“Atlantica” is defined by its purveyors as “a region, a simple geographic construct” which includes all four of the Atlantic Provinces, eastern portions of Quebec and five northern New England states. Within this proposed free-trade zone are 7 major rail gateways, 11 major truck gateways, and 23 border crossings — all of which interconnect the various parts of the proposed Atlantica region, a region that has been the victim of intense exploitation of its natural resources, union busting, and socio-economic poverty.

Atlantica, also known as the International Northeast Economic Region (AINER), has as its main goal the eradication of traditional trade regulations faced by corporations, and seeks to envelop areas where workers are already economically dispossessed and living lives rife with financial hardships. The logic on the part of the Atlantica backers however, makes perfect sense: the poorer people are, the harder they will work for less. Considering this, the region sought to be exploited by Atlantica is ripe for the picking.

The conference was the second of its kind to be held in as many years by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and was focused on incorporating the “tourism, transportation and energy sectors” into the larger big business plan of promoting “inter-provincial and international trade through the removal of barriers and harmonization of regulations.” The harmonizing measures include lowering the minimum wage to one base level for the whole zone and removing nasty inconveniences to corporate investment, such as labour laws and the rights of unions.

Likely in the spirit of being as inclusive as possible, conference organizers let their welcoming sentiments be known to all when they stated, “The conference will be open to a diverse group from all levels — small business owners, CEO’s, managers and executives, as well as Government representatives from the four Atlantic Provinces and the US Northeast.”

Yes, very diverse indeed.

So diverse and inclusive in fact, that the only ones excluded from the process were the people themselves — the disgruntled low-income workers, angry youth and students, and frustrated senior citizens. These folks do fit into the Atlantica plan, but more as parts of the machine than as the operators of it.

And so was the composition of the march which intended to confront and oppose those who sought to abolish the rights of working people throughout the Atlantic provinces. Including members and supporters of labour, human rights, and environmental groups, the demonstrators marched in unison against the business elites who attended the conference. Utilizing a diversity of tactics, the event included a colourful display of resistance and solidarity, filled with signs and banners denouncing the sell-off of the east coast, intermixed with a crowd of people who were determined to righteously use direct action to have their voices heard by the Atlantica organizers.

Halifax Regional Police were swift (but not entirely successful) in their attempts to violently put down militants within the demonstration. Protesters within the Black Bloc section actively fought back against police aggression and demanded access to the building where their futures were being planned. Using garbage can lids as shields, and sticks as batons, they went to battle in a confrontation which saw 21 protesters arrested at the end of the day for defending the interests of their people.

A number of major Atlantica backers are inextricably tied to media ownership on the east coast, and have overseen the negative portrayal of dissent to Atlantica in print, on radio, and on television. Mainstream press in Atlantic Canada was quick to follow the usual recipe for critiquing progressive demonstrations.

First, the size of the overall event was insinuated to have been small and ineffective. Next, the demonstrators who used pacifist methods were quaintly applauded for their subservience. And finally, those who chose a more direct and militant means of expressing their opposition to being systematically exploited and marginalized were chastised for their actions and blamed for their own treatment at the hands of the state. Overarching all of this was the standard act of neglecting to use a meaningful and fair analysis of the actual issues which were the causes of the demonstration in the first place.

One of the many examples is the article “The good, the bad and the ugly” by Skana Gee of Halifax’s The Daily News. Gee’s article (which carried the subheading of “Some protesters peaceful, others not, prompting police to get rough”) followed the aforementioned recipe to a tee. While taking time to include such insightful and important tidbits as to her claim that someone called the police “pigs” at one point, Gee apparently found the reasons for the Atlantica protest to be so uninteresting that she included only short and vague snippets about them (which, of course, balanced the protesters’ gripes with the stance of big business). The majority of the article focused on the sensational confrontations of the day, without any developed insight as to why they took place at all.

Even the descriptions of the photos taken by Ryan Taplin and Andrew Vaughan which accompanied Gee’s article, are less than subtle in their contributions to the questionable interpretation of the day’s events. A photo of protesters attempting to gain access to a possibly injured man lying on the ground is labeled “Police officer fights off masked protesters”, while another showing a cop with his hand firmly around the neck of a man who he appears to be choking is explained away with the description, “A protester makes a face as police hold him up to be photographed.”

Not to be overlooked however, Oliver Moore of the Globe and Mail outdoes Gee in his article “Rogue globalization protesters clash with police in Halifax”, in which he expresses his heartfelt sympathy for the pain and suffering endured by a broken window at a TD Bank branch. In his 330-word article, his only explanation as to why the protest occurred was, “This group of several dozen people was part of a broader march against a proposal to reduce trade barriers in Eastern Canada and the northeastern United States, and create a bloc that would be known as Atlantica.” All in all, only 11% of the article was dedicated to this overly simplified description of the event, but Moore had no shortage of words to describe his astonishment about “a firecracker and a few paint-filled bottles” that were used by the protesters in response to the tasers, pepper spray, and batons of the police.

But the prize pig of the Atlantica crowd is none other than the neo-liberal mascot, Kevin Cox. Cox started off his article for Allnovascotia.com, “How the blind defy gravity”, by discussing the “black ski masks that a few thugs wore in a pathetic attempt to gain attention” (an attempt which apparently worked on Cox, and makes the reader wonder just who the “pathetic” one is.) He stuck to the recipe though, and followed that up by writing that “the main protest, which was peaceful and earnest, was equally futile.” He went on to state that “contrary to the protestors’ (sp) placards, Canada has not been selling out”, and that workers in “India, China, Sooth (sp) Korea or even Brazil” are perfectly content with the effects of free trade and corporate globalization.

