How to save the world and make lots of money.

A review of Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era by Amory B. Lovins and Rocky Mountain Institute

Reviewed by Bradley Hughes

This book is simultaneously very good and deeply flawed.

Starting with the good parts: this book presents exhaustive research into how to vastly increase the efficiency of transportation, industry, buildings and electricity generation and combine that with renewable power sources.

In the section on energy use in buildings, the authors point out that “Never in our history has US building energy use trended downward.” So, the design improvements and retrofits they suggest must pay back the cost plus a “return on investment.”

They look at new designs for building-cooling systems, new materials for insulation, and LED lighting. Some of the new technologies are really cool. There are phase change materials we can put in walls and roofs that will melt as it gets hotter. They absorb heat during the day and release it at night. Rotors and fans that look like nautilus shells can move the same amount of air (or other fluids) using 30 percent less energy. There is even a combination of specially designed cooking pots and stove tops that consumes only a third of the electricity of conventional electric ranges.

Similar clever innovations are covered in the sections on transportation, industry and electricity generation. Over all, by combining much greater efficiency with renewable sources the authors show how we can eliminate fossil fuels.


A book for the 1%

The flaw of this book is that it is written for the 1%. Our role is to be amazed by the power of capitalism to make money and solve the climate crisis.

Like the class the book is written for, the authors have no understanding of the way capitalism works. They rightly point out the vast powers we control as a society to transform the natural world, and they even point out some of the draw-backs of fossil fuel use. However their assumption is that business only makes our lives better, and if there is a way to make a profit, business will follow it.

Capitalism makes some people’s lives better, but always at a cost to other people and/or the environment. A computer might improve my life, but if we consider the poison wastes created by its production along with the misery and industrial disease inflicted on the workers who built it, can we be sure that globally we are better off? This will remain true as long as profit is the driving motive.

Just because building energy-efficient cars is profitable doesn’t mean that other profitable options don’t exist. Any industry that can find a way of making more profit from environmentally destructive practices will do so. The authors designed a car to make its production more energy-efficient and cheaper, resulting in a much more fuel-efficient car. But they could not find a car company willing to build it.

Even if industries start down the road of lowering the consumption of fossil fuel based energy, this could easily make such sources cheaper, leading to greater consumption. As heating and cooling systems, and insulation have gotten more efficient, house sizes in North America have increased, requiring more energy. More energy efficiency has resulted in more energy consumption, not less.

If you really want to benefit from this book, read it to see how the solutions to eliminate fossil fuels already exist. Then help build a movement to eliminate the entwined economy and politics of capitalism that stops us from implementing them.


Bahrain: two centuries of resistance to imperialism

By Yusur Al Bahrani

Inspired by the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, hundreds of thousands of Bahrainis flooded the streets and marched to occupy the Pearl Roundabout on February 14, 2011 starting the Bahraini revolution. However, Bahraini struggles started two centuries ago when the Al-Khalifa tribe invaded their island, confiscated farmers’ lands, and exploited people.

Historians who narrated eyewitness accounts of the Al-Khalifa invasion mention the most brutal images that anyone could ever imagine. In 1783, the Al-Khalifa Bedouin tribe invaded Bahrain. Locals, who were mainly simple farmers and fishermen, showed resistance. Folklore tales talk about the bravery of those simple fighters who had nothing to fight with except their farming sickles. They were massacred and their mutilated bodies rested by the sea. Since then, beaches in Bahrain are bloodstained.

The sea turned into Al-Khalifa property leaving no place for fishermen to make their living. The original people of Bahrain were forced to leave their homes and lands to live together in villages with small packed houses. Confiscated lands were distributed amongst Al-Khalifa family members and their loyalists. Even now, the situation is not much better. Aboriginal Bahrainis, the Shiite majority, face discrimination. They face financial, social and even religious oppression by the ruling minority.

Colonialism and “independence”

Less than a hundred years after the Al-Khalifa invasion, Bahrain became a British colony. In order for Al-Khalifa to stay in power, treaties were signed with the British occupiers. Thus, ordinary people in Bahrain became exploited by the British colonial power and the regime at the same time. Though, there were waves of resistance during the British occupation. In 1968, the British forces decided to leave Bahrain after a series of protests and uprisings that erupted in 1965.

