's happened in the Occupy movement.

All of these actions opened everyone's minds about the problems with our economies, all the absurd financial speculation, and how much we live in a false world, with false things and false debates. In this system, our future is gambled on the roll of dice.

We can consider ourselves in the same global struggle, even if they are affected dramatically worse than we are here, and the fight is not on the same scale, too. In Greece, it's a social revolution. Here, we're still banging pots and pans. However, we are pleased to consider the actual mobilization the start of something that could somehow grow bigger.

WHERE DOES the struggle go from here?

Legault: After the discussions we had in the congress, we have decided not to negotiate separate agreements with the local administrations of the campuses. Everybody was pretty determined to continue the strike.

But we might have problems starting the strike again in August. The government is betting that there will be a large backlash against us in the fall. But the government has also discredited itself with its repression, with all these arrests, and with their stupid law.

In reality, they are spending far more money on suspending the semester and all this police activity than they would ever make through the tuition increases. It's completely insane.

So we have to continue organizing through the summer. In Montreal during the summer, there are 200,000 to 300,000 people in the streets every night for the festivals. That is a huge opportunity for us to distribute information, give out our newspaper and win over more and more people to our struggle. It's going to be a hot summer.

Vézina: We have to continue the strike to stop the tuition hikes. We have to win. We don't have a choice. If we win, it's going to be better for all the rest of Canada and North America. If the student movement here falls, it's going to be worse for everyone. We have no choice but to win. In the process, we are giving birth to a new left to take on the government on many other questions.

Transcription by Karen Dominguez Burke, Michael Stemle and William Crane.


--

From The Anti-NATO Battleground In Chicago On May 20th-The Vets Throw Their Medals Away-A Transcript-"Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars."

