Royal Bank Discriminates Against Pro-Life/Family Organizations

Real Women of Canada is a national organization of patriotic women dedicated to preserving and strengthening our Canadian heritage of freedom and personal responsibility. Its publication, Reality, in its July/August 2001 issue published under the above caption the following article.
In a bid to hold. the Gay Games in 2006, Montreal's homosexual community is competing with three other North American cities, Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles. The spokesperson for the Gay Games is Mark Tewksbury, Olympic Champion swimmer, who publicly acknowledged his homosexuality several years ago, and who now serves as the "poster boy" for the activists' latest cause. While the gay population is delighted by this potential opportunity to flaunt their lifestyle, not everyone is thrilled by the prospect of thousands of homosexuals descending on Montreal to participate or be spectators at the Games. Mr. Daniel Cormier, a pastor in a Protestant church in Montreal, together with REAL Women, Campaign Life Coalition for Quebec and the Christian Heritage Party, formed a committee called "No Committee 2006" to oppose the promotion of homosexuality by way of the Gay Games in Montreal. The No Committee registered its name with the Quebec government and began receiving donations.
On June 13, Mr. Cormier, on behalf of the Committee, applied to the Royal Bank to open an account. Incredibly, he was turned down. The Royal Bank is blatantly discriminating against pro-life/family organizations on the grounds that the bank will not associate in any way with an organization which opposes the promotion of homosexuality. Raymond Chouinard, the Royal Bank Chief Public Relations Officer, stated:
We're reviewing the case, but I doubt that we'll be able to change our position on this, because of the nature of the goals that the organization has. ... We refuse to support or oppose discriminatory activities of any kind. Since we want to stay outside, we think we should not be supporting an organization indirectly through the opening of an account.
Mr. Chouinard went on to say:
We're a private corporation and we do not have to open an account every time a person or organization asks for one.

A press conference was held in Montreal on June 22, 2001 by the No Committee to publicize the Royal Bank's shocking discrimination against the pro-family/life Committee. In its statement at the press conference, REAL Women stated:
REAL Women of Canada, a member of the "No Committee 2006." strongly objects to this discrimination by the Royal Bank on the grounds that it is contrary to our basic freedom, as set out in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, freedom of conscience and freedom of belief and opinion.

Mr. Cormier was quoted in the Montreal Gazette (June 22, 2001):
... the Royal Bank had no right to refuse to open the account and ... every group has a right to express its opinion ... We have nothing against homosexuals. We just don't want the government to put money into promoting something that we feel is detrimental to our population. It's because we love the people and we love homosexuals that we don't want the promotion of homosexuality. The practice is destroying their lives.

Royal Bank's promotion of abortion
This is not the first time that the Royal Bank has taken sides in controversial social issues. In 1986, Dr. Robert Scott, an associate working in Morgentaler's Toronto clinic, sought and obtained a loan in the amount of $220,000 from the Royal Bank in order to open his own., then illegal, abortion clinic in downtown Toronto. An uproar was raised, which resulted in a condemnatory resolution being brought forward at the Royal Bank's Annual Shareholders Meeting held in Montreal in January 1987. The President, in a compromise to withdraw the resolution, made a formal apology for the loan, and agreed not to make loans for illegal activities in the future.

Games a financial disaster
The 2002 Gay Games are scheduled to be held in Sydney, Australia and are, reportedly, already $4-million in debt. This is not surprising. When the Gay Games were held in Amsterdam in September 1998, they were a complete social and economic disaster. The City of Amsterdam was forced to pay $2.5million just to allow the Games to continue, and the organizing committee for the not very Gay Games declared bankruptcy at the close of the event. Montreal. will be fortunate if it can escape the Gay Games in 2006.
Please Write To: Mr. Gordon M. Nixon, President and Chief Operating Officer, Royal Bank of Canada, 200 Bay Street Soutb Tower, Toronto ON M5J 2J5 Tel 416-974-4464 Fax 416-974-7403 and demand that the Royal Bank cease to be involved in social and political issues such as homosexuality by discriminating against those who are pro-family.

Surely the people who should be on trial are those Ontario children's social workers

The following article by Ted Byfield, under the above caption was published in the August 20th issue of The Report newsmagazine.

If you had to choose the most bizarre news story of this generally newsless summer, I think the best candidate would be the attempted destruction by officers of the state at Aylmer, Ont., of an altogether functional family. The apparent facts, as they emerge, are astounding indeed. At this fami1y's tidy, tranquil home last July 4 there suddenly appeared in a cavalcade of automobiles a contingent of police and social workers. The family's seven children were carried weeping and bewildered from their home, to be briefly made wards of the state. What was the crime? Had the children been sexual1y abused? No. Emotionally abused? No again. Imprisoned? Starved? Tortured? None of these things. Did the youngsters appear persecuted, miserable, ill-behaved? By no means.
The nearest neighbour described them as "clean, well-dressed, well-behaved, happily playing on their bikes and with toys, and always smiling. Then why were they seized? The answer given by the Ontario Cbildren's Aid Society is that they were routinely disciplined by spanking. So spanking by parents must be against the law, right? Wrong. Unless it is deemed to be excessive, it is allowed by the Criminal Code, as was recently confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Aylmer case is now before the courts. The children have been returned home on condition there be no more spanking until it's settled. Meanwhile the household is being vigorously monitored by social workers, which obviously puts it under severe duress.

Whose authority are these children to respect -- that of their father and mother, or the government? My bet is on the parents because, as an institution, the family is older and stronger than the state. However, we must recognize what's going on. We are witnessing the imposition, solely on bureaucratic initiative (backed by "enlightened" cultural authority)' of a moral dogma: Thou shalt not spank. "Never, never, never spank your children," a family doctor recently told friends of ours. (Their response was to find another family doctor.)