However, Bahrain never became independent, and people in Bahrain have never had the chance to choose their destiny. In order for the British to leave, the colonial power (under UN agreement) gave people in Bahrain two options: either accept Al-Khalifa as ruler or to be an Iranian colony (under the Shah’s regime). Known for the love of their homeland, Bahrainis voted to stay with Al-Khalifa rather than giving their lands to the monarchy in Iran. So called “independence” was announced. Imperialists stayed in control, and the people continued their revolts. For instance, Ian Henderson, British security officer, was the Head of General Intelligence Bureau in Bahrain (1966-2000). According to Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights: “Henderson used to launch group torture operations inside Bahraini prisons. He arrested countless numbers of Bahraini citizens. He played a key role in the disappearance and forced exile of many Bahraini human rights activists and political dissidents.”

Resistance today

Henderson and other torturers are free, while another generation of activists is now being tortured in prison. Not only activists are paying the price of demanding freedom; ordinary people in Bahraini cities and villages are being attacked every day since February 14, 2011. The situation has not been worse than what used to happen during Bahraini uprisings in the last century, but due to social media, evidence of the brutality of the Al-Khalifa regime is being broadcast everywhere. There has not been enough media coverage, but networks of activists risking their lives to convey the truth make it possible for many to see images of mutilated bodies, suffocated children, and beaten youth.

Activists in Bahrain have realized that it’s only because of large powers, like the United States, that the Al-Khalifa regime still exists today; Bahrain is the home to the US Naval Fifth Fleet and the US wants to maintain a stable client state in the region. A democracy in Bahrain would weaken imperialist power in the region. Thus, the US have not even ceased arms deals with the Bahraini government as they attack protestors in the streets. The US supply the weapons used to attack peaceful protestors, and those tear gas canisters thrown at homes are made in the United States.

In addition to supporting the Al-Khalifa regime, the West (including Canada) has been backing the monarchy in Saudi Arabia that is well known for human rights violations and suppressing religious and social freedoms. To finish drawing the painting of oppression with more blood, the Bahraini regime called on Saudi troops to suppress the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain. Troops from the United Arab Emirates also participated, but Saudi Arabia contributed the most. Thousands of Bahrainis, including children, have been killed, wounded, tortured and arrested. Al-Khalifa regime is the only regime that has invited troops from other countries to attack peaceful protestors. The number of causalities is very high compared to the population of the small island, which is hardly above one million including expatriates. Thousands of workers have been dismissed from their jobs for participating in protests, while members and leaders of unions have been jailed.


If there is anyway in which revolutionaries around the world can support people in Bahrain, it is by condemning the silence and the support of Western governments to the oppressive Al-Khalifa regime. Demanding the stop of Western arms deals (mainly from the US, but other countries as well) is one way to save innocent people in Bahrain. The only way in which the revolution in Bahrain will be successful is to stop imperial powers from backing the oppressive state. Being in solidarity with protestors in Bahrain means endorsing their chant used now in demonstrations “America, your arms kill us.”

The fight for democracy in Bahrain continues with people demanding an end to the Western backed Al-Khalifa monarchy.

Student strike training camp brings lessons of Quebec to Ontario

Diagram from the training camp of how Quebec students radicalized and escalated their actions

By Peter Hogarth

The University of Toronto played host to an incredible conference the weekend of July 27-29. The Ontario Student Strike Training Camp, organized by the Graduate Students’ Union, brought together activists from Montreal, Toronto, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, Guelph, New Brunswick, Hamilton and many places in between to learn how the students of Quebec organized a massive general strike against tuition fee increases.

Noticeably absent from the facilitators’ perspective was the assertion that province-wide organizations such as the CFS can simply “push the strike button” and call strike votes for all of Ontario, something that is not realistic or even possible. Instead the weekend held very serious discussion and debate about practical ways to build the student movement outside Quebec and mobilize students to transform their campuses.

There was an incredible breadth of sessions, covering a number of themes, from getting the word out to enforcing a strike. However, a few clear themes emerged throughout the weekend that are worth repeating and generalizing.

First of all, workshop facilitators emphasized the need to find issues that mobilize students. This means starting from a broad basis of unity, while putting forth an argument that can start a debate that will mobilize students. Emphasizing realistic goals rather than revolutionary slogans may seem too “reformist” at first, but student’ ideas can be transformed in the struggle of fighting for those goals, leading to more radical positions and actions. Through the process of tactics such as pickets, flashmobs and demonstrations, the level of struggle can quickly escalate.