AMY GOODMAN: Today we bring you a Memorial Day special, "Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars." That was the demand of veterans who gathered in Chicago May 20th at the site of the largest NATO summit in the organization’s six-decade history. The veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as women from Afghans for Peace led a peace march of thousands of people to the summit gates. Iraq Veterans Against the War held a ceremony where more than 40 veterans hurled their war medals toward the gates of the NATO summit.
ASH WOOLSON: No NATO, no war!
VETERANS: No NATO, no war!
ASH WOOLSON: We don’t work for you no more!
VETERANS: We don’t work for you no more!
ASH WOOLSON: N-A-T-O!
VETERANS: N-A-T-O!
ASH WOOLSON: We don’t kill for you no more!
VETERANS: We don’t kill for you no more!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: At this time, one by one, veterans of the wars of NATO will walk up on stage. They will tell us why they chose to return their medals to NATO. I urge you to honor them by listening to their stories. Nowhere else will you hear from so many who fought these wars about their journey from fighting a war to demanding peace. Some of us killed innocents. Some of us helped in continuing these wars from home. Some of us watched our friends die. Some of us are not here, because we took our own lives. We did not get the care promised to us by our government. All of us watched failed policies turn into bloodshed. Listen to us, hear us, and think: was any of this worth it?
CROWD: No!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: Do these medals thank us for a job well done?
CROWD: No!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: Do they mask lies, corruption, and abuse of young men and women who swore to defend their country?
CROWD: Yes!
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: We tear off this mask. Hear us.
IRIS FELICIANO: My name is Iris Feliciano. I served in the Marine Corps. And in January of 2002, I deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. And I want to tell the folks behind us, in these enclosed walls, where they build more policies based on lies and fear, that we no longer stand for them. We no longer stand for their lies, their failed policies and these unjust wars. Bring our troops home and end the war now. They can have these back.
PETE SULLIVAN: My name is Pete Sullivan. I served in the Army National Guard for 12 years. And all I have to say is that this is not something that I’m proud of.
ERICA SLONE: My name is Erica Slone. I’m from Ohio. I served in the Air Force from 2002 to 2008. I’m an Iraq veteran. In the military is where I learned what integrity meant, and I believe I served with integrity. And at this point in my life, if I want to continue to live with integrity, I must get rid of these.
GREG MILLER: My name is Greg Miller. I’m a veteran of the United States Army infantry with service in Iraq 2009. The military hands out cheap tokens like this to soldiers, servicemembers, in an attempt to fill the void where their conscience used to be once they indoctrinate it out of you. But that didn’t work on me, so I’m here to return my Global War on Terrorism Medal and my National Defense Medal, because they’re both lies.
JERRY: My name is Jerry. I’m from New York City. I served in the Army from 2005 to 2009. I fought in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I, today, am giving back my Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, because I realized that after a while that it was just nothing but an idea made by a bunch of politicians, money-hungry politicians in Washington who will do nothing and have a complete disregard for human life and will do anything in their power to just make more money in the end. Now, if it’s just an idea, then therefore it was just an idea that sparked two wars that I had to fight in. And I don’t want any part of it anymore. And I choose human life over war, militarism and imperialism.
SCOTT KIMBALL: My name is Scott Kimball. I’m an Iraq war vet. And I’m turning in these medals today for the people of Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, and all victims of occupation across the world. And also, for all the servicemembers and veterans who are against these wars, you are not alone!
CHRISTOPHER MAY: My name is Christopher May. I left the Army as a conscientious objector. We were told that these medals represented, you know, democracy and justice and hope and change for the world. These medals represent a failure on behalf of the leaders of NATO to accurately represent the will of their own people. It represents a failure on the leaders of NATO to do what’s right by the disenfranchised people of this world. Instead of helping them, they take advantage of them, and they’re making things worse. I will not be a part of that anymore. These medals don’t mean anything to me, and they can have them back.
TY: Hello. My name is Ty, and thank you all for coming out. I’m letting go and releasing this medal because love is the most powerful force that we can employ as human beings on this planet, and we cannot love holding weapons.
ASH WOOLSON: My name is Ash Woolson. I was a sergeant. I was in Iraq in '03, and what I saw there crushed me. I don't want us to suffer this again, and I don’t want our children to suffer this again, and so I’m giving these back!
MAGGIE MARTIN: My name is Maggie Martin. I was a sergeant in the Army. I did two tours in Iraq. No amount of medals, ribbons or flags can cover the amount of human suffering caused by these wars. We don’t want this garbage. We want our human rights. We want our right to heal.
JAYSON MISSOULA: My name is Jayson Missoula. I graduated high school in 2002. And thinking that we had to protect our borders, I wound up first enlisting in the Coast Guard. I spent four years on active duty. And in my time, I started to feel guilty, because my friends were going on multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in other branches, and I was doing things as an 18-year-old, being led by men 10 years older than me, that the Secret Service recently got in trouble for. So then I get out, I go to college for a semester, and feeling guilty for spending time partying in the Caribbean and having to see humans—Haitians, Dominicans—floating in the water and wondering why they’re there, why are they leaving, and starting to ask these questions. All right, so then I go into the National Guard, sign up for a one-year contract, which they allowed me. They sent me to New Mexico to the desert for one month and then Vermont for two weeks. And after that, I was an infantryman, and then I was sent over to Iraq, and I spent just under six months driving a truck, playing god, after two weeks of infantry training. And we fortunately were redeployed home early. And since then, I’ve used my GI Bill to study political science and American studies, and it’s helped me humanize people all around the world, because one of the first friends I made is Palestinian, and I spent the summer in West Bank. For the first time, I learned a little bit what it feels like to be on the receiving end, when I was tear-gassed in a little village just south of Ramallah, Bil’in, I believe. But so, I apologize. One of my favorite new poets says, "Affirm life. Affirm life. Affirm life." That’s absolutely what we have to do. And the only medal I’m going to keep is the Humanitarian Service one I got for being in New Orleans, because that’s the only thing that we should be doing as humans.