Two aspects of this dogma are noteworthy. First, if such an event had occurred, say, 40 years ago, the social workers, not the parents, would have been under police investigation, and punitive civil litigation would surely have followed. The Aylmer episode represents a complete reversal in social standards.

Second, what did this revolution in the upbringing of children seek to achieve, and has it succeeded? For several decades we have been assured that spanking children teaches them that violence is a legitimate way to control unacceptable human behaviour. Raised under threat of "violence," they will be much more prone to be violent themselves than will children guided by counselling and other non-physical coercions. So has this resulted in a kinder, gentler generation of juveniles? Plainly no.

Our society is now experiencing youthful behaviour of practically unprecedented violence. Children in seemingly tranquil suburban neighbourhoods must go to school armed. Teachers are threatened. Schools feel compelled to inaugurate "zero-tolerance" policies on "bullying." Children are wounded or slain by other schoolchildren. In other words, the first generation raised with little or no spanking is proving to be the most violent we have yet spawned -- precisely the opposite of what was promised.

The dogma that is being ferociously enforced by social agencies is simply a lie, a fraud and a failure. But should this surprise us? Consider the outcome of other reforms we have instituted along with the prohibition on spanking. They said if we removed coercion from education (i.e., examinations, grade standings, and promotion only on the basis of achievement), our children would come to love learning and we would be astonished at their creativity. Instead, performance sags and academic standards move steadily downward, while other nations, using the educational- methods we have abandoned, ever more assuredly surpass us.

They said if we removed all severity from the penal system, crime would disappear and jails become unnecessary. Instead, crimes per capita run at levels three or more times what they were 50 years ago, and our jails are packed.

They said if we eased divorce laws, and emancipated women from household drudgery and gave them careers instead, a far more productive and happy society would emerge. Instead, we have divorce rates running at astronomical levels, and tens of millions of single mothers deeper than ever in drudgery, as they struggle to raise children while holding down a job. Meanwhile some of our most intelligent and proficient women -- our best mothers -- produce no children at all.

The record of these reforms, in actual fact, is one of consistent and catastrophic failure, but the very professionals who should be blowing the whistle by pointing this out, won't do it. Why? Obviously because they themselves are implicated in and committed to the idiocies that are causing the problems. Who should be put on trial is not parents, but the philosophy and policies of the state agencies that persecute parents. Do they really know what they're doing? If so, why are kids turning out as they are? It's time they were compelled to stand and deliver.

Who's opposing parental choice?

The Ontario Harris government, at its recent Session, moved to begin partially paying for parental-selected private education, and this has triggered an uproar of condemnation from part of the public-schooling establishment. The National Post, June 21, published a report captioned "Tax credits may aid all schools " Here are excerpts:
"Ontario's proposed tax credit for private schooling has the potential to turn a 'vicious circle' -- where there is poor academic achievement and education is so centralized parents and teachers have little power to improve their schools -- into a virtuous one by giving parents choice, says a book published today by The Fraser Institute. "The book, Can the Markets Save our Schools?, finds parents have had little involvement in improving students' performance or ensuring schools are offering the best curriculum. The tax credits, the first in Canada, would give parents a chance to put more pressure on public schools by opting for private education, it concludes.

"A study by William Robson, vice-president and director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, is one of seven reports in the book and argues tax credits will force public schools to be more accountable with more input from parents, teachers and communities. "
"The tax credits provide a much greater degree of choice for parents to elect the schools that provide them with the services they need. It is very important that, for the first time within the publicly funded system, there is going to have to be more attention paid to parents who are not getting what they need because the tax credit can provide a lot of them with an option they did not have before to take their children elsewhere," said Mr. Robson, who is also director of the Organization for Quality Education, a group made up of parents and educators. ... "
… "I see it as a possible spur to improvement within the fully-funded system whereas up until now there has been a lot of centralization with school boards becoming less powerful and collective bargaining agreements have usurped a lot of the management power that a principal would have once had. The prospect of kids leaving can actually galvanize a school to do things differently."
"The Ontario government introduced tax credits in the spring budget. It says the credit will eventually give students $3,500 to put toward private school tuition.
"Many provinces fund private education but Ontario is the first to offer tax credits directly to parents, a move the government says encourages school choice. The plan has been controversial and has been opposed by teachers' unions and public school advocates who say the credits will take money out of the public system."

What a piece of sophistry the teachers' unions engage in, inasmuch as every child opting for private education is no longer a financial charge on the public system. According to press reports, Ontario Education Minister Janet Ecker says that she is now in favour of considering and discussing with parents, the case for "charter schools" -- such schools are publicly funded, but apparently operate with much more parental input. We hope to do an article on charter schools in a future issue.
One thing seems certain: there is an increasingly widespread concern in Canada by parents with the quality of our publicly funded semi-monopolistic educational systems.

The front-page 6-column headline in the Sept. 8th National Post read:
"71% Favour Charter Schools: Poll."
According to this National Post/ Global poll, most parents want more choice in planning their children's education. Who constitutes the opposition?

The Toronto Sun, Aug. 25, published a report by its Rob Granatstein captioned
"Kill Catholic school funding: Union head."

A few excerpts: "The government should pull the plug on Catholic school funding and place all the money in one big public system, the head of Ontario's high school teachers' union says. "
'It is the only way to protect our values, our jobs. ... It's a question of survival,' (Manners added) while attacking the Tory government for its tax-credit policy to give parents a choice in their children's education.

Earl Manners, head of the Ontario high school teachers' union, has long been a hard-line, militant, strike-happy proponent of monopoly no-choice education. And his statement in the Sun report makes it obvious that his real interest is not the type or the quality of our students' education, but rather the protecting of monopoly union control of policy and jobs. Perhaps the most useful and 'democratic' action Ontario high-school teachers could take at this time would be to facilitate an early retirement for Mr. Manners.
Even the Ontario elementary teachers' union hardly builds parental confidence in the value of its role.