Actions should always be thought of in the context of drawing more people into the movement. For instance, how can we use a petition or leaflet to get more people involved, start more conversations and expand the number of people working on this project? Can we use direct actions such as occupations and demonstrations to raise the profile of the movement and the confidence of students, involving broader layers of the campus?

Furthermore, presenters emphasized the need to include other sectors of society in the struggle. If the movement only speaks for students, its appeal will end there. We need to be connecting the student movement to workers facing austerity, people who cannot afford post-secondary education, racially marginalized people and beyond.

Presenters emphasized the need to organize at the departmental level, rather than campus-wide. Doing this ensures greater participation and more direct democracy.  Start with departments that are most open to arguments against increasing fees, and avoid organizing huge general assemblies that can be more easily overwhelmed by organized forces hostile to a progressive student movement. By organizing these friendly departments first, stronger departments can go on strike and empower other departments to join as well.

These stronger departments can strike first to create momentum and pressure other campuses to do the same. However, they should not be isolated. Often times strike votes happened a year before they were acted on because they required strike votes from a certain number of other campuses. For instance, a strike mandate could require seven other departments, 20,000 students and three other campuses to go on strike first. For a strike to be effective, the strike must be enforced. Picket lines to stop classes from happening are a must.

One lesson that bears repeating is that a strike is a tactic for achieving a goal. If we focus on the strike as the end-goal, we risk alienating students not ready to strike right away. The legitimacy of a strike comes from the prior mobilization which has involved as many people as possible in the General Assemblies (GAs) and the voting. Imposing radical demands from the top-down without adequate mobilization will not make for a strong strike; voting on a strike or imposing a strike will not be effective if it cannot be carried by the rank-and-file students. Strikes don’t appear out of thin air, but they are not impossible. They involve engaging with fellow students and expanding the participation in campus politics.

As one Montreal facilitator put it, “you should never be too prudent to act, but you should never be too confident to cause chaos without a mandate.” Mobilize your department, listen to the GAs and take action. What appears as apathy can turn to radicalism quickly, but it will require some serious work.

Reform, revolution and challenges to austerity today

By Peter Hogarth

The rise of new left parties across Europe has generated much excitement about the possibility of an electoral challenge to neoliberalism and austerity. Syriza in Greece, Front de Gauche in France, the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, and George Galloway’s victory for the Respect party in Bradford, England are just a few examples of this trend.

These new (and not-so-new) parties of the radical left are giving electoral expression to the growing resistance to crisis and austerity. These are positive developments in the battle over who will pay for the crisis, but they are contradictory. We have already seen the unease with which reformist parties walk the line between the workers who support them and the ruling class that opposes them. Many on the left have debated the significance of an open letter to the Financial Times by Syriza’s leader Alexis Tsipras, in which he promises to keep Greece in the European Union and not act unilaterally to abolish the debt. This reveals the contradictions of the reformist strategy: on the one hand, Syriza rose to prominence based on its harsh rejection of the austerity memorandum. On the other, its leadership is assuring the bankers of Europe that it will stabilize Greece and fix the EU.

This is not a new problem, but rather a return of the politics of radical reformism, which brings up a classic debate in Marxist history: reform versus revolution.

Evolutionary socialism?

Rosa Luxemburg took on the argument against reformism in her fight for the soul of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). She waged a theoretical battle against Eduard Bernstein, who argued that the SPD should drop Marxism in favour of something he called “evolutionary socialism.”

At the heart of Bernstein’s argument was his attempt to revise Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis. He asserted that the economy had developed out of its history of crisis and recession and that in the 20th century the economy would evolve gradually—through the expansion of credit, the growth of monopolies, and the process of globalization—towards increasing regulation and public control. Therefore, Bernstein argued, the combination of trade union organization and parliamentary influence would be enough to secure a more just and fair society. Bernstein’s conclusion was that the SPD should drop Marxism, with its emphasis on economic crisis and class struggle, and admit it was a reformist party. “The final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing, the movement is everything,” Bernstein proclaimed.