It’s nice to know that we can count on Kevin to speak for the billions of people in some of the world’s most impoverished and destitute countries, and tell us that they enjoy their squalor.

Such an approach to reporting is not only a slight to the very notion of journalistic ethics and standards, but is also a massive disservice to the communities seeking valuable and educational information on what led to the events which transpired.

Yet without fail, every mainstream media outlet managed to successfully report on the events of the day without presenting even a glimpse at the larger issue of economic violence upon which the entire proposal of Atlantica is built. It is a violence that intensifies an already agonizing regional poverty and fosters the social ills most admonished by any people: drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, suicide, and so on. Violence was identified and addressed only in a narrow, reactionary manner which solely examined some of the methods of resistance utilized by the protesters. It was quite predictable that there would not even be a consideration of the words “community self-defence” or anything of a similar nature to characterize the actions of those who went toe-to-toe with the state.

And alas, the reporting that transpired was far from unique. The descriptions applied to the mainly young men and women arrested at the protest have been applied throughout history to any and all who organize and mobilize the people into a struggle that actively challenges the rule of the super rich. They are not the first, nor will the be the last, to have the haughty fingers of the upper class wagged at them, and be told that they’re an unruly mod of rabble — ungrateful poor folks who are too uppity for their own good.

Thankfully, we can find some solace in the fact that most of the working people in the Atlantic provinces are intelligent and selfless enough to act and make the sacrifices they did with the very best of intentions. This is more than can be said for the self-crowned financial elite on the other side of the barricades, who are seeking to oppress and exploit an already marginalized people. Despite the constant barrage of tainted media coverage, the voices are growing louder, the crowds are swelling larger, and the fists are beginning to fly from those who will go down fighting against the imposition of Atlantica.

Now, however, that befuddlement is steadily being combined, if not replaced, with a sense of distrust and agitation.

And understandably so. Canadians largely remain perplexed as to why Ottawa has sent troops to a war which many see as unjustified, and even more seem to feel is still unexplained. No solid reasoning has come from Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to elaborate on the very general statements released this far, which have simply declared that Canada is now “committed” to the war. Despite the rising military and civilian death toll overseas, he claims that Canada now has a “better military” from the experience.

Contrasting with the tranquil and vague rationalization from the federal government has been a rabidly defensive outcry by the armed forces. Conveniently disregarding the large number of innocent people killed in the invasion and consequent occupation, military officials have been quick to respond to anti-war sentiments by offering up the suggestion that the public often forgets about “all the good things” which Canadian soldiers contribute to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

An intensified pro-military advertising campaign in Canada over recent years has been coupled with corporate media refusing to carry out a critical analysis of the political and economic reality of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. This has fostered the conditions for at least partial support of the war by working class Canadians.

But the attempts at winning over public opinion have not been as successful as some political leaders and military brass had hoped. According to recent polls, nearly 50 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Public demonstrations against the occupation are still strong, with thousands protesting in the streets throughout 37 cities last October 25, in order to spread the truth about the Conservatives’ agenda.

When examined, the often ignored numbers don’t lie either. Canada entered a war that aroused international popular condemnation, and which is now responsible for the deaths of between 20,000 and 49,600 Afghanis, according to Jonathan Steele of the Guardian. Canada’s participation in Afghanistan provides essential logistical support to the simultaneous US war in Iraq. Canada’s death count in the Afghan “theater of operations” is now at 45 troops, with an additional 150+ injured. In analyzing the number of dead, the math paints a dreary picture which is difficult to understand. Great Britain, which currently has 4,700 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, has had fewer troops killed than Canada, which has fewer than half the number of British soldiers stationed there. Meaning that Canada’s fatality rate is double that of the British rate. Yet these realities do not penetrate Canadian media.

Further displaying the success of wartime propaganda at work, an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest News Service this past September showed that of just over 1,000 Canadians questioned, 80 per cent actually believe that Canadian forces are conducting a “vital humanitarian mission” in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the truth is far different from this common misconception of the Canadian military as being one of peacekeepers eager to reconstruct war-torn communities.

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan currently have approximately 90 per cent of their work consisting of combat missions, and only 10 per cent allocated to humanitarian projects — a scandalous injustice when it is considered that 1.5 million people in Afghanistan are suffering from imminent starvation. Canada’s participation in this US-instigated war helps maintain the annual deaths of 268,000 Afghani children under the age of five who pass away from easily treatable diseases such as diarrhea and pulmonary conditions.

Since Canadian forces arrived in the region in late 2001 (and actively engaged in on-ground missions beginning in early 2002), the US government has been able to utilize more of its military resources in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Mainstream press in Canada has been largely silent on this matter. There was an equal lack of publication on the confirmation from Ottawa in April 2003 that over 50 Canadians were actually fighting in Iraq, placed there via exchange programs with the “allied” forces.

Canadians are faced with the challenge of choosing between blind nationalism and a critical perspective on the economic realities underlying the occupation of Afghanistan, through which Canada has enrolled itself as a military junior partner of the US global empire. As the body count of both Afghanis and Canadians grows higher, the facts are becoming clearer as to the true intentions behind the war, and the necessary illusions which cloak them.