therealnews--2020-06-29--Coronavirus Cases Surge As Nurses Demand States Close Until They Can Reopen Safely

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jaisal Noor : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Jaisal Noor .
State leaders are imposing new restrictions and delaying reopenings this week as coronavirus cases in several US states continue to surge .
Public health experts and healthcare workers are demanding states close again until COVID-19 protections , testing , and tracking measures are put in place .
Texas announced on Friday it ’ s closing bars after the state experienced record hospitalizations after reopening early .
In California , Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased by nearly a third after easing restrictions , overwhelming many emergency rooms across the state .
Nevada will require everyone to wear a mask in public after the state hit record high in new cases earlier in the week after reopening .
Meanwhile , Florida saw its highest one-day total of new cases this week .
Well , our next guest has been warning for months that states lacked the required PPE , testing , and other safety measures to open safely .
Zenei Cortez is president of National Nurses United and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South San Francisco , California .
She has been a nurse for more than 40 years .
Thank you so much for joining us .
Zenei Cortez : Well , thank you for having me .
Jaisal Noor : So in your 40 years of being a nurse , could you have ever experienced or imagined being in a situation like this where not only were we unprepared and not only did we not heed the calls of healthcare workers and public health professionals and experts , but we ’ re reopening too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have given forth ?
Zenei Cortez : Yes , it ’ s really unprecedented .
In my 40 years of nursing experience , having gone through a lot of cases like HIV AIDS in the early ’ 80s , SARS , H1N1 , I have not seen anything of this magnitude .
And since the beginning of the pandemic , we have been sounding the alarm that we are not prepared to tackle this big issue ahead of us , which is the COVID-19 coronavirus in that we have been asking for optimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have asked the CDC , the Centers for Disease Control .
We ’ ve asked OSHA , Occupational Safety and Health Administration , and even calling on the World Health Organization to put on strict guidance as to how we can stop the spread and also the transmission of the disease .
But unfortunately , it has always fallen on deaf ears .
And so it ’ s really frustrating that we have come to this point where the administration and our government officials and healthcare officials who are supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public are not really doing their jobs .
It was too early to open in April .
We said that .
And then furthermore , they opened up more in different states , in different stages last month .
And now we are faced with the surge of new cases , and we ’ re still not ready .
We ’ re not prepared .
Jaisal Noor : And talk about what the situation is in California .
Early on , California was praised for its response to the coronavirus crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zenei Cortez : Well , right now , we ’ re being told by our employers that there ’ s very limited supply of PPE .
And in fact , last week , one of our employers told us that as of last week , we only have PPE that would last us 100 days .
And that ’ s very scary on the part of the nurses and of course of the other frontline healthcare workers because when you come to the hundredth day , what are we going to do ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a lot of risks on us because , as nurses , we need to take care of the public .
We need to take care of our patients , and we can not abandon them .
And so now we are asking the governor , our local officials , our state officials , and even President Trump to activate the Defense Production Act so that he can require massive production of PPE so we will be able to face and take care and handle the surge that ’ s happening because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the cases have been tremendously high , so that now our emergency rooms and our ICUs are overwhelmed once again .
Jaisal Noor : So talk about what your response is to President Trump .
Not only has he resisted calls to use the Defense Production Act to mobilize industry to produce PPE , but he ’ s also sort of made fun of people for wearing masks .
He ’ s held these rallies where there hasn ’ t been a requirement to wear a mask and sort of stigmatized and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spaces .
And do you think that ’ s had an impact on the public ?
Because for a while , it seems like the recovery was going well , and people let their guards down .
Zenei Cortez : Yes , that ’ s really true .
We were doing a fine job of flattening the curve , but then when you have a president who is continuously putting everybody in harm ’ s way by saying , “ The virus is gone .
Let ’ s go back to normal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you said , people let their guards down , which is not the case because the virus is still here .
And it doesn ’ t discriminate as to who it will affect .
People thought that only older people would be affected , but no , it ’ s all ages , all races .
It doesn ’ t matter whether your ethnicity is Brown , Black .
It doesn ’ t matter .
It doesn ’ t matter what skin color you are or even your economic status in life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the unfortunate thing is that we have a president who is very , very irresponsible in trying in protecting us .
He ’ s not even trying , because trying is … I would give him a good grade on that , but he isn ’ t even trying .
He ’ s telling people that , “ Go back to normal .
Everything will be fine.
” And I think that ’ s when we see people going to the beaches , having parties , young kids getting together , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing .
And that ’ s really irresponsible on his part .
And I think that he should be called out for it .
And we have done so , but again , unfortunately , he ’ s not responding .
Or he ’ s just ignoring the calls of people who are basing what they see and their decisions on science and not on the stock market .
Jaisal Noor : And finally , there ’ s been a dramatic spread of conspiracy theories around the need for the use of masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral clip from Palm Beach County , a hearing that they held this week , where a lot of residents spoke out , being skeptical of the need for masks and the need for social distancing .
Speaker 3 : What happened to Bill Gates ?
Why is he not in jail ?
Speaker 3 : The deep state is going down , and if any of you are in the deep state , you ’ re going down with it .
Jaisal Noor : … saying it ’ s their right as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen this around the country , even as cases spike .
So what would you say as a nurse , as a healthcare worker on the front lines to people that don ’ t believe that the need for this ?
Zenei Cortez : Well , yeah , I think I saw the same clip , and it really gave me a migraine because these people are so uninformed of what the virus can do and how it could spread .
They need to see what ’ s going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see how , let ’ s say , an 18-year-old kid had been infected by the virus and clinging life with all different tubes connected to the body and being on the ventilator , laying on the stomach .
They need to see those graphic images so that it would resonate to them .
And unfortunately , they need a lot of education , and they need a lot of information .
And that ’ s what ’ s missing .
And then once again , if you have elected officials that dismisses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think that ’ s really , I would say , even criminal for those leaders to be still in office when their job is to protect their constituents .
And I ’ m really baffled that these people are not realistic .
I think they ’ re refusing to see what ’ s happening around them , and they ’ re refusing to admit that masking is one of the steps that needs to be taken in order for the transmission and the disease and the spread to stop .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told , and they need to have the education .
That ’ s all I can say .
Jaisal Noor : Well , I want to thank you so much for joining us .
And it ’ s worth mentioning that an estimated 600 healthcare workers have died due to COVID already across the country .
So you ’ re coming from a place from the front lines and really appreciate all the work .
And we hope that the public and elected officials take these calls seriously .
Thank you so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , thank you for having me , and thank you for continuing to shed the light on this problem .
Jaisal Noor : And thank you for joining us at The Real News Network .

The US experiences record-high coronavirus cases after ignoring the warnings of public health experts and medical professionals. We speak with National Nurses United President Zenei Cortez.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jaisal Noor: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Jaisal Noor. State leaders are imposing new restrictions and delaying reopenings this week as coronavirus cases in several US states continue to surge. Public health experts and healthcare workers are demanding states close again until COVID-19 protections, testing, and tracking measures are put in place. Texas announced on Friday it’s closing bars after the state experienced record hospitalizations after reopening early. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom said the number of hospitalizations increased by nearly a third after easing restrictions, overwhelming many emergency rooms across the state. Nevada will require everyone to wear a mask in public after the state hit record high in new cases earlier in the week after reopening. Meanwhile, Florida saw its highest one-day total of new cases this week.
Well, our next guest has been warning for months that states lacked the required PPE, testing, and other safety measures to open safely.
Zenei Cortez is president of National Nurses United and a registered nurse at Kaiser Permanente in South San Francisco, California. She has been a nurse for more than 40 years. Thank you so much for joining us.
Zenei Cortez: Well, thank you for having me.
Jaisal Noor: So in your 40 years of being a nurse, could you have ever experienced or imagined being in a situation like this where not only were we unprepared and not only did we not heed the calls of healthcare workers and public health professionals and experts, but we’re reopening too early against the advice that many people have given forth?
Zenei Cortez: Yes, it’s really unprecedented. In my 40 years of nursing experience, having gone through a lot of cases like HIV AIDS in the early ’80s, SARS, H1N1, I have not seen anything of this magnitude. And since the beginning of the pandemic, we have been sounding the alarm that we are not prepared to tackle this big issue ahead of us, which is the COVID-19 coronavirus in that we have been asking for optimum PPE at the very beginning. And we have asked the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control. We’ve asked OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and even calling on the World Health Organization to put on strict guidance as to how we can stop the spread and also the transmission of the disease. But unfortunately, it has always fallen on deaf ears.
And so it’s really frustrating that we have come to this point where the administration and our government officials and healthcare officials who are supposed to be watching for the health and welfare of the public are not really doing their jobs. It was too early to open in April. We said that. And then furthermore, they opened up more in different states, in different stages last month. And now we are faced with the surge of new cases, and we’re still not ready. We’re not prepared.