The National Post, Aug. 14, reports:
"Phyllis Benedict, president of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, said the union is 'trying to promote a more positive environment in schools.' She said there is limited gay and lesbian material in classrooms."
So now you know how the elementary teachers' union proposes to improve the quality of education for our Younger students - bring more deadly sexual lifestyle material into the classroom! Little wonder that parents, and even governments, are finally beginning to seek changes and options in our education system.

AT WAR AGAIN! The $64-guestion no one dares to ask!
- By Ron Gostick -

I was shocked by a morning phone call this past September 11th, informing me that America was 'under attack.' Moments later, by television, watching the Americans' own planes crashing into and exploding their own New York world-renowned Trade Centre's Twin Towers was a sensation of almost stunned incredulity -- as though watching a piece of science-fiction that suddenly burst into reality: North America under attack by its own planes and technology! And thousands of people trapped and dying! Yet, I wasn't really surprised that the United States, which a few years ago was the victim of an attempt to bomb those same New York Towers, would again be attacked in some destructive manner. For even then, some eight years ago, I had pondered the question:
What had the US done to engender such hatred and rage in anyone, at home or abroad,
that could cause one to give his own life to physically assault America?
And even then, I could think of a few possibilities, which I'll touch upon later.

Our present situation
There is in Canada today, as might be expected, harsh criticism of America's response to the terrorist attack: the U.S.-led all-out war against terrorism and those who aid or abet terrorist activities. For instance, Sunera Thobani, our African immigrant and present West Coast academic, who has prospered for years in left-wing group activities funded by Ottawa grants of tax-dollars, who is now attacking the U.S. in the most intemperate and untimely way, referring to herself as an intellectual descendant of Karl Marx. Then, of course, we have our share of peacenik types who prefer the passivism of protest to the risks of defending freedom. And we also have so-called 'right-wing' or conservative-minded critics -- usually well informed on international affairs -- who are concerned respecting a mere bombing/military response while totally ignoring US/Western foreign policy these past decades and the major grievance creating anger and hate throughout the Islamic world.

Eric Margolis, the erudite foreign affairs columnist for the Toronto Sun and other dailies, in his September 15th piece in the Sun, included this cautionary note:
"The United States, which spent $8-billion to drive the Russians from Afghanistan, is now opening the door to a new Russian intervention in this strategic nation, a geopolitical folly of epic proportions that Washington may come to rue."

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, who seems to be trying to catapult himself into a world leader by outdoing U.S. President Bush in his ardour to avenge the September 11th catastrophic strike in New York, on September 14th said:
"Understand the causes of terror. Yes, we should try, but there is no moral ambiguity about this: Nothing could ever justify the events of 11 September, and it is to turn justice on its head to pretend it could."
But at the same time, Tony, failure to understand and seek out the causes of terror, indeed renders injustice and terror certain and permanent, and mankind's future bloody and uncertain. Therefore, at this critical moment in the history of our planet, the duty and responsibility of every Canadian is twofold:
1. Realize that we are, indeed, at war -- but at war with terrorists and terrorism, not with the countless millions of innocent adherents of Islam or any other culture or religion -- and do everything within our power to strengthen our nation's defences and defeat and eliminate the international network of terror now attacking Western civilization.
2. It has been said that the first question a wise man asks about his enemy is why he is his enemy. In other words, Western leaders and peoples, especially The United States and its people, must ponder why Islamic men are so angry and enraged with hate that they are ready to give their own life to attack and hurt the symbols, structures and lives of Americans, Canadians and other Westerners. And this means that we must carefully examine and assess our foreign policies and actions in past years and how they have affected and impacted upon Islamic peoples.
And it's the responsibility of Canadians to convey to their public representatives and leaders in plain and unequivocal language how they feel on this question. And it's then the Canadian government's duty to inform the U.S. leaders our thoughts and concerns on this vital matter. After all, there is no genuine, long-term solution to a political or moral problem.

Canada is ill-prepared
This Service, as well as some of our national columnists, media editorial writers, military defence analysts and even government security agencies, for years have been warning of the increasing national security dangers posed by our 'opendoor' immigration policy and shrinking and obsolete military defence forces. The September 11 terrorist attack has demonstrated in bold relief the truth and seriousness of these concerns and fears. For instance:
The National Post, Sept. 24, published a report by Jim Bronskill captioned "Canada not ready for terrorism: Ottawa."
Here are its opening paragraphs:

"OTTAWA - Canada is ill-prepared for a major terrorist attack, lacking everything from vital protective equipment for emergency personnel to properly trained teams that could free victims trapped inside collapsed buildings, a federal report reveals. "The report warns of numerous 'capability gaps' in Canada's terrorism response plans.
"The Solicitor-General's Department prepared the report in mid-April, drawing on assessments supplied by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. …"

The Globe and Mail, Sept. 27, published a report by its John Ibbitson, captioned
"U.S. points the finger due north."
Here are excerpts:
" 'Canada has been a fierce ally, top trading partner and America's closest friend for more than a century. But it may be something else, too -- a haven for terrorists,' says an article in The Christian Science Monitor. "

'Canadian and U.S. terrorism experts alike say the giant, genial nation -- known for its crimson-clad Mounties and great comedians -- has also become an entry point and staging ground for Osama bin Laden's terrorst "sleeper cells," as well as for other terrorist groups.'... "

'While thousands of U.S. soldiers are being shipped halfway across the globe to fight terrorism, little manpower has been focused on a problem much closer to home:
Canada.
Experts on both sides of the 4,000-mile border say the nation to the north is a haven for terrorists, and that the U.S.-Canada line is little more barrier than ink on a map.' …"

The Calgary Herald, Oct. 4, a report from Ottawa by Jim Bronskill captioned
"PM outside intelligence 'loop.' "
Here are excerpts:
"Jean Chretien, unlike the leaders of the United States and Britain, did not receive a regular briefing on intelligence matters prior to the September attacks on the U.S. "
The Prime Minister was not provided with a daily or even weekly intelligence update from officials, denying him vital information on which to base decisions, security experts say. "
'There was no regular intelligence report or brief that went to Cabinet and the Prime Minister,' said Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto history professor who specializes in intelligence studies.
'I think it's very important for the Prime Minister to be in the loop.' …"

The report goes on to point out the up-to-the minute briefings the US President and U.K. Prime Minister receive daily from their intelligence system. A later press report stated that it was only some weeks after the Sept. 11th attack, that our Prime Minister realized how serious a problem our lax immigration and security systems pose.