Bernstein argued that socialists should direct their daily activity not to the conquest of political power, but toward the betterment of the condition of the working class within the existing order. Workers must not expect to institute socialism by means of political and social revolution, but through the gradual application of the principle of cooperation.

By 1900, shortly after Bernstein’s dismissal of Marxism, a new round of economic crisis broke out. Luxemburg systematically dismantled Bernstein’s arguments, asserting that the extension of credit would not lead to a never-ending expansion of the system, but rather to more volatility and crisis. She refuted his vision of a gradual transition to socialism in which the state would regulate capitalism, protect labour and pass socialist reforms. She countered that the state was fashioned in the interests of the dominant class and could not be usurped gradually by piecemeal reforms.

Socialism from above

Bernstein’s vision of socialism confined workers to the sidelines: trade unions would fight on their behalf for better wages and labour rights, while enlightened socialists in parliament would fight on their behalf for political reforms. This approach embodies “socialism from above.” Hal Draper, who identified this phenomenon in his work The Two Souls of Socialism, writes that “what unites the many different forms of socialism from above is the conception that socialism or a reasonable facsimile thereof must be handed down to the grateful masses from a ruling elite that is not subject to their control.”

By contrast, Luxemburg’s approach embodies the ethos of socialism from below. As Draper writes: “the heart of socialism from below is its view that socialism can be realized only through the self-emancipation of activized masses from below, in a struggle to take charge of their own destiny, as actors not merely subjects on the stage of world history. Luxemburg insists on the conquest of political power by a great, conscious popular mass. Not as a minority act on behalf of the working classes.”


A quick survey of the world today reveals that many reforms of the last 100 years remain illusory for most workers: the eight-hour day, an end to piece-work, and two days of rest per week. Similarly, the history of left reformism, even radical reformism, shows that the objective of social democratic parties is to improve the terms of exploitation of workers, not end it altogether. Social democracy tries to make capitalism more humane; it does not attempt to abolish it.

In this sense, reformist parties act as the last bastion of capitalism. While they try to make the system better, they end up preserving its structure—and all the inequality that results from an economy based on profit, not human needs. Social democrats may be committed to raising the standard of living for ordinary workers, but they must always return the system to profitability before they can grant any reforms. In other words, the needs of capitalism must always come first.


This is what happened in Chile between 1970 and 1973, when a newly elected left government faced bosses’ strikes and other ruling-class attacks meant to bring it down. The attacks were met with incredible resistance by ordinary workers, who opened stores, resumed production and distribution, and formed workers’ councils to keep society running—all in an attempt to defend President Salvador Allende and his Popular Unity government.

Despite this kind of rank-and-file activity, Allende and his Socialist Party did everything they could do contain workers’ struggle and appease the ruling class. Allende refused to arm the workers’ councils or support striking workers; instead, he put faith in the army and invited three generals, including Augusto Pinochet, to join his cabinet. This paved the way for a bloody coup that saw thousands of leftists and workers murdered and decades of terror under a dictatorship led by Pinochet. The Chilean experience in the 1970s shows the limits of reformism and the parliamentary road to socialism.

Reformism today

Without a doubt, the current resurgence of left reformism is heartening for all those who want to resist austerity, the neoliberal agenda, and the parties that try to impose it. As a result, mainstream social democratic parties such as PASOK in Greece and Labour in the UK are facing serious challenges by parties with much more radical platforms, such as Syriza and Respect.

Socialists should welcome the challenge these kinds of parties can bring to ruling-class ideas, and must find a way to connect to the millions of ordinary people who are turning to radical reformism. However, supporting an electoral challenge to austerity is never a substitute for revolutionary organization. In fact, socialists must continue to build a revolutionary alternative at the same time as they participate in electoral struggles. One builds the other, and can make it stronger and more effective.

Workers’ resistance

Syriza’s radical program represents a threat to the ruling classes of Europe—and around the world. Take, for example, Stephen Harper’s response to the possibility of a Syriza-led government in Greece. He said that the interests of the global economy should always come before the outcome of a Greek election. However, it is not simply Syriza itself—a radical reformist party—that causes so much fear in ruling-class circles; it is the heroic resistance of Greek workers, including their 17 general strikes, that makes Syriza’s demands possible and that helped give the party prominence in the first place.