Jaisal Noor: And talk about what the situation is in California. Early on, California was praised for its response to the coronavirus crisis. What is the situation right now?
Zenei Cortez: Well, right now, we’re being told by our employers that there’s very limited supply of PPE. And in fact, last week, one of our employers told us that as of last week, we only have PPE that would last us 100 days. And that’s very scary on the part of the nurses and of course of the other frontline healthcare workers because when you come to the hundredth day, what are we going to do? And that puts a lot of burden and a lot of risks on us because, as nurses, we need to take care of the public. We need to take care of our patients, and we cannot abandon them.
And so now we are asking the governor, our local officials, our state officials, and even President Trump to activate the Defense Production Act so that he can require massive production of PPE so we will be able to face and take care and handle the surge that’s happening because of the opening. And here in California, the cases have been tremendously high, so that now our emergency rooms and our ICUs are overwhelmed once again.
Jaisal Noor: So talk about what your response is to President Trump. Not only has he resisted calls to use the Defense Production Act to mobilize industry to produce PPE, but he’s also sort of made fun of people for wearing masks. He’s held these rallies where there hasn’t been a requirement to wear a mask and sort of stigmatized and normalized this behavior even in confined indoor spaces. And do you think that’s had an impact on the public? Because for a while, it seems like the recovery was going well, and people let their guards down.
Zenei Cortez: Yes, that’s really true. We were doing a fine job of flattening the curve, but then when you have a president who is continuously putting everybody in harm’s way by saying, “The virus is gone. Let’s go back to normal” … And that’s when, as you said, people let their guards down, which is not the case because the virus is still here. And it doesn’t discriminate as to who it will affect. People thought that only older people would be affected, but no, it’s all ages, all races. It doesn’t matter whether your ethnicity is Brown, Black. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what skin color you are or even your economic status in life. It doesn’t matter.
But the unfortunate thing is that we have a president who is very, very irresponsible in trying in protecting us. He’s not even trying, because trying is … I would give him a good grade on that, but he isn’t even trying. He’s telling people that, “Go back to normal. Everything will be fine.” And I think that’s when we see people going to the beaches, having parties, young kids getting together, no masks, no protection, no social distancing. And that’s really irresponsible on his part. And I think that he should be called out for it. And we have done so, but again, unfortunately, he’s not responding. Or he’s just ignoring the calls of people who are basing what they see and their decisions on science and not on the stock market.
Jaisal Noor: And finally, there’s been a dramatic spread of conspiracy theories around the need for the use of masks and the coronavirus.
There was a viral clip from Palm Beach County, a hearing that they held this week, where a lot of residents spoke out, being skeptical of the need for masks and the need for social distancing.
Speaker 3: What happened to Bill Gates? Why is he not in jail?
Speaker 4: [crosstalk 00:08:47].
Speaker 3: The deep state is going down, and if any of you are in the deep state, you’re going down with it.
Jaisal Noor: … saying it’s their right as Americans to not do this. And we’ve seen this around the country, even as cases spike. So what would you say as a nurse, as a healthcare worker on the front lines to people that don’t believe that the need for this?
Zenei Cortez: Well, yeah, I think I saw the same clip, and it really gave me a migraine because these people are so uninformed of what the virus can do and how it could spread. They need to see what’s going on in the hospitals. They need to see how, let’s say, an 18-year-old kid had been infected by the virus and clinging life with all different tubes connected to the body and being on the ventilator, laying on the stomach. They need to see those graphic images so that it would resonate to them. And unfortunately, they need a lot of education, and they need a lot of information. And that’s what’s missing.
And then once again, if you have elected officials that dismisses the fact that the coronavirus is gone, I think that’s really, I would say, even criminal for those leaders to be still in office when their job is to protect their constituents. And I’m really baffled that these people are not realistic. I think they’re refusing to see what’s happening around them, and they’re refusing to admit that masking is one of the steps that needs to be taken in order for the transmission and the disease and the spread to stop. And I think they really need to be told, and they need to have the education. That’s all I can say.
Jaisal Noor: Well, I want to thank you so much for joining us. And it’s worth mentioning that an estimated 600 healthcare workers have died due to COVID already across the country. So you’re coming from a place from the front lines and really appreciate all the work. And we hope that the public and elected officials take these calls seriously. Thank you so much for joining us.
Zenei Cortez: Well, thank you for having me, and thank you for continuing to shed the light on this problem.
Jaisal Noor: And thank you for joining us at The Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden
Production: Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-07-01--International Pressure Kept Canada From Joining Security Council

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Mark Steiner : Welcome to the Real News , I ’ m Mark Steiner .
Great to have you all with us .
Now , despite being one of the founding members of the United Nations and portraying itself as a just society , Canada has just lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council .
The Canada self-image is one of a liberal peace-loving democracy , but it didn ’ t stop organizations from around the world to organize petition drives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow Canada to have a seat .
The campaign succeeded and Ireland won that seat , instead .
The Canadian ambassador to the UN , Marc-Andre Blanchard , tried to explain Canada ’ s failure .
Let ’ s have a listen .
Marc-Andre Blan… : At the UN , this the race for the Security Council in the Western European and others group that we belong to , the regional group that we belong to , is always very , very competitive .
The tights are the , the races are tight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then when you have a race like the one we were in with three great , really three great countries that have a lot to bring to the world and to the UN , it ’ s a difficult choice for the countries and the member states .
And each countries has 193 different reasons why they would support one country or another and this is the politics of the UN that is very tricky and very difficult and complex .
And we will have plenty of times to actually look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steiner : So , led by many people , including people like Bianca Mugyenyi at Canadian Foreign Policy Institute , over a hundred organizations , including Canadians for Just Peace in the Middle East , argue that Canada doesn ’ t deserve a seat on the Security Council because its foreign policy just mimics US foreign policy as its own , especially in the middle East .
And it doesn ’ t pay its fair share of international aid and spells arms to notorious human rights violators around the world .
Canada ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially bad .
In 2018 , the foreign minister in Canada , whose name was Christina Freeland , told Israelis that if Canadians had a seat on the council , it would be , quote , an asset to Israel .
Ireland and Norway , won more votes than Canada for the seat in part because of the work they do .
And they recognize the status of Palestine as a nation and have a much better record than Canada ’ s on promoting peace throughout the world .
In April , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Real News about Canada ’ s decision to sell armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia , despite the arms embargo .
And since then , Canada has also sold optical systems to Turkey .
I think they may be fighting each other with those weapons .
So now it ’ s time to go back to Yves Engler to get a deeper look at what is happening and why and what the future might hold .
Welcome back , Yves .
Good to have you with us .
Yves Engler : Thanks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remind you all , Yves Engler is a Canadian commentator and author , his most recent book is the Ugly Canadian : Stephen Harper ’ s Foreign Policy , he previously published The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy , and Canada in Haiti : Waging War on a Poor Majority .
And Yves , let ’ s begin with what just happened before we kind of dive into what could have happened and what is happening .
So the UN Security Council with its five permanent members , all of them are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different parts of the world and human rights violators in some part , just said they were not a lot counted on .
And so it ’ s interesting to me that Norway and Ireland , both smaller countries are standing up for human rights , cut out these seats .
I mean , so is something switching with UN , is this , how do you analyze it that this , what just happened ?
Yves Engler : Well , it ’ s a matter of the General Assembly , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Assembly , and the members of the General Assembly , I think , voted against Canada in large part because the Canadian government identified as being very close to the Trump administration , close to Netanyahu and Israel , is aligned with indifference to climate catastrophe in Africa , Canada has a huge mining sector involved in all kinds of conflicts around the world .
So I think that the vote at the General Assembly , I don ’ t want to argue that this is just morality entering into play , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play .
I mean , I think there ’ s a lot of countries in the world , a country like Uganda .
Maybe you could say that Uganda has repressive domestic policies , but there is a sense of , of internationalism , there ’ s a sense of anti-imperialism and the UN ambassador of Uganda or maybe Nicaragua or another country , basically when it came down to the private vote , they assessed Canadian foreign policy and Canadian foreign policy is a much more militaristic , much more pro-corporate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy or the Norwegian foreign policy and that ’ s in large part , why Canada lost quite badly in it ’ s bid to sit on the Security Council .
Mark Steiner : So let ’ s kind of explore this a little bit , a bit deeper in that .
When you look at the Trudeau government coming in as a liberal party , people thought that the government would come in and turn over some of Harper ’ s policies .
But what ’ s happened is it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not changing things Harper has done internationally , maybe even more , and B that it just kind of shows kind of a , for want of a better term , the neoliberal inability to control capitalism or control of mining interests and it ’ s going to arms industry .