DAVID VAN DAM: I’m David Van Dam. I was in the U.S. Navy. I’m a GI resister. I got a other-than-honorable discharge. And I want to say that their policies are other than honorable. And I’m honorable, and all the GI resisters that refuse to fight in unjust wars are honorable. This is in solidarity for all GI resisters of unjust wars!
MARK STRUDAS: My name is Mark Strudas. I’m from Chesterton, Indiana. I just want to say thank you for being understanding, inviting and wonderful—even these guys in black and blue. This is a Good Conduct Medal. Ha!
JACOB CRAWFORD: I’m Jacob Crawford. I went to Iraq and Afghanistan. And when they gave me these medals, I knew they were meaningless. I only regret not starting to speak up about how silly the war is sooner. I’m giving these back. Free Bradley Manning!
JASON HURD: My name is Jason Hurd. I spent 10 years in the United States Army as a combat medic. I deployed to Baghdad in 2004. I’m here to return my Global War on Terrorism Service Medal in solidarity with the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan. I am deeply sorry for the destruction that we have caused in those countries and around the globe. I am proud to stand on this stage with my fellow veterans and my Afghan sisters. These were lies. I’m giving them back.
CHRIS MOBERG: My name is Chris Moberg. I was part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And out of love and respect, out of the Iraqi people and the people of Afghanistan, I’m going to return these representations of hate and destruction back where they came from.
JACOB FLOM: My name is Jacob Flom. I was in the Air Force from '03 to ’07. And it's—I joined the military so I could pay to go to college, because the working class fights the ruling class’s wars. But I’m not fighting for imperialism anymore. I’m fighting against imperialism. And this is dedicated—this is dedicated to all the courageous people who are under attack by the FBI, Carlos Montes and the Anti-War 23.
RAYMOND KNAEBLE: My name’s Raymond Knaeble, and I’m here to return my medals. NATO, the U.S.A. government and Israel need to be held accountable for the war crimes, genocide, torture and drone attacks. I’m returning my medals! They can have them!
STEVEN LUNN: My name is Steven Lunn [phon.]. I’m a two-time Iraq combat veteran. This medal
I’m dedicating to the children of Iraq that no longer have fathers and mothers.
SHAWNA FOSTER: My name is Shawna, and I was a nuclear biological chemical specialist for a war that didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. So I deserted. I’m one of 40,000 people that left the United States Armed Forces because this is a lie!
STEVE ACHESON: My name is Steve Acheson. I’m from Campbellsport, Wisconsin. I was a forward observer in the United States Army for just under five years. I deployed to Sadr City, Iraq, in 2005. And I’m giving back my medals for the children of Iraq and Afghanistan. May they be able to forgive us for what we’ve done to them. May we begin to heal, and may we live in peace from here until eternity.
PHIL: My name’s Phil. I’m from Atlanta. And the reason why I’m throwing my medal back is because we are the global 99 percent, and we refuse to be silent, from Egypt back here to Chicago!
MICHAEL THURMAN: Hello. My name is Michael Thurman. I was a conscientious objector from the United States Air Force. I’m returning my Global War on Terrorism Medal and my military coins on behalf of Private First Class Bradley Manning, who sacrificed everything to show us the truth about these wars.
GREG BROSEUS: My name is Greg Broseus. I’m from Columbus, Ohio. I now reside in the beautiful city of Chicago, Illinois, that today is not quite as beautiful, because NATO is here. And I’m here to return my medals, because I cannot stand in solidarity and peace with my brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as I wear them.
SABRINA WALLER: My name is Sabrina Waller. I’m a United States Navy veteran. I deployed under NATO orders to Kosovo in '99. I'm also a mother of an 11-year-old. For over 10 years of his life, we’ve been waging war. And the only fight that I want to participate in is the fight to ensure that my son and his generation never have to fight another war.
MATT: My name is Matt [inaudible]. I served in the U.S. Army in 2004 in Iraq. I’m returning my medals today because, under the guise of freedom and democracy, I stole the humanity of the Iraqi people and lost mine. We are on the right side of history!
MATT HOWARD: My name is Matt Howard. I served in the United States Marine Corps from 2001 to 2006 and in Iraq twice. I’m turning in my campaign service—Iraq Campaign Service Medal and Global War on Terror Service and Expeditionary Medals for all my brothers and sisters affected with traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder.
BRYAN REINHOLDT: My name is Bryan Reinholdt. I’m from Kentucky. I’m a former sergeant of the U.S. Army. Former sergeant of the U.S. Army, proud member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. And I’m taking these things off—all of them—encourage you to refuse to.
MARK: I’m Mark. I haven’t been too convinced of anything the last seven years, except for the fact that I’ve been hurting. And I have three daughters: Anell, Leah and Nora. And I’m convinced, looking out across this, this crowd of peace-loving people, that my daughters are going to have peace.
ZACH LAPORTE: Hi. My name is Zach LaPorte, and I’m an Iraq war veteran from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Thank you. I’m giving back my medals today because I feel like I was duped into an illegal war that was sold to me on the guise that I was going to be liberating the Iraqi people, when instead of liberating the people, I was liberating their oil fields.
RACHEL McNEILL: My name’s Rachel McNeill. I served in the military for almost eight years as a sergeant. And i’m returning this medal today because it’s time to restore America’s honor and renounce this war on terror.
JACOB GEORGE: My name is Jacob George. I’m from the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas. I’m a three-tour veteran of the Afghan war, paratrooper and sergeant. And I have one word for this Global War on Terrorism decoration, and that is "shame."
SCOTT OLSEN: My name is Scott Olsen. I have with me today—today I have with me my Global War on Terror Medal, Operation Iraqi Freedom Medal, National Defense Medal and Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. These medals, once upon a time, made me feel good about what I was doing. They made me feel like I was doing the right thing. And I came back to reality, and I don’t want these anymore.
