John Clarke, former major organizer for the defunct Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), wrote the following on his Facebook page on June 13, 2025:
I can get more revolutionary optimism from reading what the IMF and World Bank have to say than from some of the commentary I see from supposed leftists.The attack on Iran has unleashed another flood of despairing observations. Invincible Israel and its even more powerful sponsor in Washington are proceeding with an unstoppable agenda of complete domination. The ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a done deal and the Sumoud convoy is doomed because Trump will tell Sisi to block it and that will be the end of the matter.Such bleak commentators always fail to see the contradictions at work in this crisis ridden social and economic system and they are always oblivious to the simmering rage among masses of people that threatens to boil over. If they’d have been around in Russia in 1917, they would have been ‘proving’ the invincibility of Tsarism right up until its overthrow.Isn’t our role to look for openings, maximize opportunities and prepare for the possibility of decisive struggle? I’m sick to death of reading posts and comments that reek of negativity and pessimism. If you think it’s all so hopeless, at least have the decency to get out of the way and leave it to those who want to fight back.
If they’d have been around in Russia in 1917, they would have been ‘proving’ the invincibility of Tsarism right up until its overthrow.Isn’t our role to look for openings, maximize opportunities and prepare for the possibility of decisive struggle?
The reference to Russia in 1917 as simply a struggle against “Tsarism” is historically misleading. By the time of the October Revolution, Tsarism had already been overthrown in the February Revolution, leading to the establishment of the Provisional Government, supported by liberal and moderate socialist forces.
The decisive issue in the second half of 1917 was not the removal of Tsarism, but rather the question of which class would hold power in a situation shaped by the deep crisis of Russian capitalism, the devastation of World War I and the emergence of dual power between the Provisional Government and the Soviets.
To reduce the revolutionary dynamics of 1917 to the downfall of Tsarism obscures the class contradictions and political choices at stake—especially the fact that the Bolsheviks, by April 1917, were explicitly preparing for socialist transformation, not just democratic reform.
Overthrowing Tsarism was relatively easy compared to the task of establishing a socialist society–and is that not what should be aimed at in these increasingly conflictual and contradictory times?
Clarke’s implicit denial that “the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a done deal” is curious. If genocide has occurred in Gaza–and he frequently has used the term–then “ethnic cleansing of Gaza is a done deal.” All the leftist resistance in the world has not stopped the genocide. Certainly, there may still be some opportunities to oppose the continued genocide, but will it be effective? Has it been effective hitherto?
I posted the following on November 7,2023:
John Clarke, former major organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), posted the following recently on Facebook:
Mining workers in Colombia call for the government to “suspend the shipment of Colombian coal, or any other metal or mineral to Israel.”
Such efforts, if they had been coordinated, could perhaps have stopped Israeli’s genocidal efforts in its tracks. However, without such coordinated efforts, it is highly unlikely that the many international protests will have done much to prevent the genocide.
Either another national government with the power to stop Israel’s attacks (with its probable imperialist agenda and the consequences that would flow from it), a leftist military force (non-existent) or the international coordination of the working class (also non-existent) to minimize shipment of logistical and military equipment and services to Israel would have prevented the genocide. It is not “pessimistic” but realistic to assess the power needed to stop Israel’s attacks.
Given such realism, one way of fighting would be to expose the lame approach of many unions concerning the issue. Thus, I recently posted the following:
Unifor, the largest private-sector union in Canada, has recently called on the Canadian government to demand the end of the genocide in Palestine and to permit aid to civilians in those areas. From the Unifor website (https://www.unifor.org/news/all-news/unifor-letter-prime-minister-carney-re-urgent-canadian-intervention-end-genocide):
Unifor letter to Prime Minister Carney Re: Urgent Canadian intervention to end the genocide in Palestine
Dear Prime Minister Carney,
Re: Urgent Canadian intervention to end the genocide in Palestine
On behalf of Unifor and its 320,000 members across Canada, I am calling on your government to take urgent action to end the genocide in Palestine.
Canada must demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as an end to all existing blockades by the state of Israel of aid delivery to Palestinian civilians in the region.