So what , what ’ s the political dynamic inside Canada ?
Yves Engler : Yeah , I mean , I think that ’ s exactly what we need to look at , which is that there is more structural explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is if it ’ s Stephen Harper or if it ’ s Justin Trudeau , or even if it happened to be a Jagmeet Singh the leader of the supposedly social democratic NDP , that there are structural factors within Canadian society that drive foreign policy in a certain direction .
And so there is a lot more that ’ s similar between Stephen Harper ’ s foreign policy and Justin Trudeau ’ s foreign policy , than that is different .
I alluded to some before , but just to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record at the UN on resolutions , dealing with Palestinian rights .
In fact , Justin Trudeau ’ s voting record in his first four years was more anti-Palenstinian than Stephen Harper ’ s voting record at the UN on Palestinian rights .
If you look at Canada ’ s involvement in NATO , the Trudeau government has expanded , sent Canadian troops to Latvia on the border with Russia , Canadian troops support NATO with Americans and in Iraq , Canadian Naval vessels are part of these NATO patrols and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve continued with this ramped up number of Canadian forces .
So you see that , that even though Justin Trudeau tends to speak a bit more of a liberal kind of a rhetoric on militarism or peace , in fact , his policy largely has continued with the predecessor .
And there ’ s probably no area that ’ s more clear on that than the question of the mining sector .
Canada has about half of the world ’ s mining companies are based or listed in Canada .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s population , so 100 times Canada ’ s proportion of the world ’ s population it ’ s dominance in the mining sector .
And the Trudeau government promised to bring in reforms that would end public support for mining companies found to be engaged in major abuses abroad .
They announced it , the promises were coming to office , they repeated that promise after coming to the office , they began a whole commission , and after the pushback from the mining sector in this country , basically they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost no power to even compel companies to provide documentation about some of the things they may have been involved with and basically no power to end public support for those mining companies .
So that mining sector , of course , is a very powerful force within Canada and over the past 25 years as there ’ s been the neoliberal reforms in Africa and Latin America , Canadian mining companies have absolutely skyrocketed .
So in Mexico , 25 years ago , there were no Canadian mining companies .
Now there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mining companies , there ’ s something like 75 % of all the mining companies in Mexico , and that ’ s totally tied to neoliberal forums in Mexico .
And so Canadian , capital Canadian business class is very committed to maintaining those policies in Mexico and many other countries .
So Justin Trudeau ’ s government has mostly just continued that because there are some structural forces that want more of that type of policy .
Mark Steiner : So interesting , one of the things I think is important maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be overly simplistic to say that Canada merely mimics US foreign policy , but that it goes hand-in-hand because the foreign policy interests of Canada are motivated by the things that are similar to a motivates United States in terms of his own capital interests .
I mean , whether it ’ s arms dealing or the mining sector the minute amount of money that Canada spends on international aid as compared to other countries .
I mean , you can ’ t put this all as just mimicking us foreign policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no doubt about that .
I mean , I ’ ve said , over and over again , there ’ s basically two forces that drive Canadian foreign policy : historic support for empire and support for corporate interest .
Historically support for the British empire , today support for the American empire and Canadian corporate interests .
The Canadian mining companies and Canadian aid policy and diplomacy , and even military policy , which support the mining sector in Jamaica , in Mexico , in Congo , in Senegal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian companies and Canadian diplomats to act in a way to serve backup mining companies that pollute local waterways , kill opponents in local communities to their minds .
No one in the U S is forcing , Canadian companies or Canadian diplomats to go in that direction .
So , Canada has a very expansive international investment class or capitalists class that is totally tied into pillaging the resources of the Congo or of countries in Central America .
I would say that the way to formulate it is that the Canadian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world in a very similar way to the US Elite .
Yes , there are times when the Trump administration , or the Obama administration before that , puts pressure on Canada to go in a certain direction .
I think you see that , especially in military policy the US has constantly pushing Canada to increase its military spending , pushing Canada to engage in different foreign Wars or foreign missions , but there are elements to , Canadian structural elements to Canadian economic and political life that pushed Canada towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with the pressure from Washington .
Mark Steiner : And that kind of concludes this issue of pressure , the pressure put on the United Nations member states .
How much effect you think that it had in [ inaudible 00:12:32 ] in the seat , and what does that mean for a building movement , both in Canada and around the globe , in terms of what really motivated the being denied the seat , but also just how it connects to a larger movement inside of Canada and worldwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s an interesting question .
We can ’ t , we obviously can ’ t answer it completely and how much effect the No-Canada-on-United-Nations-Security-Council Campaign had .
A small group of activists began this campaign , actually , began it months ago , and then the pandemic put a two month pause into it .
But we began it by launching an open letter , signed by many prominent people , it published in the Toronto star , the widest circulated paper in the country , and then it got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the prime minister was forced to respond to it in a press conference .
And then there was a series of different elements this campaign that included sending 1300 , there was another open letter focused specifically on Palestine : one that was just general above critical opinion form pulse and one ’ s focused on Palestine .
And then there were 1300 individuals that emailed every single UN ambassador critical of Canada ’ s policy on Palestine .
Then , another one that focused more generally , then one focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s critical of Canadian policy in the Caribbean , another one focused on African ambassadors , critical policy in Africa .
What we do know , we can ’ t say for sure how much impact this had , we know it generated a fair bit of media attention within this country and globally , but what we can say for sure is that the Canadian ambassador to the UN , Mark-Andre Blanchard , was so concerned about our campaign that he actually penned a letter that he delivered to every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our criticisms of Canadian policy with regards to Palestine .
And so if he felt the need to do that , that was because he heard from many different ambassadors in New York that there was a lot of talk about what we were saying .
And of course , what we were saying is completely well-documented and in their letter , responding to us claim that we were , aridness , but never pointed out any of our errors , of course .
So , what we know is that Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the way it works is that you need to have two thirds of the general assembly to not have a second round .
So Norway had 130 votes , Ireland had 128 and Canada had 108 .
If Ireland would have had 127 , there would have been a second round of voting where theoretically Canada could have gained some of the votes that Norway had had .
So if we just impacted one country to not vote for Canada and instead vote for Ireland , that impacted the vote .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have that impact and because the information we were putting forward was really irrefutable and we contrasted Canadian policy foreign policy to Irish foreign policy to Norwegian foreign policy .
And in so many areas , Irish , Norwegian foreign policy were less bad , in some cases we ’ re actually good .
Now , what does this mean for Canadian foreign policy going forward ?
This was a shock to many Canadians .
The loss of the security council bid was front page news .
It ’ s a rare time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world was rejecting Canada .
As much as the government tried to spin that , it was pretty hard to avoid the obvious .
We have now launched another campaign calling for a fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy in light of the failed bid of the security council .
And what ’ s interesting is that we , in the five days of gathered signatures , we had many more prominent individuals sign on to this than the previous open letter opposed to Canada ’ s has been for the security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in part is that you have this sort of opening that , that people within kind of progressive circles , but that are generally supportive of Canadian foreign policy are sort of saying , “ Hey , this is real , there is a real problem with Canadian foreign policy .
The world has rejected Canadian foreign policy , quite clearly that the UN , and we need to sort of look at this in a more fundamental way ” .
So , this seems to be an opportunity to break through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian foreign policy .
And I ’ m hoping that there will be some lasting impact to both the student council vote and the campaigning that ’ s been done around it .
Mark Steiner : Well , this has been fascinating ?
It really has .
I mean , I think what you ’ re describing , what you described in our conversation today really shows the power of what a movement can do , and also how the world can hear a message and how things build and change .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all of you do in this regard and Yves I want to think you for always being ready to talk with us here at Real News .
We Look forward to many more conversations .
Yves Engler : Thanks for having me , Mark .
Mark Steiner : My pleasure .
And I ’ m Mark Steiner here for Real News Network .
I want to thank you all for watching .
Let us know what you think , and please take care .

Despite Canada’s liberal reputation, its international affairs are built around support for empire and corporate interest.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Mark Steiner: Welcome to the Real News, I’m Mark Steiner. Great to have you all with us. Now, despite being one of the founding members of the United Nations and portraying itself as a just society, Canada has just lost its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. The Canada self-image is one of a liberal peace-loving democracy, but it didn’t stop organizations from around the world to organize petition drives, demanding that UN member states not allow Canada to have a seat. The campaign succeeded and Ireland won that seat, instead. The Canadian ambassador to the UN, Marc-Andre Blanchard, tried to explain Canada’s failure. Let’s have a listen.