JOSHUA: I’m Joshua. I’m a member of IVAW, and I’m from Chicago. And honestly, friends, I’m here to tell you that I blame myself first. I should have done my homework, should have realized the lies before I participated in them. So this symbolic act, this throwing of the medal, is for all those people out there who are wondering why we’re doing it. Do your homework.
RICHARD STRODER: My name is Richard Stroder [phon.], and I’m from Auburn, Alabama. And I’m here to say that war is a racket!
TODD DENNIS: My name is Todd Dennis. I served in the United States Navy. I have PTSD. I’m returning my Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal because it was given to me, according to my letter, because of hard work and dedication and setting the example. I was a hard worker because I buried my PTSD and overworked myself in the military. And I’m throwing this back and invoking my right to heal.
MICHAEL APPLEGATE: My name is Michael Applegate. I was in the United States Navy from 1998 to 2006. And I’m returning my medal today because I want to live by my conscience rather than being a prisoner of it.
NATE: My name’s Nate. I served in the U.S. Navy from ’99 to 2003 and participated in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I was wrong to sign myself up for that. I apologize to the Iraqi and Afghani people for destroying your countries.
JOSHUA SHEPHERD: My name is Joshua Shepherd. I spent six years in the United States Navy. These are not mine. They never were. They’re instruments of control from this government. I will not continue to trade my humanity for false heroism.
BROCK McINTOSH: My name is Brock McIntosh. I was in the Army National Guard and served in Afghanistan from November '08 to August ’09. Two months ago, I visited the monument at Ground Zero for my first time with two Afghans. A tragic monument. I'm going to toss this medal today for the 33,000 civilians who have died in Afghanistan that won’t have a monument built for them. And this is for the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers.
JOHN ANDERSON: My name is John Anderson. I did two deployments to Iraq. And all of this destruction was not necessary. And now, we will bring it to an end, because another world is possible. We are unstoppable!
CROWD: Another world is possible!
JOHN ANDERSON: We are unstoppable!
CROWD: Another world is possible!
GRAHAM CLUMPNER: I’m Graham Clumpner. I’m an Army veteran. I spent a good amount of time in Afghanistan. And I just want everybody to look around, take a second and look around, look next to you right now. I’m talking to the police officers. I’m talking about everybody out here. There are thousands of people out here for something important. We’re hearing. We’re having a conversation for the first time in a long time—for many of us, for the first time. And I want to say that all of us, in some way or another, are trying to serve this great land that we live in, but it’s only great because of what we do with it. And sometimes we make mistakes. And the way we change that is we admit our mistakes and we take responsibility for our mistakes, and we change and we become better, and we do it together. So I’m returning my Global War on Terrorism Medal, because I don’t fight wars on adjectives.
VINCE EMANUELE: My name is Vince Emanuele, and I served with the United States Marine Corps. First and foremost, this is for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Second of all, this is for our real forefathers. I’m talking about the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. I’m talking about the Black Panthers. I’m talking about the civil rights movement. I’m talking about unions. I’m talking about our socialist brothers and sisters, our communist brothers and sisters, our anarchist brothers and sisters, and our ecology brothers and sisters. That’s who our real forefathers are. And lastly—and lastly and most importantly, our enemies are not 7,000 miles from home. They sit in boardrooms. They are CEOs. They are bankers. They are hedge fund managers. They do not live 7,000 miles from home. Our enemies are right here, and we look at them every day. They are not the men and women who are standing on this police line. They are the millionaires and billionaires who control this planet, and we’ve had enough of it. So they can take their medals back.
CHUCK WINANT: My name is Chuck Winant. I’m here on behalf of six good Americans who really wanted to be here but they couldn’t be. They couldn’t be, because when they came to the U.S. border, they’d be immediately arrested. And the crime they’d be arrested for was refusing to continue to participate in the crimes against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. And these good Americans, who are exiled now from this country, who deserve amnesty, are Private Christian Kjar of the U.S. Marine Corps; Private Kim Rivera, Army, Combat Action Badge, refused redeployment to Iraq; Corporal Jeremy Brockway, U.S. Marine Corps, Combat Action Badge, refused redeployment to Iraq; Specialist Jules Tindungan, Combat Infantry Badge, paratrooper, refused redeployment to Afghanistan; Sergeant Corey Glass, Army, refused redeployment to Iraq; and Sergeant Chris Vassey, paratrooper, CIB, refused redeployment to Afghanistan. I have their awards in my pocket, and I’m throwing them back, mad as hell!
AARON HUGHES: My name is Aaron Hughes. I served in the Illinois Army National Guard from 2000 and 2006. This medal right here is for Anthony Wagner. He died last year. This medal right here is for the one-third of the women in the military that are sexually assaulted by their peers. We talk about standing up for our sisters—we talk about standing up for our sisters in Afghanistan, and we can’t even take care of our sisters here. And this medal right here is because I’m sorry. I’m sorry to all of you. I’m sorry.
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: My name is Alejandro Villatoro, sergeant. I went to—took part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan 2011. Believe me, I was a soldier. I was a squared-away soldier, and I really believed in this mission. And I learned the Army values: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. But after my experience, I realized that there is no integrity. Integrity: do what’s legally and morally right. And we failed. So there is no honor in these wars. There’s just shame.
AMY GOODMAN: Veterans of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, hurling their war medals towards the gates of the NATO summit in Chicago. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report, as we bring you this Memorial Day special, "Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars." Back in a minute.
Mother of Iraq Veteran Who Committed Suicide: "Honor the Dead, Heal the Wounded, Stop the Wars"
download: Video Audio Get CD/DVD More Formats
Share