We cannot forget who the real agent of change is. Parliament should be seen as a place where radical politicians can give voice to the struggle for a better world, but not as the locus of change. These parties are a response to the problem; by themselves, they are not a solution. The implementation of any radical reforms requires the strength of an organized workers’ movement to confront the massive opposition of the ruling class. Greece shows just a glimpse of what the ruling class will do to stop radical reforms. Chile shows how far the ruling class will go to defend its interests. Socialists must build the confidence of rank-and-file workers to implement and defend the radical reforms of parties like Syriza, at the same time as fighting to go beyond the limits of reformism.

Sensational shootings distract from police violence

By John Bell

Between the slaughter in Aurora, Colorado and the shooting in Toronto’s east end, seemingly unexplainable gun violence has crowded everything else off the front page.

Political opportunists like Rob Ford and Stephen Harper will use the stories to beat the law and order drum, and demand more money for police.

But these sensational stories have covered over other reports of violence coming from cops. These reports are even more disturbing, revealing a form of state sanctioned violence and institutionalized racism.

In San Francisco, reports have emerged that police executed a suspect with mental health issues. Pralith Pralourng, a 32-year old who had slashed a co-worker with a box cutter, died from two gunshots to the chest from short range.

Police told reporters the man had attacked them. But a videographer named Robert Benson was on the scene and interviewed eye-witnesses who told a different story: “The police shot somebody. In the chest, twice. They said that the man had a gun or something but he didn’t. He was just a civilian.” Benson: “What was he doing?” Witness: “Nothing. They had him in cuffs. And they shot him. Twice.” Benson’s video is posted to YouTube.

In Anaheim, California, residents of a mostly Latino working-class apartment complex were horrified to witness the police shooting of a local man. They report that Manuel Diaz was shot in the back of the legs; then he was shot in the head as he lay on the ground. The killing took place in broad daylight in front of a group of neighbours, including children, enjoying a Saturday afternoon.

The outraged group confronted the police, who unleashed dogs and fired rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowd.

Witnesses described a cold-blooded execution: “He was already down on the ground and clearly not going anywhere when the officer shot him in the head. They didn’t have to kill him. Why couldn’t they have just used a Taser or something?”

Residents have organized protests against this and other recent killings by Anaheim police. Six Latino men have been shot by police since January, five fatally. The community complains of racial profiling and continual harassment.

“White kids in a rich white neighborhood don’t get rousted by police and when they do, they don’t have to fear the police. But that’s not true with brown kids in a poor neighborhood,” said Dana Douglas, lawyer for the Diaz family.

In Toronto, police have been rightly slammed for violating civil and human rights, and provoking violence during the G20 protests. Voices on all sides were calling for Chief Bill Blair’s resignation. Now Blair is using the Scarborough shootings to manufacture a fresh wave of support for the cops.

More police is not the solution to violence, it a major cause.

Urgent appeal to help Pakistani ‘prisoners of climate change crisis’‏

Dear friends and comrades

Baba Jan and four comrades – all members of the Labour Party Pakistan (LPP) and the Progressive Youth Front (PYF) – have been imprisoned since September last year for standing up for the rights of people from the Hunza Valley, in the remote province of Gilgit-Baltistan, after their villages and farmlands were flooded in 2010. Collectively they have come to be known as the Hunza Five. A leading Pakistan newspaper, Dawn, reports that Labour Party Pakistan comrades Baba Jan and Iftikhar Hussain are being tortured by special “anti-terrorist police” unit in an undisclosed location now.

The Hunza Five are among a growing number of those who could be termed “political prisoners of the global climate crisis”.

In 2010, one fifth of Pakistan was flooded after extremely heavy monsoonal rains. Two thousand people died as a result of this extreme weather event and 20 million people suffered displacement and/or destruction of property, livelihood and infrastructure. People around the world donated millions of dollars in emergency aid but not all of that aid got to the real victims of the devastating floods.

Baba Jan and his comrades were arrested for leading protests of victims of flooding who had been cheated out of compensation and assistance by corrupt officials. The Hunza Five have been assaulted, tortured and denied their rights (including visiting rights and medical treatment) during their imprisonment.

There has been an international campaign of solidarity. Here in Australia we organised for numerous letters of protest and concern to be sent the Pakistani government. This international campaign helped force the authorities to allow Baba Jan and his comrades visits and some medical treatment – which they had been previously denied.