Unifor has regularly denounced violent attacks against civilians by Hamas as well as the disproportionate military response by the Israeli government. We have joined calls by labour unions, human rights organizations, and national and international NGOs for an immediate ceasefire in the face of irrefutable evidence that the ongoing conflict in Palestine constitutes a genocide.
According to the UN’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs’ (OCHA) most recent Humanitarian update report, more than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 127,000 injured. UN Women have further reported that 28,000 Palestinian women and girls have been killed since October 2023, while UNICEF places the death toll of children at over 15,000.
Last year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, concluded “that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating that Israel has committed genocide has been met”. This year, UN Experts further described the situation in Gaza, calling it “…one of the most ostentatious and merciless manifestations of the desecration of human life and dignity,” adding, “states must act swiftly to end the unfolding genocide, dismantle apartheid, and secure a future in which Palestinians and Israelis coexist in freedom and dignity.”
Hospitals, schools and emergency shelters in Gaza have been attacked and destroyed. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 460 aid workers have been killed, while the International Federation of Journalists places the number of journalists and media workers killed at more than 180.
We commend your government for immediately taking steps to join the United Kingdom and France in pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end his military campaign, including an end to the ongoing aid blockade. However, as the daily death toll continues to mount—and workers and civilians continue to be killed as they attempt to secure food and other forms of aid—it is clear that more must be done to bring Israel’s actions to end.
Prime Minister, we call on your government to fulfil Canada’s obligations under domestic and international law and suspend exports to Israel of any and all arms and military equipment manufactured in Canada. Canada’s participation in a global arms embargo on Israel is the only reasonable course of action to end the genocide in Palestine.
The possibility of the current conflict broadening into a wider—and far more deadly confrontation between Israel and Iran is gravely concerning in efforts to get to a peaceful accord in the broader region. As trade unionists, we know that workers, civilians and the most vulnerable in society always pay for war with their lives. As Canadians, we have every moral, legal, and humanitarian obligation to do everything in our power to prevent conflict and pursue peace at all times.
Canada must join with the broader community of countries which share our core values of peace and social justice and have already ceased exporting arms to Israel. We are past the point of urgency and approaching the point of no return. We know a better world is possible where diplomacy is the rule and war is the exception. We must fight for that world and fight for it now.
Sincerely,
Lana Payne
National PresidentSuch a demand is more symbolic than real;it is better than nothing, but it remains superficial and likely does not touch the membership in any real way. Furthermore, it relies on the federal government to take measures to pressure the Israeli government rather than on its own members.
A real demand would involve calling on Unifor reps to begin to mobilize Unifor workers to prevent the shipment of material that contributes, directly or indirectly, to Israel’s genocidal actions, even if such measures are illegal.
Has Unifor taken such measures? I asked Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) the following question:
Do some of unifor’s members handle material that is sent to Israel, especially war material?
AI’s answer:
Unifor members do work in plants that manufacture military equipment—such as LAVs, ammunition, and vehicle components—that can end up being supplied to Israel, even if not necessarily directed there immediately.
⚙️ Where Unifor Members Might Handle War Material
General Dynamics Land Systems‑Canada in London, ON (Unifor Local 27), produces Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs). These are Canadian-built but sometimes exported through third-party channels and could reach Israel indirectly unitedwithisrael.org+15midnightsunmag.ca+15readthemaple.com+15.
General Dynamics Ordnance & Tactical Systems (OTS) in Québec builds 120 mm mortar shells and other munitions. These Canadian munitions have been flagged as part of a US–Israel deal, transferred through the US, raising concerns they may eventually be used by Israel aljazeera.com+1reddit.com+1.
Other firms with Unifor members include GeoSpectrum, TTM Technologies, L3Harris, and Lockheed Martin—Canada-based subcontractors whose parts (electronics, circuit boards) have been protested when tied to Israeli military exports labornotes.org+1readthemaple.com+1.
These operations are staffed by Unifor-represented workers, meaning Unifor members do handle materials that, through global supply chains, may end up in Israel’s military arsenal.