Printer-friendly
Transcript |

On a makeshift stage outside the NATO summit in Chicago, antiwar veterans fold an American flag that flew over NATO operations from Bosnia to Libya and which represents the flag that is “draped over the coffins of thousands of Americans killed in combat and thousands more who have committed suicide after they returned from service." They present the flag to Mary Kirkland, mother of Derrick Kirkland, who joined the military in 2007 and committed suicide in March 2010 after his second tour of duty in Iraq. “I am not ashamed that I have to tell people that my son committed suicide. I am ashamed of the military for failing to give him proper mental health treatment,” Kirkland says. The military originally reported that her son was killed in action. Click here to see the other parts of our 2012 Memorial Day Special: 1, 3, 4, 5. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under NATO, PTSD, Iraq, Afghanistan, Veterans, Healthcare
Guest:
Mary Kirkland, her son, Derrick, committed suicide but the military reported him as killed in action.
Related
• Scott Olsen, U.S. Vet Who Nearly Lost Life at Occupy Protest, Brings Antiwar Message to NATO Summit May 28, 2012 | Story
• Memorial Day Special: U.S. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Return War Medals at NATO Summit May 28, 2012 | Story
• "Mind Zone": New Film Tracks Therapists Guiding Soldiers Through Traumas of Afghan War Mar 16, 2012 | Story
• Army Ranger Widow Confronts Rumsfeld over His Lies that Convinced Her Husband to Join the Military Aug 30, 2011 | Story
• U.S. Army Vets Join with Afghans for Peace to Lead Antiwar March at Chicago NATO Summit May 28, 2012 | Story
Links
• Iraq Veterans Against the War
• NATO Protest Website
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.Donate >
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: "World Wide Rebel Songs" by Tom Morello, singing at a concert in Chicago celebrating Woody Guthrie’s upcoming 100th birthday. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return to the makeshift stage outside the NATO summit in Chicago, where scores of veterans gathered to protest NATO’s wars.
ALEJANDRO VILLATORO: We’re going to begin our ceremony with a folding of the flag. This American flag flew over NATO military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan and Libya. This flag represents 60 percent of NATO’s funding and is responsible for immense militarization and intimidation, beginning with escalation of the Cold War. This flag represents the untold suffering and pain caused by NATO wars and occupations carried out by U.S. and NATO forces against the oppressed people of the world. This flag flew over Afghanistan, standing as a constant reminder to the Afghan people that they were being occupied by foreign imperial powers. This flag flew over Libya, and it came by the way of drones, bombs, bullets and grenades.
This flag is draped over the coffins of thousands of Americans killed in combat and thousands more who have committed suicide after they returned from service. Currently, 18 veterans commit suicide each day. We retire this flag and give it to those who often suffer silently in war, at home and abroad. Military families and Mary, who lost her military son to suicide, represents those who lose something that can never be given back. Mary mourns the loss of her son and to thousands of parents in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: After the ceremony where she was presented with the American flag, I spoke with Mary Kirkland, mother of Derrick Kirkland. Derrick joined the Army in 2007, since he was not earning enough money to support his wife and child. During his second deployment to Iraq, he attempted suicide for the first time. Mary Kirkland describes what happened next.
MARY KIRKLAND: He was on his second deployment in Iraq, probably like in the six-month mark. I don’t know exactly what caused it, but he ended up putting a shotgun in his mouth over there in Iraq, and one of his buddies stopped him. They got him help while he was there, then transferred him to the hospital in Germany, where he stayed about a week and a half. Then they sent him back to his home base of Fort Lewis, which is now Joint Base Lewis-McChord. He came back on a Monday after two failed suicide attempts in a three-week period, kept him overnight in the hospital for one night.
AMY GOODMAN: Where?
MARY KIRKLAND: There at Madigan Army Hospital at Fort Lewis. He met with a psychiatrist the next day who deemed him to be low to moderate risk for suicide, his only restriction being that he was not to be around any weapons, and cleared him for him to go basically in the barracks room by himself, which I found, after talking to the veterans, was illegal.
He tried to kill hisself again on Thursday night. He got back on the 15th and killed himself on the 19th. On the Thursday, on the 18th, he had bought some rum, so was drinking rum with his medications that they did just gave him, his antidepressants and sleep medicine, and cut hisself, had bloodstains all over his room. It wasn’t successful, so he got up Friday morning and bandaged hisself.