Marc-Andre Blan…: At the UN, this the race for the Security Council in the Western European and others group that we belong to, the regional group that we belong to, is always very, very competitive. The tights are the, the races are tight and this year was no difference. And then when you have a race like the one we were in with three great, really three great countries that have a lot to bring to the world and to the UN, it’s a difficult choice for the countries and the member states. And each countries has 193 different reasons why they would support one country or another and this is the politics of the UN that is very tricky and very difficult and complex. And we will have plenty of times to actually look at that in the near future.
Mark Steiner: So, led by many people, including people like Bianca Mugyenyi at Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, over a hundred organizations, including Canadians for Just Peace in the Middle East, argue that Canada doesn’t deserve a seat on the Security Council because its foreign policy just mimics US foreign policy as its own, especially in the middle East. And it doesn’t pay its fair share of international aid and spells arms to notorious human rights violators around the world. Canada’s record on Israel, Palestine is especially bad. In 2018, the foreign minister in Canada, whose name was Christina Freeland, told Israelis that if Canadians had a seat on the council, it would be, quote, an asset to Israel. Ireland and Norway, won more votes than Canada for the seat in part because of the work they do. And they recognize the status of Palestine as a nation and have a much better record than Canada’s on promoting peace throughout the world.
In April, we spoke with Yves Engler right here at the Real News about Canada’s decision to sell armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia, despite the arms embargo. And since then, Canada has also sold optical systems to Turkey. I think they may be fighting each other with those weapons. So now it’s time to go back to Yves Engler to get a deeper look at what is happening and why and what the future might hold. Welcome back, Yves. Good to have you with us.
Yves Engler: Thanks for having me.
Mark Steiner: And remind you all, Yves Engler is a Canadian commentator and author, his most recent book is the Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy, he previously published The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, and Canada in Haiti: Waging War on a Poor Majority. And Yves, let’s begin with what just happened before we kind of dive into what could have happened and what is happening. So the UN Security Council with its five permanent members, all of them are heavily armed nations and deeply involved in different parts of the world and human rights violators in some part, just said they were not a lot counted on. And so it’s interesting to me that Norway and Ireland, both smaller countries are standing up for human rights, cut out these seats. I mean, so is something switching with UN, is this, how do you analyze it that this, what just happened?
Yves Engler: Well, it’s a matter of the General Assembly, that’s who voted 193 members of the General Assembly, and the members of the General Assembly, I think, voted against Canada in large part because the Canadian government identified as being very close to the Trump administration, close to Netanyahu and Israel, is aligned with indifference to climate catastrophe in Africa, Canada has a huge mining sector involved in all kinds of conflicts around the world.
So I think that the vote at the General Assembly, I don’t want to argue that this is just morality entering into play, but I think morality did enter into play. I mean, I think there’s a lot of countries in the world, a country like Uganda. Maybe you could say that Uganda has repressive domestic policies, but there is a sense of, of internationalism, there’s a sense of anti-imperialism and the UN ambassador of Uganda or maybe Nicaragua or another country, basically when it came down to the private vote, they assessed Canadian foreign policy and Canadian foreign policy is a much more militaristic, much more pro-corporate, anti-Palestinian foreign policy than is the Irish foreign policy or the Norwegian foreign policy and that’s in large part, why Canada lost quite badly in it’s bid to sit on the Security Council.
Mark Steiner: So let’s kind of explore this a little bit, a bit deeper in that. When you look at the Trudeau government coming in as a liberal party, people thought that the government would come in and turn over some of Harper’s policies. But what’s happened is it seems to me, Trudeau’s government is not changing things Harper has done internationally, maybe even more, and B that it just kind of shows kind of a, for want of a better term, the neoliberal inability to control capitalism or control of mining interests and it’s going to arms industry. So what, what’s the political dynamic inside Canada?
Yves Engler: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s exactly what we need to look at, which is that there is more structural explanations for Canada’s foreign policy than there is if it’s Stephen Harper or if it’s Justin Trudeau, or even if it happened to be a Jagmeet Singh the leader of the supposedly social democratic NDP, that there are structural factors within Canadian society that drive foreign policy in a certain direction. And so there is a lot more that’s similar between Stephen Harper’s foreign policy and Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy, than that is different. I alluded to some before, but just to take a look at Canada’s voting record at the UN on resolutions, dealing with Palestinian rights. In fact, Justin Trudeau’s voting record in his first four years was more anti-Palenstinian than Stephen Harper’s voting record at the UN on Palestinian rights.
If you look at Canada’s involvement in NATO, the Trudeau government has expanded, sent Canadian troops to Latvia on the border with Russia, Canadian troops support NATO with Americans and in Iraq, Canadian Naval vessels are part of these NATO patrols and in the middle East and the Baltic, so they’ve continued with this ramped up number of Canadian forces. So you see that, that even though Justin Trudeau tends to speak a bit more of a liberal kind of a rhetoric on militarism or peace, in fact, his policy largely has continued with the predecessor. And there’s probably no area that’s more clear on that than the question of the mining sector. Canada has about half of the world’s mining companies are based or listed in Canada. Canada has 0.5% of the world’s population, so 100 times Canada’s proportion of the world’s population it’s dominance in the mining sector.
And the Trudeau government promised to bring in reforms that would end public support for mining companies found to be engaged in major abuses abroad. They announced it, the promises were coming to office, they repeated that promise after coming to the office, they began a whole commission, and after the pushback from the mining sector in this country, basically they came up with an ombudsperson that has almost no power to even compel companies to provide documentation about some of the things they may have been involved with and basically no power to end public support for those mining companies.
So that mining sector, of course, is a very powerful force within Canada and over the past 25 years as there’s been the neoliberal reforms in Africa and Latin America, Canadian mining companies have absolutely skyrocketed. So in Mexico, 25 years ago, there were no Canadian mining companies. Now there’s hundreds and hundreds of Canadian mining companies, there’s something like 75% of all the mining companies in Mexico, and that’s totally tied to neoliberal forums in Mexico. And so Canadian, capital Canadian business class is very committed to maintaining those policies in Mexico and many other countries. So Justin Trudeau’s government has mostly just continued that because there are some structural forces that want more of that type of policy.
Mark Steiner: So interesting, one of the things I think is important maybe to bring out here is that it might be overly simplistic to say that Canada merely mimics US foreign policy, but that it goes hand-in-hand because the foreign policy interests of Canada are motivated by the things that are similar to a motivates United States in terms of his own capital interests. I mean, whether it’s arms dealing or the mining sector the minute amount of money that Canada spends on international aid as compared to other countries. I mean, you can’t put this all as just mimicking us foreign policy.
Yves Engler: Oh, there’s no doubt about that. I mean, I’ve said, over and over again, there’s basically two forces that drive Canadian foreign policy: historic support for empire and support for corporate interest. Historically support for the British empire, today support for the American empire and Canadian corporate interests. The Canadian mining companies and Canadian aid policy and diplomacy, and even military policy, which support the mining sector in Jamaica, in Mexico, in Congo, in Senegal, no one in Washington is forcing those Canadian companies and Canadian diplomats to act in a way to serve backup mining companies that pollute local waterways, kill opponents in local communities to their minds. No one in the U S is forcing, Canadian companies or Canadian diplomats to go in that direction. So, Canada has a very expansive international investment class or capitalists class that is totally tied into pillaging the resources of the Congo or of countries in Central America.
I would say that the way to formulate it is that the Canadian Elite see the world and profit from the world in a very similar way to the US Elite. Yes, there are times when the Trump administration, or the Obama administration before that, puts pressure on Canada to go in a certain direction. I think you see that, especially in military policy the US has constantly pushing Canada to increase its military spending, pushing Canada to engage in different foreign Wars or foreign missions, but there are elements to, Canadian structural elements to Canadian economic and political life that pushed Canada towards a belligerent policy abroad that had nothing to do with the pressure from Washington.
Mark Steiner: And that kind of concludes this issue of pressure, the pressure put on the United Nations member states. How much effect you think that it had in [inaudible 00:12:32] in the seat, and what does that mean for a building movement, both in Canada and around the globe, in terms of what really motivated the being denied the seat, but also just how it connects to a larger movement inside of Canada and worldwide?
Yves Engler: Yeah. Well, that’s an interesting question. We can’t, we obviously can’t answer it completely and how much effect the No-Canada-on-United-Nations-Security-Council Campaign had. A small group of activists began this campaign, actually, began it months ago, and then the pandemic put a two month pause into it. But we began it by launching an open letter, signed by many prominent people, it published in the Toronto star, the widest circulated paper in the country, and then it got a decent amount of attention that day and the prime minister was forced to respond to it in a press conference. And then there was a series of different elements this campaign that included sending 1300, there was another open letter focused specifically on Palestine: one that was just general above critical opinion form pulse and one’s focused on Palestine.