🛑 Official Unifor Position
Unifor has taken explicit stances against arms exports to Israel:
In May 2021, Unifor publicly called for a full bilateral arms embargo on Israel, condemning its actions in Gaza timesofisrael.com+11midnightsunmag.ca+11readthemaple.com+11timesofisrael.com+15unifor2025.ca+15readthemaple.com+15.
At its 2017 convention, Unifor passed a motion supporting BDS—boycott, divestment, and sanctions—against sectors profiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories unitedwithisrael.org+2thecjn.ca+2timesofisrael.com+2.
Though its position is strong on Israel, Unifor has faced criticism for a contrasting stance on arms deals with other countries like Saudi Arabia, due to concerns over protecting member jobs .
🔄 So, do they handle war material sent to Israel?
Yes, Unifor members work in facilities manufacturing military-grade vehicles, munitions, and components—some of which may be transferred to Israel, often via third-party countries like the US. While Unifor officially opposes arms exports to Israel and has taken political action to try to stop them, it does not control where the products are exported once they leave these plants.
TL;DR
Aspect Yes / No / Context Unifor members handling military materiel ✅ Yes Direct shipping of Canadian-made war material to Israel ⚠️ Often indirect via intermediaries Unifor policy against arms exports to Israel ✅ Yes I then asked AI the following question:
Has Unifor called for such workers to do anything to prevent such workers from handling such material?
Ai’s answer:
Unifor has taken political action by calling on the Canadian government to impose a full arms embargo on Israel—but it has not issued internal directives for workers to actively refuse to handle military materiel.
🏛️ 1. Official political stance
In May 2021, Unifor joined a coalition of labor groups in a letter urging Prime Minister Trudeau to suspend all bilateral arms trade with Israel, explicitly calling for a governmental embargo iacenter.org+15unifor2025.ca+15readthemaple.com+15.
In 2017, Unifor adopted a motion endorsing the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) targeting sectors that profit from occupation of Palestinian territories iacenter.org+2thecjn.ca+2timesofisrael.com+2.
These actions are aimed at policy change at the federal level—not at directing Unifor-represented workers to take workplace action.
⚠️ 2. No official “hot cargo” or refusal directives from Unifor
While other union groups and labor bodies (particularly internationally) have supported “hot cargo” actions—like refusing to manufacture, load, or transport arms bound for Israel—Unifor has not endorsed such measures for its membership reddit.com+8business-humanrights.org+8nbmediacoop.org+8.
Labor activist groups such as Labour Against Arms Trade (LAAT) have repeatedly sought engagement with Unifor and its locals (e.g., Local 27 in London, Ontario), but report no official response or involvement labornotes.org+7readthemaple.com+7readthemaple.com+7.
In Canada, other unions and federations (e.g., NB Federation of Labour, CUPE) have passed “hot cargo” resolutions, calling on workers to refuse handling arms shipments to Israel timesofisrael.com+9nbmediacoop.org+9reddit.com+9. Unifor has not taken similar action internally.
✅ Summary
Type of Action Unifor Position Call government for arms embargo ✅ Yes Endorse BDS resolutions ✅ Yes (2017) Instruct members to refuse work (hot cargo) ❌ No Encourage workers to block shipments ❌ No official stance So, while Unifor is publicly advocating on political grounds, it has not called for or mandated actions—like refusing to handle military material—by its own members in workplaces or supply chains.
Should not socialists and the radical left criticize Unifor for adopting a superficial policy of supporting a boycott, demanding the federal government take measures and so forth rather than actively mobilising those members who can really contribute to preventing Israel from pursuing its genoicidal actions?
The largest private-sector union in Canada calls on the federal government to engage in–diplomacy (despite being “urgent”)–rather than relying on its own members, their organization and such actions as refusing hot cargo to pressure Israel. Such paper posturing is quite typical of unions.
To prepare for the development of working-class power, surely one thing that is needed is criticism of such superficial union posturing, that makes it appear as if Unifor is being “progressive.” Why does Clarke not do so? Does criticism of such posturing not form part of a plan to “fight to win?” Or is this being “pessimistic,” or “negative?”
The Abolitionary 