One of his things that he wrote before he went and hung hisself was "I feel invisible. I feel like I’m transparent." And nobody walked into the room on Friday to see the bloodstains. Derrick didn’t hang hisself until—the last time they had seen him was Friday night at 10:00, and they found him Saturday morning at 1:30. If anybody would have walked in that room on that Friday—but they didn’t even—the leadership wasn’t even checking on him.
So this mother got woke up Sunday morning at 6:30 to tell me that my son was dead, that I had let my guard down, 'cause he got back on Monday, he's back in the United States, he’s safe, he’s—and the Army called it a "miscommunication," is why my son is dead.
AMY GOODMAN: When did he enlist?
MARY KIRKLAND: He enlisted January of 2007.
AMY GOODMAN: And why did he enlist?
MARY KIRKLAND: He had a wife and child, and cook at an IHOP, not enough money, went to an Army recruiter that, you know, promised all the benefits, and you get this, and he just wanted to support his family.
AMY GOODMAN: What where those two tours like in Iraq that he served?
MARY KIRKLAND: The first one lasted 15 months. That’s when they had changed it, and they had to stay over there 15 months. Before he went, always laughing, always, you know, a jokester. Then, when he got back in June, he—you could—the sparkle wasn’t in his eye no more. "Yes, I’m the tough guy, I’m the soldier." That was right after he first joined that they took. But no, his eyes would sparkle, and he liked skateboarding, he liked playing guitar.
AMY GOODMAN: Did you want him to go into the military?
MARY KIRKLAND: At that point in time, I agreed with it, and actually it was because of Derrick that my other two younger—or, my daughter and my younger son had joined. Their father was in the Army. Their grandfather was in the Army and Navy. My father was in the Navy, with two brothers being in the Navy. You know, so he was kind of a—it’s a good thing, it’s an honorable thing, to go into the military.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened when he went for the second tour of duty?
MARY KIRKLAND: Well, in between getting home, he came home on leave and—I didn’t know what I know now about post-traumatic stress syndrome and the symptoms and, you know—but looking back, and, you know, like conversations like, "Mom, I’m the murderer." And I’d tell him, "No, Derrick, you’re in a war. You know, there’s a difference between being in a war and killing somebody and just going up on the street and killing somebody. That’s a murderer." And he had trouble sleeping, was drinking.
AMY GOODMAN: Was he drinking a lot before he enlisted?
MARY KIRKLAND: He drank, but not—you know, not overly drinking. Party-type drinking, you know, hanging out with his friends. And, of course, you have to realize I only got to spend probably about three days with him, while he was home on—in between the time of the leave. And like I said, I missed it. You know, I should have asked more questions or—I don’t know. You know, that’s the question I’m asking the veterans, you know, that I encounter. It’s like, what—what can I do to help? What can I do to help you?
AMY GOODMAN: When did you start asking the questions after Derrick died? What brought you here to this NATO summit?
MARY KIRKLAND: On March 27, 2010, is when we buried Derrick. And Derrick is buried at Marion National Cemetery, which is 50 miles—about 50 miles from Indianapolis. And as we was leaving, I stopped at a gas station, and I got a newspaper to see if they had anything wrote. And they had a picture with the Patriot Guards, and then the—underneath, it said that the Department of Defense states that Derrick was killed in action and that the family declines to comment. And that started two lies off right there. No, Derrick was not killed in action. He was killed because of failed mental healthcare at a Army base at Fort Lewis, you know. And I would have commented. From day one, I would have commented.
So, I had to, like, fight, because Derrick was still legally married, and at first they tried to put me off with, "Well, you’re not the next of kin." You know, you have to either get permission from his wife or hire an attorney. So, I mean, to be honest, there was a few drunken nights that I made phone calls, and I started getting some paperwork. But it just started with lies, you know, and how I feel is—and I asked them, you know, when I called to get some paperwork, I asked them, I’m like, "Well, the Department of Defense said that Derrick was killed in action." And they was like, "Well, it was probably a mistake from the newspaper, or they didn’t want to embarrass the family."
And, to me, I am not ashamed that I have to tell people that my son committed suicide. I am ashamed of the military for failing to give him proper mental health treatment. They don’t—they haven’t even treated our Vietnam veterans, you know, and now we’re in the next generation. I am here today because I don’t want my grandchildren, you know, after I’m dead and gone, to be having to march through the streets of Chicago.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have a message for President Obama and for the NATO generals here at the summit?
MARY KIRKLAND: Actually, I seen it on a T-shirt. It was: "Honor the dead, heal the wounded, stop the wars."
AMY GOODMAN: Mary Kirkland, the mother of Derrick Kirkland. He committed suicide at Fort Lewis-McChord in Washington on March 19th, 2010, after two tours of duty in Iraq.