Then, last month, there was word that they were finally about to be granted bail – nine months after they were arrested! But when Baba Jan’s lawyer went to the magistrate with the bail application the public prosecutor said that the magistrate was not allowed to hear this case. The police have now inserted new charges under draconian anti-terrorist laws and so the case could be heard only by a special anti-terrorist court.

On July 19, the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), consisting of police and intelligence officials, came to Jutial Jail, Gilgit, where Baba Jan was being held, in order to take him into their custody.

Fearing that the team had not actually obtained judicial remand from the Anti-Terrorist Court, which would authorise them to take custody of Baba Jan, and further, fearing that the intention would be torture – either as a last-ditch attempt to extract a confession from Baba Jan or as a vindictive expression of their frustration at not being able to break him so far – the ordinary prisoners rose up in solidarity with Baba Jan and resisted the attempts of the team to shift Baba Jan out of the prison.

The JIT was turned away on July 19 but they returned the following night of July 20 and Baba Jan and one of his comrades Iftikhar Hussain were removed from the Gilgit jail by JIT personnel and taken to an unknown location.

Baba Jan’s lawyers and comrades did all they could to resist any move to hand over custody of Baba Jan to the police or the JIT and demanded that Baba Jan be questioned by the JIT in Jutial Jail. His supporters, especially his family, are said to be extremely worried that giving physical custody of Baba Jan to the crime police or the JIT will inevitably lead to further torture. Given the two previous instances, in October 2011 and April/May 2012, and the fact that the Anti-Terrorism Act admits confessions of the accused as evidence and that torture is an accepted means of “investigation” in our law enforcement paradigm, this is a well-founded fear.

The JIT is composed of police and intelligence agents representing the same establishments that previously abducted and tortured Baba Jan and his comrades in violation of judicial remand.

LPP and PYF comrades in Gilgit are unanimous in their assessment that the ruling clique of the region know that their attempts to manipulate the judicial system to pressurise the Hunza Five have almost failed. The authorities are extremely fearful about what will happen when the Hunza Five are at liberty and free to talk of their experiences and expose the reality of the collaborationist, anti-people elite to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.

On July 23 more than 800 locals demonstrated in Hunza valley breaking through the fear imposed by the authorities after they fired on protests last August. This was the first mass protest in the valley for months. The elders of the area gave three days warning to the government to release Baba Jan in three days or face a march to their offices. The younger brother of Baba Jan said they had expected only 50 to 100 to join the march and were awed by the numbers that turned out.

See open letter signed by Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky and others here:

Please act urgently to show your solidarity to these brave political prisoners of the global climate change crisis.

Yours in solidarity
Peter Boyle
Socialist Alliance National Co-convener

* * *

Please send an urgent letter of protest to:
Mr. Asif Ali Zardari
President of Pakistan
President’s Secretariat
Fax: +92 51 9207458
(Copies to)
Hon. Prime Minister of Pakistan
Prime Minister House
Hon. Rehman Malik
Minister for Interior
R Block Pak Secretariat
Fax: +92 51 9202624
Ministry of Human Rights
NAB Building
Ata-Turk Avenue
G-5/2, Islamabad
Fax: +9251-9204108

Indigenous and student struggles: together at last

By Valerie Lannon

The Algonquin Nation at Barriere Lake (ABL), Quebec, has long defended its territory against clearcut logging by Resolute Forest Products (formerly known as Abitibi Bowater). Without consultation, Resolute sent loggers into the territory to begin clearcutting in early July.

ABL immediately set up a protest camp near the logging site and Quebec police have maintained a large presence there to escort loggers. The work is in violation of the Trilateral Agreement the Quebec government signed with ABL in 1991.

In solidarity with this struggle, hundreds organized a casseroles protest in Ottawa in front of the corporate office of Resolute and then marched to Premier Charest’s office.

Beatriz Munoz, a representative of the social struggle committee of the prominent student group CLASSE stated “Support for Indigenous rights is central to our broader struggle for the common good.”

Meanwhile back at the protest camp, 18-year old Algonquin student Tillis Wawatie cut out red squares for ABL campers. The Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement Ottawa stated “It’s the same government which created Law 78 to silence the movement against tuition fee increases and austerity measures that has granted companies the right to exploit the ancestral land of Indigenous people.”

For more information visit