And then there were 1300 individuals that emailed every single UN ambassador critical of Canada’s policy on Palestine. Then, another one that focused more generally, then one focused on the Caribbean countries and emailed Caribbean ambassador’s critical of Canadian policy in the Caribbean, another one focused on African ambassadors, critical policy in Africa. What we do know, we can’t say for sure how much impact this had, we know it generated a fair bit of media attention within this country and globally, but what we can say for sure is that the Canadian ambassador to the UN, Mark-Andre Blanchard, was so concerned about our campaign that he actually penned a letter that he delivered to every single UN ambassador, trying to push back about our criticisms of Canadian policy with regards to Palestine. And so if he felt the need to do that, that was because he heard from many different ambassadors in New York that there was a lot of talk about what we were saying.
And of course, what we were saying is completely well-documented and in their letter, responding to us claim that we were, aridness, but never pointed out any of our errors, of course. So, what we know is that Canada lost by 20 votes to Ireland, but the way it works is that you need to have two thirds of the general assembly to not have a second round. So Norway had 130 votes, Ireland had 128 and Canada had 108. If Ireland would have had 127, there would have been a second round of voting where theoretically Canada could have gained some of the votes that Norway had had. So if we just impacted one country to not vote for Canada and instead vote for Ireland, that impacted the vote. I’m totally confident that we did have that impact and because the information we were putting forward was really irrefutable and we contrasted Canadian policy foreign policy to Irish foreign policy to Norwegian foreign policy.
And in so many areas, Irish, Norwegian foreign policy were less bad, in some cases we’re actually good. Now, what does this mean for Canadian foreign policy going forward? This was a shock to many Canadians. The loss of the security council bid was front page news. It’s a rare time when it was really clear that the the world was rejecting Canada. As much as the government tried to spin that, it was pretty hard to avoid the obvious. We have now launched another campaign calling for a fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy in light of the failed bid of the security council. And what’s interesting is that we, in the five days of gathered signatures, we had many more prominent individuals sign on to this than the previous open letter opposed to Canada’s has been for the security council.
So what I take from that in part is that you have this sort of opening that, that people within kind of progressive circles, but that are generally supportive of Canadian foreign policy are sort of saying, “Hey, this is real, there is a real problem with Canadian foreign policy. The world has rejected Canadian foreign policy, quite clearly that the UN, and we need to sort of look at this in a more fundamental way”. So, this seems to be an opportunity to break through the very narrow spectrum of debate on Canadian foreign policy. And I’m hoping that there will be some lasting impact to both the student council vote and the campaigning that’s been done around it.
Mark Steiner: Well, this has been fascinating? It really has. I mean, I think what you’re describing, what you described in our conversation today really shows the power of what a movement can do, and also how the world can hear a message and how things build and change. So I say thank you for the work that all of you do in this regard and Yves I want to think you for always being ready to talk with us here at Real News. We Look forward to many more conversations.
Yves Engler: Thanks for having me, Mark.
Mark Steiner: My pleasure. And I’m Mark Steiner here for Real News Network. I want to thank you all for watching. Let us know what you think, and please take care.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Will Arenas, Andrew Corkery
Studio: Will Arenas
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-06-30--Stir Crazy! Episode #61: COVID & Cops: We Are Under Attack

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.


therealnews--2020-06-30--Who Controls The Money When We Defund Police?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : This is Jacquelyn Luqman with the Real News Network .
The demand to defund the police is spreading across the country .
Rising up from the ongoing protests in response to the public lynching of George Floyd in Minneapolis , Minnesota , as well as the shooting death of Breonna Taylor during a no knock warrant gone wrong in Louisville , Kentucky , the police mocking Shawn Reed on video after they chased and shot him in Indianapolis , Indiana , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutors office of the vigilante murder of Ahmad Arbery in Glenn County , Georgia , and just last week , the fatal shooting of Rashard Brooks in the back by police in Atlanta , Georgia .
And all of this after years and years of unaccounted for shootings of mostly black , Latino , indigenous people , but also of poor white people by members of what is called law enforcement across this country .
But the people in the streets contend that these alleged public servants aren ’ t serving the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law as much as they are acting too often as sidewalk judge , jury , and executioners , and that their police department budgets represent too sizeable a portion of most cities ’ expenditures that should be reallocated to other areas that would truly serve the people and improve the people ’ s lives .
This is the basis for the call to defund the police .
But we have to ask , is it enough to solve the problem of the epidemic of extrajudicial police murder that must come to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with me about defunding the police and what truly changing policing would really mean , is Frank Chapman , the executive director of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression .
Frank , thanks so much for joining me .
Frank Chapman : Thank you so much for having me .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : Now , Frank , of course , this conversation around defunding the police is taking center stage coming from the ongoing protests , and I feel like the last conversation you and I had last year was ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue that I know you ’ re going to bring up later on in this discussion , but I want to start with this idea of defunding the police .
Should police budgets be slashed and reallocated to other services ?
Because that ’ s the demand , and I want to get your thoughts on that particular issue .
Frank Chapman : Yeah , we ’ ve been involved in the struggle for community control of the police since 1969 , and our organization has been involved in the struggle since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no problem with defunding the police , we just got a problem about who ’ s going to be in charge .
If you ’ re going to leave the people who have created the problem in the first place in charge , then , obviously , it ’ s going to be a problem with the defunding .
The police need to be defunded just like the Pentagon .
Now , if you ’ re talking about budget cuts and what not , it should be substantial , because let me give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hundred million dollars , the mayor of Los Angeles has already said he ’ s taking out of the police budget to commit to community .
That ’ s peanuts , and that ’ s when we are afraid of happening if you leave those people who are in power in charge of this .
They ’ re still neo-liberals , they haven ’ t stopped being that because there ’ s a rebellion going on .
They ’ re still going to try to do the budget shifts in such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disadvantage .
We need the people who are impacted by the police , and the huge budget around which they operate , to be in charge of the defunding .
That ’ s why we say defunding can not take place in the absence of community control .
If it does , then you ’ re going to get a recycling of the problem .
Defunding has to take place with the community in charge of the defunding .
That ’ s how we see it .
In the legislation that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all elected civilian police accountability council , we ’ ve had defunding in there since we first drew legislation back in 2013 .
Frank Chapman : So , this is not something new that just came up .
This has been there .
What we are afraid of , well , we ’ re not afraid of it , but what we caution people about is this .
Don ’ t let those who created the problem be in charge of solving it .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : And the example that you raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slashing their budget by a hundred million dollars and reallocating those funds , it is important who is doing this and who is deciding where those funds will be reallocated to .
Because it does raise a few questions , that if one police department could that easily and that quickly decide , “ Well , we don ’ t need a hundred million dollars , ” people should be asking , “ Well , how much more money do you have left that just giving away a hundred million dollars doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be asking , “ Well , who ’ s deciding who will get those $ 100 million in funds .
What are those organizations operations in the community , and what ties do they have to the people making the decisions and the police departments themselves.
” So , I think it ’ s really important that we make it clear that we need to be asking these questions that you raised .
Who is doing this ?
Who ’ s making these decisions when people are talking about defunding the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the police .
Explain what this is , why it ’ s important in the context of not just defunding the police , but changing the nature of policing as it exists in this country today .
Frank Chapman : Well , this is really a struggle has been going on in our community for damn near a century , and we ’ ve come to some conclusions about how it has to be resolved .
Not based on some abstract theory , but based on our actual experience as a movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this .
It started back in the 60s with the Black Power movement and the Panthers .
It has to be resolved like this here .
We , who are impacted by police tyranny and terror , we have to be the ones in charge of the process .
We have to be the ones in charge .
Now , what we have to be in charge of is saying who polices our communities and how our communities are policed .
How they are policed has a not to do with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to do with eliminating racism , in terms of the police department .
We want to make sure that racist , Ku Klux Klan minded cops , there ’ s a whole bunch of them going on today , are not in our communities , policing our communities .
We want to also demilitarize the police , because the police also operate as an occupying army .
It ’ s a paramilitary organization .
And so , some of that like in Chicago , they got $ 1.4 billion budget .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy hardware from the Pentagon , military hardware .
I mean , helicopters , sniper equipment , armored cars , all of that stuff , you know ?
And so , the defunding has to also be coupled with demilitarizing the police and only our movement can make that happen .
Because our movement is about putting the people in the community in charge of the policing that goes on in their communities , and once we have empowered ourselves with that power , then we can proceed to defund the police according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we think is necessary for the community .
We can proceed to demilitarize in the same manner .
And then , we can regulate them in terms of how they conduct themselves in our communities .
We can regulate them to the point of regulating them out of existence .
People think I ’ m joking when I say that , but I ’ m talking about policing as it exists today .