Our present situation
The Calgary Herald, Oct. 4, carried a report by Tim Naumetz in Ottawa captioned
"Canada funds group with terrorist link."
A few excerpts:
"The federal government gave $11-million in immigrant aid over the past seven years to a Toronto Tamil association linked to another group the Senate and the U.S. government allege supports a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka, government records show. "The Tamil Eelam Society of Canada has received $1.3-million from the Citizenship and Immigration Department for immigrant 'settlement and adaptation' since 1994, and a further $9.7-million in 'contributions for language instruction for newcomers to Canada,' document prepared by the Receiver General show.
"The president of the Tamil Eelam Society confirmed Wednesday his group is a member of the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils (FACT), which the special Senate committee on security and intelligence said in 1999 is a 'political and benevolent' front group for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. …"

Did not our Finance Minister Paul Martin and another Cabinet Minister attend a conference last year of this outfit as guest speakers!

The National Post, Oct. 5, published a report by its Paul Wells captioned across the front page
"We don't pull our weight: Manley," with the subheading
"Canada shows 'glaring inadequacy' in time of crisis."
Here are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - John Manley, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said yesterday that Canada faces a 'glaring inadequacy' in its intelligence-gathering, defence and foreign-aid capabilities and is compromising the country's ability to meet overseas commitments or live up to its international reputation. ... 'You can't just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom,' Mr. Manley said, referring to Canada's membership in the global club of seven rich countries plus Russia. 'If you want to play a role in the world, even a small member of the G8, there's a cost to doing that.' "
Mr. Manley said Canada has managed to avoid paying that cost because the country is 'still trading on a reputation that was built two generations and more ago -- but that we haven't continued to live up to.' …"

The National Post, Oct. 17, published a report by its Adrian Humphreys under the caption
"Ottawa unwittingly assists terrorism: RCMP."
Brief excerpts:
"MONTREAL - When terrorists arrive in Canada, there are two support systems ready to assist them -- one created by like-minded extremists and another erected by the government of Canada, two of the RCMP's anti-terrorist investigators said in a rare presentation. ... " 'Some people are sent here with a mission and some people come on their own and are recruited. But once here, they all have the same MO (modus operandi),' said Sergeant Philippe Lapierre, with the NSIS, the force's counter terrorism branch. …"
Sergeant Lapierre went on to explain that their first step is to claim 'refugee' status. They are then allowed to remain in Canada at our expense and with all Canadian welfare benefits, while their application slowly winds its way through our "often cumbersome immigration and refugee regulations."
This is used as a "base salary" until they establish themselves, link up with others in Canada on the same mission who are usually also linked in some criminal moneymaking activity. Our PM, of course, would be surprised and shocked to hear that anything like this has been going on!

The Toronto Sun, Oct. 27, said editorially:
"It's becoming clear that whatever Canada does now to combat terrorism, we will be more vulnerable than we should be for years to come. "
This week, the committee overseeing Canada's spy agency said it can take almost two years to do security checks on some refugee claimants. "
The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), responsible for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), notes this state of affairs existed prior to Sept. 11. It doesn't take into account the increased demands on both our refugee and security systems since then. ... "

With Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan reduced to ranting -- again -- that those who criticize our disaster-prone refugee system are racist, Canadians are wondering whether their government is even remotely capable of protecting them. Realistically, our best chance to escape terrorism may be to pray that perhaps the terrorists won't actually strike in Canada if we are very, very nice -- and will simply continue to use our country as a staging ground and cash cow (through fund-raising efforts) for terrorism elsewhere, as CSIS has warned for years. …"
And militarily, of course, U.S. President Bush has very wisely suggested he's not relying much on anything beyond minimal battle-ready military support from Canada, obviously aware that we've become only a 'peace-keeping' military entity, with very few battle-ready personnel, poorly equipped with obsolete weaponry.

What about the $64-guestion?
The all-important $64-question neither President Bush nor any of our Western leaders seems prepared to ask about their terrorist enemies is: Why have they become our enemies?
But many others are now asking this question -- and suggesting a few answers.
l Mark Weber, director of the Institute of Historical Review, headquartered in California, writes in the Oct. 5th Supplement of the Australian On Target newsletter: "Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11th attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centres of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran. "
America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call 'vital national interests.'
George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century. …"

Eric Margolis, the widely respected foreign affairs columnist of the Toronto Sun, in his Sept. 12th piece, stated: "Back to the Mideast. The Arab and Muslim worlds are filled with enemies of America. The U.S. arms, finances and protects Israel, whose repression of Palestinians is broadcast nightly on TV to 1.2 billion Muslims. ... "
Over the past 25 years, the U.S. has bombed or committed acts of war against Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Serbia, creating a large pool of potential enemies thirsting for revenge. ..." (mainly Islamic countries)

The Australian On Target newsletter, Oct. 19, carried this IAP News item:
"An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying 'Don't worry about American pressure, we control America.' "According to the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the U.S. against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying, 'Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that. ... I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel; we, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.' "
Little wonder that bin Laden and the Islamic world state categorically that the root of America's problem in the Middle and Far East is its support and promotion of Israeli interests at the expense of the Islamic peoples. In other words, unless the U.S. and the West re-examines its foreign policy and treatment of Islamic countries, the prospects for peace, justice and stability look dim indeed for this twenty-first century. Would someone please explain this to our leaders of Western civilization before it's too late!

Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D.
- Part 6 -
We have dealt in Parts 4 and 5 of this series on the Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D. Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution, with areas of "Exclusive Jurisdiction of Provincial Legislatures."
This Part 6, in our present Constitution, deals with a number of questions under the heading,
"Revenues; Debts; Assets; Taxation."
In the Constitution 2000 Proposal, the heading of this Section on Page 22 is "Assets, Debts, Revenue, Taxation, Equalization," and includes Section 95 to 110. These sections of the Proposal follow quite closely the intent expressed in our present Constitution, with the exception that Sect. 105 of the Proposal rewrites the 'equalization payment transfers' to 'have-not' provinces from 'have' provinces (Sect. 36 of the so-called Charter of Rights in our present Constitution), as follows:
"National Equity" "105.
The Provinces together, shall establish and maintain a common fund to provide for any necessary allocation of Monies to ameliorate the disparity of opportunity of any Province, or to elevate the Public Service of any Province to a Comparable level relative to the National Average; and the Allocative Authority of such Fund shall be the Responsibility of the House of the Senate."
The thinking behind this change would seem to be: First, that this Constitution 2000 Proposal does not include the so-called Charter of Rights. It, after deep consideration, was not included in this Revised and Updated Proposal. And, second, that the Senate, inasmuch as it has equal representation from every province, is best equipped to render unbiased and equitable judgment on this question. Also, it should be noted that Section 106 of the Proposal reaffirms the invalidity of any attempt by the Central Government to invade the "exclusive jurisdiction" of the provinces to raise a revenue (tax) within their jurisdictions.

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Under the Sections on "General Provisions," The Canadian Constitution 2000 Proposal has added two sections of special significance (Numbers 113 & 119). Here they are, in full:

113. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all Powers necessary or proper for exercising its Jurisdiction in Foreign Policy and External Relations; but under no circumstances shall the Federal Government or its Agencies make any Treaty or Agreement, or take any Action, that would in any way diminish Canada's National Sovereignty or Provincial Jurisdictions, without first holding a National Referendum on such matter, and the Citizens' Verdict in such case shall Prevail and be Binding upon the Federal Government.

119. (1) Every Canadian Citizen shall have the Privilege and Right to the Ownership and Control of Property within Canada for the Benefit of Self and Those peripheral. (2) No Law or Action of any Order of Government or of any other Entity may infringe upon the Ownership and Control of any Property within Canada without Process of Claim in a Court of Law, and the entire Costs and Compensation incident to that Action shall be assumed by the Entity initiating such Action.

SCHEDULES
Towards the end of the Constitution 2000 Proposal, the following two "Schedules" are added:
The First Schedule Inasmuch as The Constitution of Canada is the Supreme Law of the Land, (
1) It shall be understood that a Violation of this Document by any Citizen of Canada shall have severe Consequences under the Provisions of this Document.
(2) It shall be understood that any violation of the Constitution of Canada by a Foreign Person, Institution, Corporation or Power, or any Action deemed to be Detrimental to any Segment of the Canadian Citizenry by such Entity, may result in Eviction from Canada of that Offending Entity.
(3) It shall be understood that any Violation of The Canadian Constitution by a Government Official may be deemed a Breach of Trust and result in Dismissal from Office and appropriate Criminal charges applied.
(4) Every Canadian Citizen, regardless of his Estate, shall be Equal before the Law and entitled to the Protection of this Document and the Justice afforded under English Common Law.
(5) The Governor-General-in-Council, after the Validation of this Document as The Canadian Constitution, shall be Commissioned by the Crown and the People of Canada, to enforce the Legality and Intent of this Document in Political, Judicial and Civil Proceedings, and shall direct the respective Orders of Government or Judiciary to Sanction and Implement any Provision applicable to such specified case.

The Second Schedule "Initiative Referendum" The Governor-General shall ensure at the First Session of Parliament after The Canadian Constitution is validated by a National Referendum, that a Procedure of Initiative Referendum is incorporated into the Canadian Parliamentary System which shall authorize the Citizens of Canada, by the Authority of this Act, the right to Initiate Referenda for the Purposes hereinafter enumerated:
(1) Striking or Amending any Law that is repugnant to a majority of the respective Canadian electorate.
(2) Validating or Rejecting any Legislation or Action submitted to the Electorate by any Order or Level of Government.
(3) To formulate and Pass into Statute Law any Bill, Act or Legislation.
(4) Recalling any Elected Member of any Order of Government in Canada.
(5) The Acceptance or Rejection of any International Law, Authority or Treaty.
(6) Amending the Constitution of any Order of Government in Canada.
(7) Requesting the Governor-General to Terminate the Mandate of any Canadian Government, whether Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal, or otherwise.
And, furthermore, the Governor-General shall take all necessary steps to ensure that --
a) Any Law found within the Jurisdiction of any Order of Government in Canada shall continue in force insofar as it is accordant with the Provisions of this Document.
b) Any Officer or Employee of any Order of Government or Governmen.t Agency shall be accountable to the Canadian People for the performance of his Duties.
c) Any Agency of any Order of Government, upon request of Canadian Citizens, shall provide Full Disclosure by Annual and Independent Audit in Matters hereinafter enumerated:
1. Management of public funds;
2. Performance of service;
3. Salaries of administrators and employees; and
4. International representation.

COMMENT
This concludes Part 6 in this series.