From The Boston Forum Howard Zinn Series Video of Richard Seymour on American Anti-Imperialism

Click on headline to link to video one of the Richard Seymour lecture.

Video of Richard Seymour on American Anti-Imperialism

Richard Seymour is a socialist writer from London England and runs the popular blog Lenin's Tomb. Seymour is the author of the Liberal Defense of Murder and the Meaning of David Cameron. This is video of Seymour's talk in Boston which was co-sponsored by the Howard Zinn Memorial Lecture Series and Haymarket Books. Seymour is discussing his latest book, American Insurgents which details the history of anti-imperialist movements in the United States,

Richard Seymour on American Anti-Imperialism: Video 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jO_so3oU8k

Richard Seymour on American Anti-Imperialism: Video 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOPaaO86tcY

Forum this Saturday In Boston: Stop the attacks on public education!

Forum this Saturday: Stop the attacks on public education!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From : Kevin Heaton
Sender : occupy-boston-socialist-discussion@googlegroups.com
Subject : Forum this Saturday: Stop the attacks on public education!
Reply To : occupy-boston-socialist-discussion@googlegroups.com
Tue, Jun 05, 2012 04:41 AM




***Forward Widely***


Don’t let Walmart tell us how to run our public schools:
A community forum responding to the corporate attacks



Saturday June 9th , 2012
10 am - 12 noon



Roxbury Community College
Academic Building Room 121


Increasingly, venture capitalists and deep-pocket
corporate foundations are moving aggressively to
remake our schools in their image.

Join us for a discussion of the Stand for Children
ballot initiative, charter schools, and ways to keep
corporate influence out and keep community
input – and quality – in our public schools.

Co-sponsored by TAG-Boston, Citizens for Public Schools,
Union of Minority Neighborhoods and MA Jobs with Justice

For additional information, contact MA JWJ: 617.524.8778


www.tagboston.org


Light refreshments provided.
Afterwards, march with us in the Pride Parade.

From Occupy Quincy-Citizens United

Occupy Fall River is working on the Budget For All referendum that's part of Fund Our Communities Not War and the 25% Solution. It's a lot of petitioning with little time left to accomplish it in time for the November ballot.


It's a non-binding referendum instructing the reps for the district voting in approval to push and vote for cutting Pentagon spending by 25%, ending the wars, increasing taxes on the 1%, and using that money to find our communities.
http://www.fundourcommunities.org/


We also got Westport to approve the MTA resolution against Citizens United, and we're waiting on Fall River and Somerset.


I think learning how to do referendums would be good for Occupy since it's one of the few elements of democracy we have, despite that it's extremely flawed. I've been advised that there's a movement to simplify the overly complicated process, and we'll look into that more after this campaign.


I found out yesterday that Fall River cuts its check with Bank of America, which may be the next issue we take up. I like how Occupy Buffalo was able to get the city to move some funds from the big banks. I think that could be pursued by other groups. There really are a lot of opportunities out there.


Direct action works, but we also have to make many of the changes within the system ourselves. As I've learned since October, no one's going to do this stuff for us, so we need political direct action as well. My two cents.


Solidarity,

-Justin Val


Occupy Fall River Media Committee


Facebook.com/j.val.r

On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:13 AM, deh43@comcast.net wrote:


The Quincy City Council passed the proposal 4 to 0. 4 for and 4 abstentions. Many thanks to all who participated. Time to get started in your own town.
Many thanks, again


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: deh43@comcast.net
To: "vfp al" , "paul atwood" , "PAULA BAKER" , "CINDY BROWN" , "dave collins" , "Bill Dalzell" , "Annette Donahue" , "Christine Higgins" , "JOE HIGGINS" , "MIKE HIGGINS" , "massoccupy" , "steve meacham" , "hillary moll" , "elena perez" , "Mary Slayter" , "allyson strachan" , "erin wiggin" , "Heather Yunger" , "PETE YUNGER" , "smedley brigade"
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:16:35 PM
Subject: citizens united proposal


I have presented a proposal to the Quincy City Council to vote on the overturning of the Citizens United Decision. It is on the agenda for monday nights city council meeting at 8:00. Jain and I can use all the support we can get in this endeavor. If you can be there it would be greatly appreciated. If you cannot and know anybody in Quincy could you get them to e-mail their councillor to express their support for this proposal.

If anybody would like a copy of the proposal to adapt to their own city or town or need more information, please e-mail me and I will send it on to you. The following are my prepared remarks on the issue.

Dan Higgins, VfP, Occupy Quincy




The Case Against citizens United

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to you on a matter of great importance to our democracy and therefore our community, a matter that is being addressed not only by cities and towns in our own great Commonwealth but across the nation as well. I am speaking of course of the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision that has declarded that corporations are people and thus have the right under the consitution to make unresricted political payments. Citizens across this country disagree. Corporations are not people They are essentially ATM machines for political campiagns used to buy influence. Citizens United allows anonymous superpacs to feed a needlessly increasing appetite for money within the electoral process and provides unprecedented access for special interests over not only our elections but our elected officials. What chance does your vote or my vote have against a million dollars?

A dark cloud has descended over our democracy. We are returning to the gilded age of robber barons and an aristocracy of wealth. The gains our society has achieved over the last century are being undone as people lose their jobs, their homes, their pensions and their sons and daughters to endless wars, in a political and economic environment that favors the monied few at the expense of every day people like ourselves. Citizens United codifies this new social order. Across the country the democratic citizenry are outraged. We have lost faith in the ability, and the willingness of our elected officials to right these wrongs and are seeking to take direct action against this injustice and work together to overturn the Citizen United decision by calling for a constitituional amendment to do so.