We can only eliminate that type of policing by community control of the police , by letting the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defunding the police , demilitarizing the police , and regulating the police .
If that ’ s not going on , then it ’ s just piecemeal reforms .
They ’ ll give us some defunding on one day with a teaspoon , and take it back the next day with a shovel , because they ’ ll be in charge of the process , not us .
If we ’ re in charge of the process , we can make sure that these reforms have a permanent impact in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about power .
If we ’ re not changing the power relationships between the police and ourselves , then nothing changes .
So , we ’ ve got to change that power relationship .
And that ’ s not only true to the police .
That ’ s true of education .
That ’ s true of delivery of healthcare services .
That ’ s true of all the institutions that function and operate in our communities .
We ’ ve got to be in charge .
If we ’ re not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense .
Reparations make more sense than just defunding , because let me tell you why .
We ’ re talking about shifting the budget- Frank Chapman : And we ’ re talking about what they call reinvestment in our communities and so forth and so on .
We ’ re talking about doing it with the same system that has oppressed us and kept us in the situation that we ’ re in for damn near 400 years .
Okay .
So now … Well , for over 400 years .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this , then we have to see the oppression that has been , that black people have been subjected to and how we ’ re still living under the vestiges of slavery with unemployment , with bad housing , poor delivery of health services , all of the social economic conditions that you talk about .
Then defunding the police is not going to raise enough money to deal with all of those problems .
It ’ s just not .
We ’ re talking about trillions of dollars .
Frank Chapman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to demand something like budget shifts , let ’ s demand reparations .
Let ’ s demand that we get reparations from the government to deal with the whole range of these problems , to completely eliminate all the vestiges of slavery in this country .
That ’ s what we should be talking about , because like somebody asked me during a demonstration , they said , “ Well , after you get community control of the police , then what do you want ?
What are you going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response was , “ Everything .
Everything .
We want everything .
Everything that ’ s been taken from us , we want .
Everything .
You ’ ve been robbing us for four centuries , so we want everything .
We want complete , total restitution.
” Jacquelyn Luqma… : And you know what , Frank ?
I ’ m so glad you said that .
I ’ m so glad you brought up that question that someone asked you about , “ Once you get community control over the police , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Because therein , I think , lies the crux of the issue , that people in this country are afraid of the oppressed finally having the same level of power that they have always had .
At least that ’ s how I see it .
Is that how you see it , also ?
Frank Chapman : Absolutely .
Here ’ s what we ’ re talking about .
We ’ re talking about an unfinished revolution in this country that was started back during the Civil War .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Civil War .
At the time the Civil War broke out , the highest investment in the country was in a slave .
That was the highest investment in the country that anybody could make was to buy a slave .
Because the slaveholders were raking in something like over $ 300 billion , all right ?
And it was only 300,000 of them .
So now , when the Civil War broke out and when it ended , one thing changed forever , and that was the buying and selling of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they brought that back in the form of the 13th amendment , where they said slavery is abolished except for convicted persons .
And then , for a very brief period , from 1867 to 1877 , you had what is called Black , what Dr. W.E.B .
Dubois called Black Reconstruction .
But that was a revolutionary period in our history where democracy really happened for about 10 years , where black folks were in charge of their own political destiny in those areas where we constituted a majority .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitute a majority , we coalesced , a coalition with poor white farmers and made some of the most radical changes in the history of this country .
Public education come out of that period .
The women ’ s suffrage movement come out of that period .
But that revolution was not finished , it was stopped .
The Reconstruction governments were overthrown through Ku Klux Klan terrorism , and then set up in its place was a police like state called Jim Crow , which lasted for damn near 90 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t finish that revolution .
We ’ re still dealing with it now , in terms of voting rights … Take any problem that black people have , it ’ s because that revolution was not finished .
But we can ’ t go back in history and finish it .
It won ’ t be just us getting democratic rights and what not under the system like we could have done it then , but they missed that opportunity .
So now , it means that in order for us to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole damn system , from top to bottom .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : Frank , I have to ask you , when people say things like , “ Well , listen .
A lot of police departments have already instituted reforms .
There are community control boards and community oversight boards where members of the community are involved in some part of the process of reviewing police conduct.
” What ’ s your response to those efforts of reform that have been implemented in some areas ?
Have they been useless ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms , and do reforms matter ?
Can this system be reformed ?
Frank Chapman : Yeah , reforms matter , but for whom ?
If it ’ s a reform to maintain , if it ’ s a reform that does not change the power relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed , if it ’ s a reform designed to maintain the status quo , then that ’ s the reform that works for them .
If it ’ s a reform that changes the relationship between the oppressor and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then that works for us .
Like the abolition of slavery worked for us , you know ?
Doing away with Jim Crow worked for us , you know ?
And so , we know how to get those kinds of reforms .
It ’ s got to be a social upheaval .
That ’ s , that ’ s how we get them .
You don ’ t get those kinds of reforms by politicians suddenly having a change of heart and suddenly deciding that , “ Well , we haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s time for us to be fair.
” Well , what ’ s fair ?
You mean you ’ re going to give up your super profits that you get from exploiting us ?
You going to give that up ?
What ’ s fair ?
Like Frederick Douglass says , “ A kinder slave master is not fair.
” We want to get rid of slaves .
Just to be better fed and better clothed under the same system that continues to exploit us and use us like animals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to overturn this whole system and create one that is truly fair to the people .
And then , we want to be the ones who decide what is fair .
Let us decide that , not you .
You have no moral authority over us to decide what ’ s fair .
You ’ ve been exploiting us and abusing us for four centuries .
You don ’ t have no moral authority to tell us about what ’ s fair .
You need to get out , we need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luqma… : And another issue that people are raising , Frank , in the context of changing policing in America is the issue of qualified immunity .
I feel like this is certainly a legal issue that needs to be addressed .
The police are immune from being sued individually for some acts of violence that they commit against people .
And this is , I think , where the police unions come in and defend police officers and , according to some laws , individual people who might be able to sue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a civil suit , or they may be able to sue the city , can not sue the individual person who actually took someone ’ s life .
So , this is an issue that ’ s been raised in this discussion around policing .
Frank Chapman : Yeah , that ’ s another example of injustice .
But also , look at it like this here .
Tell me what union in the United States of North America defends its members if they are accused of the crime of murder ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ defends their members if they are accused of any crime outside of the … If they ’ re accused of stealing in the workplace , what union comes to their defense ?
Jacquelyn Luqma… : I don ’ t know that there is a union that exists that does that .
Frank Chapman : But there is one union that does , the police union .
The police union defends murderers .
The police union hires lawyers .
The police union does … And then , when we take them to civil court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars is what goes into the settlement .
So yeah , you mean , is that the kind of [ inaudible 00:20:16 ] that you ’ re talking about ?
Jacquelyn Luqma… : Basically yes , to keep them from being individually sued at all .
That ’ s being taken off the table .
There have been- Frank Chapman : Not only sued , but also keeps them from being criminally charged .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : Yes .
Yes .
And that ’ s- Frank Chapman : The same process also keeps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us pay taxes , tax paying dollars , for the police repression that exists in our community .
They murder our people and then we , our tax paying dollars pay off the settlements .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : And we pay for it .
Frank Chapman : Yeah , so that ’ s just really ridiculous .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : Yeah .
I don ’ t think that there is anything that encapsulates the completely unequal and oppressive power relationship between policing , as it exists today , and the policed .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frank , mostly white people in middle class and upper class communities , because in some regards they already have community control over their police .
They , if they don ’ t like the way the police are operating in their communities , they complain and things change .
It does not happen in our communities , so we are really talking about changing the power dynamic between specific groups of people and the law enforcement apparatus that ’ s used by this capitalist white supremacist system to control that oppressed group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , Frank , that the statistic that you gave a little earlier , about 300,000 enslaved people generating , did you say $ 3 billion of profit ?
Frank Chapman : Yeah , $ 3 billion .
That was what the slave holders , that was what their property value was estimated at combined at the time Civil War broke out , about $ 3 billion .
Which was a whole lot of money back then .
Now , that would be damn near a trillion dollars .
Frank Chapman : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of investment , in other words , what you got the greatest amount of return on , was to buy a slave and to sell a slave .
Buying and selling slaves .
Buying and selling slaves .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : And people would be mistaken if they think that this capitalist system that we are struggling against still , and even more intensely in the streets right now , has changed that much from that time during our ancestors ’ enslavement .
The system hasn ’ t changed .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look a little bit different , but it ’ s still the same system .
So , Frank , you and your organization have been fighting for community control over the police and community control over our communities for 30 years , since the 70s .
We have got to be serious .
We have got to be serious in understanding what we are fighting for , what we ’ re fighting against , and what we want on the other side of this .