Next month we hope to deal with the remaining section 4 of this Proposal. However, we urge you to reread Section 113, dealing with foreign policy and treaties. This is a most important addition to Section 132 (Treaty Obligations) in our present Constitution. Likewise, Section 119 in this Proposal, dealing with private property, is a most significant addition worthy of special attention.

From Month to Month
Queen warned to get on 'metric'!

The National Post, Aug. 20, carried a report captioned "Queen's Mill Warned: Get Metric Or Face The Law."
Following are excerpts:
"LONDON - The Queen has been told that Sandringham Estate must stop selling wood in imperial measures within two weeks or face prosecution. "The Sandringham sawmill, on the Queen's estate in Norfolk, northeast of London, has been selling oak and teak timber in feet and inches rather than metres, which is a criminal offense under European Community metrication laws. "A trading standards officer who visited the sawmill on Friday told Peter Borner, the manager, there were a number of issues he needed to address. "Signs on some planks indicated lengths in imperial measures first, with the metric equivalent in smaller type. "The EC has ruled that, until 2009, traders may show imperial measures so long as the metric version is more prominent.
"There was also no obligatory metric measuring stick stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures. "Mr. Borner said he did not realize he was breaking the law. " 'We have a lot of retired people coming here and they don't find the metric so easy. That's why we do the imperial as well.'

"Ian Bartram, an official with the local trading standards inspectorate, said, 'I am not aware of the Queen having Crown Immunity.' "
Yesterday, the Sandringham Estate was in the process of securing a metric measuring stick. "A spokesman said he hoped that from today wood would be sold in metres.

"Earlier this year, magistrates near London told Peter Collins he would lose his trading licence if he continued selling fruit and vegetables only in pounds and ounces. "Mr. Collins, 51, from Sutton, Surrey, was prosecuted after trading standards officers bought a bunch of grapes weighed in pounds and ounces. Sounds something like our language police in Quebec under its separatist regime. And this in Merry England, where a man's home was his castle! And under a 'Labour' government -- you know, the 'people's party'! I wonder if this is what we fought two world wars for?

God not invited to attend ...
The Calgary Herald, Sept. 22, under the caption "God not invited to attend Ottawa service for fallen," published the following column:
"In stark contrast to U.S. observances for the victims of Sept. 11's terrorist attack, the memorial service on Parliament Hill Sept. 14 was virtually devoid of prayer. More than 100,000 people gathered to express their sympathy at a service led by Prime Minister Jean Chretien. "For some, the event was disturbingly bereft of prayer or any mention of God. "As reported in the Ottawa Citizen, Pandi Madhu Sahasrabudhe, spiritual leader of Ottawa's Hindu community, said, 'As a person of faith I wouldn't have cared what kind of prayer were done by whom, but there should have been some reference to God, the Creator, the Almighty, whatever.'
"Rabbi Reuven Bulka of Ottawa said, 'There was no spiritual lift to the entire experience.' "
Msgr. Robert Martineau of St. Patrick's Basilica said, 'By being politically correct they're really neglecting (people's) needs. They're so afraid of turning off people who aren't Christian, they eliminate it altogether, which is so wrong. You're not doing anything for anybody.'
"In response to the public discontent, the government held a second, 'interfaith' service on Thursday, Sept. 20, inviting representatives from: Bahali, Buddhism, Christianity, Christian Science, Hinduism, Islam, Jain, Judaism, Latter-day Saints, Milkmag, Mohawk, Raellian, Scientology, Sikh, Unification, Unitarian, Wiccan and Zarathushti." And each in its official languages, we trust.

As the U.S. moves toward God ...
The Report magazine, Oct. 8, published Ted Byfield's column captioned
"As the U.S. moves toward God, Canada moves away -- and there's a reason."
Here it is, in full:
The government at Ottawa served notice last month that it does not accept the idea there is a God. It did so in a national memorial service for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States, by carefully editing out any reference to a deity. No, this was not an oversight. It was clearly a matter of deliberate, conscious, obviously considered policy. Canada, insofar as the Ottawa government is concerned, is now officially godless. This surely is of no small significance. For one thing, it highlights the immense and fundamental chasm which is developing between Canada and the United States. The American memorial service was held in Washington National Cathedral. (In Britain a similar memorial was held in St. Paul's Cathedral.) At the Washington service, four hymns were sung, followed by four scripture readings, a blessing, four more hymns and a sermon by Billy Graham.
A Muslim iman intoned a prayer from the Quran, a rabbi read from the Torah. President George Bush mentioned God 15 times in his talk, and 10 times called for prayer. The Americans, that is, who like us are a "pluralistic" society, nevertheless manage to have and to use a national cathedral. Although it is run by the Episcopalian church, it serves as a national shrine to which every citizen can resort in times of great trouble, and feel that he belongs there.
Notice the implication.
The Americans use their "pluralism" as an opportunity to pull together all people who believe in God. They don't speak of the Christian God, or the Muslim, or the Jewish, nor of "your God" or "my God." They simply speak of God. He is there. He is real. We call on him. They recognize that there are significant theological differences, of course, but they mourn and regret those differences. Their service is a prayer that somehow, without compromising the truth, these differences can be resolved. That is the Washington message.

What is the Ottawa message?
We have used our "pluralism" in precisely the opposite way. We have seen it as an opportunity to abolish God as a recognizable factor in state affairs. We have decided that no power higher than man shall be acknowledged in the conduct of government. We are thereby left with no standard above government by which government itself can be judged, no moral criteria, no firm basis for the critical assessment of government. Symbolically, therefore, we Canadians had to hold our memorial at the only national shrine we are encouraged to recognize: the Parliament Buildings. How fitting.