I am sure you are famiiar with the old saw “Think Globally, Act Locally.” In this case, we must think NATIONALLY and act locally. In our own Commonwealth of Massachusetts over 50 cities and towns have adopted resolutions calling for the reversal of Citizens United. It is time now for the great city of Quincy, the City of Presidents, to once again serve its nation by joining in this effort and adopting this resolution on behalf of its democratic citizenry. The time to act is now.

I thank you for your kind attention.

Most sincerely,

Daniel E. Higgins

Hilton Boston Workers Persist to Form Union with UNITE HERE!

Hilton Boston Workers Persist to Form Union with UNITEHERE!

06/04/2012

Tula Connell

Congratulations to the newest members of UNITEHERE!—75 housekeepers, front desk attendants and others at the Hilton Boston Downtown whose persistence in the face of management roadblocks resulted in a successful effort to unionize. The workers waged nine months of sit-ins, pickets and talks with Hilton management before formally winning a voice at work Friday.

The workers get a $2 an hour pay increase and are eligible for health insurance through UNITEHERE! Local 26. Brian Lang, president of Local 26, said many of the workers have been enrolled in MassHealth, the public health insurance program for low-income residents. The contract also guarantees the workers job security if the hotel is sold and regulates workloads by union rules.

The Hilton workers join 900 other food service and hotel workers who have become Local 26 members in the past year, including employees
at Northeastern University, Harvard Law School, the Ames Hotel and the W Boston hotel. About 55 percent of hotel workers in Boston and Cambridge are unionized.




__._,_.___

Victory Against Repression: Carlos Montes Court Case Ends in Victory!

Markin comment:

We will take our victories, large and small, anyway we can get them.

Thanks to all your support and activism, Carlos Montes is declaring victory today! Here is the initial LA-CSFR statement on today's events.


Victory Against Repression: Carlos Montes Court Case Ends in Victory!
Los Angeles, CA - On June 5, 2012 Carlos Montes’ criminal court prosecution ended in a victory for Carlos and the movement.

Carlos Montes’ home was raided on May 17, 2011, by the combined forces of the LA County Sheriff’s Swat Team and the FBI, by crashing his door down at 5:00 a.m., with automatic assault rifles drawn, almost killing him.. He was charged with 6 serious felonies with a possible jail time of up to 18 years.

With local and national support, via solidarity protests, call-in campaigns to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Holder, local rallies and protests, and an offensive legal strategy , two felonies were dropped - this was a first partial victory. However the District Attorney still stated that they wanted Montes to do at least 5 years in state prison for the 4 felony charges remaining.

The local and national Committees Against FBI Repression launched a petition drive and a “Call the D.A.” campaign, with phone banking and a robo call by Carlos to over 4 000 supporters, urging folks to call District Attorney Steve Cooley. The D.A.’s office was flooded with calls and letters.

Montes’ attorney made several motions to get charges dropped on various grounds, but the Los Angeles Superior Court judge rejected them. Preparations were made for a trial, knowing well the state judicial system is not ‘fair and impartial.’ Montes and his attorney Jorge Gonzalez got widespread support and media coverage including in the Democracy Now TV show, La Opinion and the Guardian UK newspaper.

The local D.A. on the case then sought for a resolution and proposed to drop three additional felonies, if Carlos pled out to one count of perjury. This proposal included no jail time, three years of probation and community service. Under advice from supporters, friends and his attorney Montes moved forward with this proposal.

This is a victory for Carlos Montes and the movement against police political repression. A trial had the danger of him being convicted of four felonies with jail time and the additional old felony - a total of 5 felonies. At this point Carlos is out of jail, will continue to organize against repression, for public education, against U.S.-led wars and for immigrant rights. He is already planning to attend the protest at the Republican National Convention on August 27, 2012 in Tampa, Florida.

Next steps: The local committee with supporters and rank-and-file members of SEIU 721 will hold a victory party to thank everyone who worked on this campaign and to help pay off legal expenses. It is set for Saturday, June 23, 7:00 p.m. Details will follow.

Carlos wants to thank all the people, organizations, unions and community people who worked and supported him in this struggle against police/political repression.

The struggle continues to defend the 23 other anti-war and international solidarity activists who are STILL under an FBI investigation for showing solidarity with the oppressed people of the world, especially the Palestinian and Colombian people. Stay updated via: www.stopfbi.net!

Los Angeles Committee to Stop FBI Repression
June 5, 2012



follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend

Copyright © 2012 Committee to Stop FBI Repression, All rights reserved.
Thanks for your ongoing interest in the fight against FBI repression of anti-war and international solidarity activists!
Our mailing address is:

Committee to Stop FBI Repression

PO Box 14183

Minneapolis, MN 55414