So , how do people connect with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alliance Against Police , I ’ m sorry , Against Racist and Political Repression in order to get those connections and get this right ?
Get this revolution right and finish it this time .
Frank Chapman : Okay , that ’ s easy .
Go to NAARPR.org , that ’ s our website , and you can join our organization .
We had an international day of protest on May the 30th .
Just on that one date , and that was doing this rebellion , right ?
On that one day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Frank Chapman : On that one day .
Now , people have been constantly joining since , so you can help make a movement like ours irresistibly powerful by simply joining it and getting engaged in this struggle .
So , we encourage everyone within the sound of my voice to go to NAARPR.org and become a part of this movement , become part of this organization , to make sure that the changes that we ’ re advocating , to make sure that the change that we ’ re dreaming about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because only we , the people can make it happen .
The politicians are not going to make this happen .
Jacquelyn Luqma… : And , I have to end by saying that I think , Frank , that you and I feel the same level of intensity and urgency as we ’ re talking about this issue .
I hope that came across in this discussion that we have had , that people are watching right now .
Because we are in the midst of a very serious struggle for where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will happen to us as a people , so time is of the essence , and we don ’ t have any time to keep playing games and playing nice with people .
So , I really appreciate you , Frank , coming on and laying down the truth and the history behind this push for what needs to be community control over the police and nothing short of that .
So , I really , really honor and appreciate your time today .
Frank Chapman : Okay , we thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thank you all for watching .
This is Jackie Luqman in Washington , DC , the belly of the beast .
Stay angry , my friends .
Stay in these streets , finish the revolution .

Do we trust the police to defund and restructure themselves? Will community control really guarantee permanent changes to policing as we know it today?
Story Transcript
National Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: This is Jacquelyn Luqman with the Real News Network. The demand to defund the police is spreading across the country. Rising up from the ongoing protests in response to the public lynching of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as the shooting death of Breonna Taylor during a no knock warrant gone wrong in Louisville, Kentucky, the police mocking Shawn Reed on video after they chased and shot him in Indianapolis, Indiana, the attempted cover up by the police and prosecutors office of the vigilante murder of Ahmad Arbery in Glenn County, Georgia, and just last week, the fatal shooting of Rashard Brooks in the back by police in Atlanta, Georgia. And all of this after years and years of unaccounted for shootings of mostly black, Latino, indigenous people, but also of poor white people by members of what is called law enforcement across this country.
But the people in the streets contend that these alleged public servants aren’t serving the public, that they aren’t enforcing the law as much as they are acting too often as sidewalk judge, jury, and executioners, and that their police department budgets represent too sizeable a portion of most cities’ expenditures that should be reallocated to other areas that would truly serve the people and improve the people’s lives. This is the basis for the call to defund the police.
But we have to ask, is it enough to solve the problem of the epidemic of extrajudicial police murder that must come to an end? Well, here to talk with me about defunding the police and what truly changing policing would really mean, is Frank Chapman, the executive director of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression. Frank, thanks so much for joining me.
Frank Chapman: Thank you so much for having me.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Now, Frank, of course, this conversation around defunding the police is taking center stage coming from the ongoing protests, and I feel like the last conversation you and I had last year was ahead of its time. We talked about an issue that I know you’re going to bring up later on in this discussion, but I want to start with this idea of defunding the police. Should police budgets be slashed and reallocated to other services? Because that’s the demand, and I want to get your thoughts on that particular issue.
Frank Chapman: Yeah, we’ve been involved in the struggle for community control of the police since 1969, and our organization has been involved in the struggle since 1970. We don’t have no problem with defunding the police, we just got a problem about who’s going to be in charge. If you’re going to leave the people who have created the problem in the first place in charge, then, obviously, it’s going to be a problem with the defunding. The police need to be defunded just like the Pentagon. Now, if you’re talking about budget cuts and what not, it should be substantial, because let me give you an example. A little over a hundred million dollars, the mayor of Los Angeles has already said he’s taking out of the police budget to commit to community.
That’s peanuts, and that’s when we are afraid of happening if you leave those people who are in power in charge of this. They’re still neo-liberals, they haven’t stopped being that because there’s a rebellion going on. They’re still going to try to do the budget shifts in such a way as to leave our people at a disadvantage. We need the people who are impacted by the police, and the huge budget around which they operate, to be in charge of the defunding. That’s why we say defunding cannot take place in the absence of community control. If it does, then you’re going to get a recycling of the problem. Defunding has to take place with the community in charge of the defunding. That’s how we see it.
In the legislation that we have proposed there in Chicago for an all elected civilian police accountability council, we’ve had defunding in there since we first drew legislation back in 2013.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Wow.
Frank Chapman: So, this is not something new that just came up. This has been there. What we are afraid of, well, we’re not afraid of it, but what we caution people about is this. Don’t let those who created the problem be in charge of solving it.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And the example that you raised with the one police department committing to slashing their budget by a hundred million dollars and reallocating those funds, it is important who is doing this and who is deciding where those funds will be reallocated to. Because it does raise a few questions, that if one police department could that easily and that quickly decide, “Well, we don’t need a hundred million dollars,” people should be asking, “Well, how much more money do you have left that just giving away a hundred million dollars doesn’t hurt?” And people should also be asking, “Well, who’s deciding who will get those $100 million in funds. What are those organizations operations in the community, and what ties do they have to the people making the decisions and the police departments themselves.” So, I think it’s really important that we make it clear that we need to be asking these questions that you raised. Who is doing this? Who’s making these decisions when people are talking about defunding the police.
Now, you mentioned community control over the police. Explain what this is, why it’s important in the context of not just defunding the police, but changing the nature of policing as it exists in this country today.
Frank Chapman: Well, this is really a struggle has been going on in our community for damn near a century, and we’ve come to some conclusions about how it has to be resolved. Not based on some abstract theory, but based on our actual experience as a movement, and it has to be resolved like this. It started back in the 60s with the Black Power movement and the Panthers. It has to be resolved like this here. We, who are impacted by police tyranny and terror, we have to be the ones in charge of the process. We have to be the ones in charge.
Now, what we have to be in charge of is saying who polices our communities and how our communities are policed. How they are policed has a not to do with the budget. Who polices our community, has to do with eliminating racism, in terms of the police department. We want to make sure that racist, Ku Klux Klan minded cops, there’s a whole bunch of them going on today, are not in our communities, policing our communities.
We want to also demilitarize the police, because the police also operate as an occupying army. It’s a paramilitary organization. And so, some of that like in Chicago, they got $1.4 billion budget. Some of that money is being used to buy hardware from the Pentagon, military hardware. I mean, helicopters, sniper equipment, armored cars, all of that stuff, you know? And so, the defunding has to also be coupled with demilitarizing the police and only our movement can make that happen. Because our movement is about putting the people in the community in charge of the policing that goes on in their communities, and once we have empowered ourselves with that power, then we can proceed to defund the police according to our program, according to what we think is necessary for the community. We can proceed to demilitarize in the same manner.
And then, we can regulate them in terms of how they conduct themselves in our communities. We can regulate them to the point of regulating them out of existence. People think I’m joking when I say that, but I’m talking about policing as it exists today. We can only eliminate that type of policing by community control of the police, by letting the people who are impacted be the ones in charge of defunding the police, demilitarizing the police, and regulating the police. If that’s not going on, then it’s just piecemeal reforms. They’ll give us some defunding on one day with a teaspoon, and take it back the next day with a shovel, because they’ll be in charge of the process, not us.
If we’re in charge of the process, we can make sure that these reforms have a permanent impact in terms of our community, because it’s about power. If we’re not changing the power relationships between the police and ourselves, then nothing changes. So, we’ve got to change that power relationship. And that’s not only true to the police. That’s true of education. That’s true of delivery of healthcare services. That’s true of all the institutions that function and operate in our communities. We’ve got to be in charge. If we’re not, it makes no sense, makes no sense.
Reparations make more sense than just defunding, because let me tell you why. We’re talking about shifting the budget-
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Right.
Frank Chapman: And we’re talking about what they call reinvestment in our communities and so forth and so on. We’re talking about doing it with the same system that has oppressed us and kept us in the situation that we’re in for damn near 400 years. Okay. So now … Well, for over 400 years. So now, if we’re serious about this, then we have to see the oppression that has been, that black people have been subjected to and how we’re still living under the vestiges of slavery with unemployment, with bad housing, poor delivery of health services, all of the social economic conditions that you talk about. Then defunding the police is not going to raise enough money to deal with all of those problems. It’s just not. We’re talking about trillions of dollars.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Right.