The Americans look to God. Our god is Government. If we are impoverished or sick or distressed, if we need help giving birth, being educated, being buried or anything else, it is to Government that we are to turn. That's the Canadian Way. We are allowed to believe in God, of course, but only as a private activity. We must keep God to ourselves. We must not assert anything as true, because then we would have to reject any incompatible as false, which could lead to "intolerance." Nor must we criticize any kind of conduct on the basis of our beliefs, because that could lead to "judgmentalism."
Nor must we try to persuade anyone else of the truth of our beliefs, because that would be "proselytizing." So God is okay, provided we do not mention his name in public, of insist he actually exists.

Why, you wonder, have Americans gone one way and we another?
The answer is evident. They carry enormous world responsibilities. The only reason the Soviet slave system is not in operation in Canada today is that we were protected by the United States. The jets hit the World Trade Center in New York, not the TD Centre in Toronto, because the country the terrorists must defeat is the United States. If they do that, Canada will automatically be defeated as well. Now people who must look after themselves, rather than depend on others to care for them, soon discover their own inadequacies. Therefore they reach out for help, and -- so they often tell us -- they find that help in God. Dependants like us, who need concern ourselves with little beyond our own routine necessities, never experience this inadequacy and thus see no reason to seek God. The Americans have a national cathedral because they know they need God. Canada has no national cathedral because Canada has the Americans, and most of us individual Canadian citizens seem convinced we need only direct our prayers to Ottawa. Such is the new Canada, the godless Canada. How can anyone take pride in such a country?

Monday, October 01, 2001 1:23 PM
Friends of Freedom Newsletter

A private newsletter for the supporters of the Canadian Free Speech League, dealing in cases of the censorship and persecution of political, religious, and historical opinion.
"Without free speech, no search for truth is possible; without free speech, no discovery of truth is useful, without free speech, progress is checked, and the Nations no longer march forward, toward the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a thousand fold abuse, of free speech, than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the [human] race."
Charles Bradlaugh Box 101, 255 Menzies Street Victoria, B.C. V8V 2G6 Western Canada
September 2001 email: kzubko@home.com

Supreme Court Denies Leave in Collins Case
(N.B. See end of newsletter for late-breaking news)

As of August 9th the Supreme Court of Canada has turned down the application by Mr. Collins to appeal the decision of the BC Court of Appeal. This makes it necessary for Doug Collins to go through another hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal on the issue of whether the legislation under which he is being brought before the tribunal is in fact, constitutional.
The effect of this is that the very body whose legality he is challenging will decide if it properly exists and has the power to make findings against him. The Supreme Court has denied that the courts should decide constitutionality, in the first instance, at least.

After the Human Rights Tribunal has decided the constitutional issue, it can still be appealed to the courts.
Bear in mind that Human Rights Tribunal members do not have to be lawyers. They are frequently appointed from among the ranks of "Human Rights Advocates" who are usually representatives of special interest groups, i.e. gays, immigrants or other groups whose cases frequently form the subject of human rights complaints. That can mean that they have a particular bias toward this type of legislation, indeed, have been advocates for the creation of it.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this group, human rights tribunal members are now qualified to interpret the constitution. Particularly, they are now entrusted by the courts themselves with the jurisdiction to determine if their own enabling legislation is constitutionally valid.

This logic is hard to understand, so let me put it another way:
the Human Rights tribunal member in the Collins case for instance, Tom Patch, has ruled against Collins on the alleged discriminatory nature of three of his columns. Mr. Collins has been ordered to pay a fine and to cease publishing similar columns.
The courts have all ruled that Tom Patch, despite his previous findings against Mr. Collins, should now be asked if:
(1) his order constitutes a reasonable limit on freedom of expression and
(2) the law section 7(1)(a) & (b) of the Human Rights Code of B.C. which gives him the power to do so, is also a reasonable limit on free speech.

Doug Christie, the legal counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, which is taking up the case of Doug Collins, has argued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the B.C. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada that the courts and not the tribunal is the place to commence a legal argument on the constitutional question.
The Supreme Court of Canada has denied leave to appeal. This means the argument will have to be made in front of Tom Patch that his order was wrong or that he ought not to have the power to make it. Any bets on how he will rule?

Two things emerge: the court's attitude of disregard for the freedom of the individual and the costs which the individual must bear in an utterly futile hearing and secondly, the cynical delight of the major media of the politically correct.
The people's courts will do rough justice and decide if they were right.
The second point is demonstrated by the media's false report of the leave application's dismissal.

The initial report from Canadian Press was that Mr. Collins had lost his appeal itself, and not merely the procedural point of where the appeal should be brought. This mistake was partly rectified by a confusing follow-up story, but the real revelation was the delight evident in the story as first presented that Collins had lost his appeal.
Clearly, if freedom survives it is ordinary people and not major media who will have to fight for it.

New Book on Collins Case
A new book called "In Freedom's Cause" has been prepared and written by Doug Christie, general counsel of the Canadian Free Speech League. It contains various documents and arguments that explain the threat to freedom that the BC Human Rights legislation poses, for example an explanation by Doug Collins himself of the history of section 7(1)(a) and (b), and his case under it, as well as his submissions to the Tribunal.
It makes interesting reading to recall the words of MLAs when they made this law.

This book also includes the whole submission of Doug Christie to Tom Patch, the Human Rights Tribunal member, and a copy of the decision which says that truth is no defence under human rights legislation, and why.
We live in times which call out for constructive action in defence of freedom.

This book is a very good tool of education about threats to freedom through human rights legislation. We suggest you buy this book at a cost of $15, Canadian, which enables us to send it to you. This book will enlighten anyone about the inherent dangers of "human rights" laws, which are really just new "social classes' rights" to create new class conflict, or grist for the Marxist mill. We would ask you to buy 1 or 2 copies of this book "In Freedom's Cause" using the order form at the back of this newsletter. Read it and inform yourself, then send one to your MLA if you live in British Columbia, asking them to protect your rights by repealing this draconian legislation.
A brief letter from you requesting a reply and their views on the book which you are sending them will achieve far more than a form letter from us. We will try to do that too, along with a copy of this book, but a copy from you will be so much more effective. Order the book today and start the process of educating our new Liberal government MLAs. We need your help to communicate these important ideas.

