From protest to powerlessness : a Marxist analysis of the Ontario NDP /

Using Marxist state theory as an analytical framework, this thesis explains the problems faced by the Ontario New Democratic Party government (1990-1995) in implementing a social democratic agenda. Not only was the government constrained in its ability to implement progressive policy, but it was also pushed to implement a Social Contract (involving legislated wage cuts to public sector employees) that alienated the party's base of support, making it more difficult for the party to organize in the future. Although this study relies predominantly on a reinterpretation of existing research on the topic, some primary research is used in the analysis, including interviews with members of the labour movement and former MPPs and analysis of the news media's treatment of the party/ government. Historical and class analytical perspectives are used to explain the evolution of the ONDP's structure and policies, as well as to assess the relative strength of the working class and its ability to support a social democratic political agenda. It was found that the ONDP' s unwillingness to develop a long term plan for social democracy, and its inability to act as a mass party or to build a strong working class movement, made it more difficult for the party to succeed when it formed the government. Moreover, the class nature of the capitalist state, along with pressure exerted by a well mobilized capitalist class, worked to limit the government' s options.

Public Instrument of Protest

Public Instrument of Protest (1 double-sided handwritten page) by William W. Gillvery and the North West Company against Angus W. Gillis for breaking his agreement with the company, March 26, 1800.

Instrument of Protest from Edward Barrori Palmer

Instrument of protest from Edward Barrori Palmer, Notary Public of Oakville regarding a protest by Samuel Sutherland, Master of the schooner Elizabeth and Charles McEacherin, mate. The schooner belonged to the Port of Niagara. It set sail from Port Credit to the Port of Niagara. On the 15th day of May there was a violent storm. On the 16th day of May, part of the deck and cargo consisting of lumber went overboard. The mainsail was lost and the jib was split due to the wind. All losses and damages should be borne by the merchants and whomever else it concerned and not by or through the insufficiency of the schooner of neglect by the officers and mariners. This is a 2 ½ page handwritten document, May 16, 1837.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Indignation Meeting

A handout that reads: "Indignation Meeting. A Meeting will be held in the Orange Hall tomorrow evening Tuesday, July 17th at 8 o'clock, p.m. To protest against the late mean and despicable action taken by the Police in subpoenaing respectable and worthy Citizens to give evidence as whiskey-sneaks, thus interfering with the liberty of free-born subjects, and as likely to intimidate good citizens from entering an hotel. Everyone should attend and protest against such a resurrected tombstone ironheeled law, to bear which is to suffer worse than the slaves in Siberia. Arouse ye all!" Moosomin, Saskatchewan, 16 July 1888.

Meeting Minutes July 7th, 1972

The first "business arising out of the minutes" is a protest made by Mr. W.R. Barnes concerning action taken at a previous meeting by the Directors. In the meeting in February, he had been replaced as Vice-President after 20 years in the role and 38 years as a Director. His record of attendance was called into question and would be discussed and shown at the next meeting. The second issue discussed is the "proposal with respect to purchasing the assets of the Corporation". A letter was received from F.L. Laundry Real Estate Limited with interest from a Central European client in "acquiring the assets of the Corporation, and indicating that if the circumstances warranted, a figure of 3.5 millions would not be beyond their capabilities". The offer would be explored by the solicitor. The next agenda item discusses was the Sault Ste. Marie store. Another issue discussed was the "Withdrawal from Valley Rouge Wines Limited".