Frank Chapman: And so, if we’re going to demand something like budget shifts, let’s demand reparations. Let’s demand that we get reparations from the government to deal with the whole range of these problems, to completely eliminate all the vestiges of slavery in this country. That’s what we should be talking about, because like somebody asked me during a demonstration, they said, “Well, after you get community control of the police, then what do you want? What are you going to want after that?” And my response was, “Everything. Everything. We want everything. Everything that’s been taken from us, we want. Everything. You’ve been robbing us for four centuries, so we want everything. We want complete, total restitution.”
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And you know what, Frank? I’m so glad you said that. I’m so glad you brought up that question that someone asked you about, “Once you get community control over the police, what else do you want after that?” Because therein, I think, lies the crux of the issue, that people in this country are afraid of the oppressed finally having the same level of power that they have always had. At least that’s how I see it. Is that how you see it, also?
Frank Chapman: Absolutely. Here’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an unfinished revolution in this country that was started back during the Civil War. From 1861 to 1865, you had a Civil War. At the time the Civil War broke out, the highest investment in the country was in a slave. That was the highest investment in the country that anybody could make was to buy a slave. Because the slaveholders were raking in something like over $300 billion, all right? And it was only 300,000 of them.
So now, when the Civil War broke out and when it ended, one thing changed forever, and that was the buying and selling of human beings. But not slavery, because they brought that back in the form of the 13th amendment, where they said slavery is abolished except for convicted persons. And then, for a very brief period, from 1867 to 1877, you had what is called Black, what Dr. W.E.B. Dubois called Black Reconstruction. But that was a revolutionary period in our history where democracy really happened for about 10 years, where black folks were in charge of their own political destiny in those areas where we constituted a majority. And in those areas where we didn’t constitute a majority, we coalesced, a coalition with poor white farmers and made some of the most radical changes in the history of this country. Public education come out of that period. The women’s suffrage movement come out of that period.
But that revolution was not finished, it was stopped. The Reconstruction governments were overthrown through Ku Klux Klan terrorism, and then set up in its place was a police like state called Jim Crow, which lasted for damn near 90 years. So now, we didn’t finish that revolution. We’re still dealing with it now, in terms of voting rights … Take any problem that black people have, it’s because that revolution was not finished. But we can’t go back in history and finish it. It won’t be just us getting democratic rights and what not under the system like we could have done it then, but they missed that opportunity. So now, it means that in order for us to get those rights, we got to change the whole damn system, from top to bottom.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Frank, I have to ask you, when people say things like, “Well, listen. A lot of police departments have already instituted reforms. There are community control boards and community oversight boards where members of the community are involved in some part of the process of reviewing police conduct.” What’s your response to those efforts of reform that have been implemented in some areas? Have they been useless? Are they worth anything? Are they really reforms, and do reforms matter? Can this system be reformed?
Frank Chapman: Yeah, reforms matter, but for whom? If it’s a reform to maintain, if it’s a reform that does not change the power relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed, if it’s a reform designed to maintain the status quo, then that’s the reform that works for them. If it’s a reform that changes the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, in terms of power, then that works for us. Like the abolition of slavery worked for us, you know? Doing away with Jim Crow worked for us, you know? And so, we know how to get those kinds of reforms. It’s got to be a social upheaval. That’s, that’s how we get them. You don’t get those kinds of reforms by politicians suddenly having a change of heart and suddenly deciding that, “Well, we haven’t been treating these people fairly and it’s time for us to be fair.”
Well, what’s fair? You mean you’re going to give up your super profits that you get from exploiting us? You going to give that up? What’s fair? Like Frederick Douglass says, “A kinder slave master is not fair.” We want to get rid of slaves. Just to be better fed and better clothed under the same system that continues to exploit us and use us like animals, that’s not fair. We want to overturn this whole system and create one that is truly fair to the people. And then, we want to be the ones who decide what is fair. Let us decide that, not you. You have no moral authority over us to decide what’s fair. You’ve been exploiting us and abusing us for four centuries. You don’t have no moral authority to tell us about what’s fair. You need to get out, we need to get you out of there.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And another issue that people are raising, Frank, in the context of changing policing in America is the issue of qualified immunity. I feel like this is certainly a legal issue that needs to be addressed. The police are immune from being sued individually for some acts of violence that they commit against people. And this is, I think, where the police unions come in and defend police officers and, according to some laws, individual people who might be able to sue the police department for a wrongful death in a civil suit, or they may be able to sue the city, cannot sue the individual person who actually took someone’s life. So, this is an issue that’s been raised in this discussion around policing.
Frank Chapman: Yeah, that’s another example of injustice. But also, look at it like this here. Tell me what union in the United States of North America defends its members if they are accused of the crime of murder? What union does that? What union defends their members if they are accused of any crime outside of the … If they’re accused of stealing in the workplace, what union comes to their defense?
Jacquelyn Luqma…: I don’t know that there is a union that exists that does that.
Frank Chapman: But there is one union that does, the police union. The police union defends murderers. The police union hires lawyers. The police union does … And then, when we take them to civil court and sue them, our tax paying dollars is what goes into the settlement. So yeah, you mean, is that the kind of [inaudible 00:20:16] that you’re talking about?
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Basically yes, to keep them from being individually sued at all. That’s being taken off the table. There have been-
Frank Chapman: Not only sued, but also keeps them from being criminally charged.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Yes. Yes. And that’s-
Frank Chapman: The same process also keeps them from being discriminatory … And makes us pay taxes, tax paying dollars, for the police repression that exists in our community. They murder our people and then we, our tax paying dollars pay off the settlements.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And we pay for it.
Frank Chapman: Yeah, so that’s just really ridiculous.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Yeah. I don’t think that there is anything that encapsulates the completely unequal and oppressive power relationship between policing, as it exists today, and the policed. And we’re not talking about, Frank, mostly white people in middle class and upper class communities, because in some regards they already have community control over their police. They, if they don’t like the way the police are operating in their communities, they complain and things change.
It does not happen in our communities, so we are really talking about changing the power dynamic between specific groups of people and the law enforcement apparatus that’s used by this capitalist white supremacist system to control that oppressed group of people. And I just have to say, Frank, that the statistic that you gave a little earlier, about 300,000 enslaved people generating, did you say $3 billion of profit?
Frank Chapman: Yeah, $3 billion. That was what the slave holders, that was what their property value was estimated at combined at the time Civil War broke out, about $3 billion. Which was a whole lot of money back then. Now, that would be damn near a trillion dollars.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Wow. Yeah.
Frank Chapman: So, yeah. And the highest form of investment, in other words, what you got the greatest amount of return on, was to buy a slave and to sell a slave. Buying and selling slaves. Buying and selling slaves.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And people would be mistaken if they think that this capitalist system that we are struggling against still, and even more intensely in the streets right now, has changed that much from that time during our ancestors’ enslavement. The system hasn’t changed. They’ve just changed the nature of enslavement to look a little bit different, but it’s still the same system.
So, Frank, you and your organization have been fighting for community control over the police and community control over our communities for 30 years, since the 70s. We have got to be serious. We have got to be serious in understanding what we are fighting for, what we’re fighting against, and what we want on the other side of this. So, how do people connect with you and your organization, the National Alliance Against Police, I’m sorry, Against Racist and Political Repression in order to get those connections and get this right? Get this revolution right and finish it this time.
Frank Chapman: Okay, that’s easy. Go to NAARPR.org, that’s our website, and you can join our organization. We had an international day of protest on May the 30th. Just on that one date, and that was doing this rebellion, right? On that one day 700 people came into our organization nationally.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: Wow.
Frank Chapman: On that one day. Now, people have been constantly joining since, so you can help make a movement like ours irresistibly powerful by simply joining it and getting engaged in this struggle. So, we encourage everyone within the sound of my voice to go to NAARPR.org and become a part of this movement, become part of this organization, to make sure that the changes that we’re advocating, to make sure that the change that we’re dreaming about, that we can make that happen. Because only we, the people can make it happen. The politicians are not going to make this happen.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And, I have to end by saying that I think, Frank, that you and I feel the same level of intensity and urgency as we’re talking about this issue. I hope that came across in this discussion that we have had, that people are watching right now. Because we are in the midst of a very serious struggle for where we will go as a country and what will happen to us as a people, so time is of the essence, and we don’t have any time to keep playing games and playing nice with people.
So, I really appreciate you, Frank, coming on and laying down the truth and the history behind this push for what needs to be community control over the police and nothing short of that. So, I really, really honor and appreciate your time today.
Frank Chapman: Okay, we thank you as well.
Jacquelyn Luqma…: And I thank you all for watching. This is Jackie Luqman in Washington, DC, the belly of the beast. Stay angry, my friends. Stay in these streets, finish the revolution.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Taylor Hebden
Studio: Taylor Hebden
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.