Although the new Attorney General for BC, Geoff Plant says that they have commenced a vast review of quasi-judicial administrative tribunals like the Human Rights Tribunal, it appears that they are more concerned with the institutions and processes, rather than the legislation itself. This book could help make the difference in their assessment. It seems that no jurisdiction that established a HRC has ever eliminated it. You could help change that!
A few suggested comments you might include in your letter to your MLA: "This book is sent to you in the hope that you will do the right thing and repeal the dangerous and unnecessary provisions of Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the B.C. Human Rights Code.
I hope you will realize it should never fall to some unfortunate individual or their lawyer to defend before the courts, the freedom of all against the government. Rather, it is your duty as the government to be the friend and defender of liberty, and never sell it in pieces to some interest group for personal advantages.
Without your devotion to your duty in this regard, I feel liberty will fail and everything else that we attempt to create in this province will be in vain.

Why should a single, appointed judge decide if we have free speech when in a democracy, we elect you and your colleagues to protect our rights and not to take them away, as the previous government did. Let reason and not violence or force prevail and truth can never be far behind.
May I ask you to acknowledge my efforts to bring light on this matter of urgent necessity and vital principle."

Liberal Government Does Make Changes!
The new Liberal government in British Columbia has fired Mary-Woo Simms, the self-proclaimed lesbian chief commissioner of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. She was appointed by the former N.D.P. (socialist) government and was referred to by the present Attorney-General Geoff Plant as having made too many "goofy" decisions. Among her decisions, were to allow and support the following claims:
A male transsexual who was excluded from a women's washroom in a lesbian bar.
A wheel-chair bound hunter who complained about the cost of getting to see a moose.
A store clerk who complained about being required to put up Christmas decorations because as a Jehovah's Witness, he does not celebrate Christmas. (That one cost the store owner $30,000.)
A man who complained about an opinion column of a newspaper in another city who doubted the holocaust and said Hollywood was largely controlled by Jews. That journalist was Doug Collins, whose columns appear at www.freedomsite.org.

Mary-Woo may be gone, but no doubt many of the NDP-appointed deputy and staff largely remain. As well, the legislation that was brought in by the NDP government specifically to "get" Doug Collins also remains.

The Owens Bumper Sticker Case
In Saskatchewan, another Human Rights Tribunal decision, as in the Collins case, will be appealed by the individual against whom it was made, but the newspaper that was the co-defendant will not appeal. The champions of these cases rarely are the large media, but instead the individuals who can least afford it.

In this instance, it could have been the Southam's Saskatoon Star Phoenix helping to make a stand for freedom of expression since they were the paper that published Hugh Owens' Biblically-based anti-homosexual ad. This ad was the subject of a complaint by three homosexuals, and the Human Rights Tribunal sided with them, fining Mr. Owens $1,500.
The Star Phoenix is now owned by the Asper family's CanWest Global Communications, but even when Southam was owned by Conrad Black's Hollinger, it refused to fund the appeal of North Shore News columnist Doug Collins.

Media Dominoes Start to Fall
In a column by National Post writer Mark Steyn on August 13th titled "Defenders of press freedom? Hello?" it was revealed that what happened at the North Shore News to Doug Collins and former publisher Peter Speck, has happened to at least one more Canadian writer, Lawrence Martin, who used to write for the National Post. He's suddenly gone, without an explanation. This newspaper has now been acquired from Conrad Black by Izzy Asper's Empire.

Steyn wrote: "I believe that, under the terms of the agreement between Conrad Black's Hollinger Inc. and Izzy Asper's CanWest Global, the National Post is obliged to notify Messrs. Asper of any change in editorial policy that might be contrary to their interests. So herewith is advance notice of my own change in editorial policy: I intend to start being unpleasant about CanWest nine paragraphs from now. . . . "But, if he's so het up about media ethics and he's looking for someone to rebuke, let me offer a suggestion. There were two journalists in the news last week -- or rather there should have been, but one didn't get a look-in. I refer to my late colleague Lawrence Martin. Martin was the National Affairs Columnist for Southam News until a few days ago, when I picked up the Montreal Gazette and discovered that the paper's least unreadable columnist was nowhere to be found. No explanation. Nothing in The Vancouver Sun, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal or any of the other big Southam papers either. Eventually, a trawl of various databases turned up a small item in The Moose Jaw Times Herald to the effect that Mr. Martin, Canada's most widely-read columnist, had been "let go."

"With the exception of this newspaper, Martin was the most prominent scourge of the Prime Minister over Shawinigate, and when Conrad Black sold up last year it was rumoured that Martin's persistence on this matter was not to the liking of his new bosses, CanWest Global. Southam News denies that this is the reason why Martin has been given the chop. Instead, they make it sound like some sort of natural redundancy: "Murdoch Davis, editor-in-chief of Southam News and vice-president of editorial services for Southam newspapers, told staff in a letter that Martin's national column was discontinued and Martin was let go as a result. 'We're going to try other approaches at commentary and [the column] just didn't fit,' Davis said in an interview. 'This wasn't related to Lawrence's performance in any way.' "

So, if I understand Davis correctly, Martin wasn't sacked, it was just that the group decided to discontinue the Lawrence Martin column and therefore no longer had need of anyone by the name of Lawrence Martin." [end of excerpt]
We in the Canadian Free Speech League wonder who will be next.

Canadian Judges Debate Media Imaging
The power of media vilification in Canada has afflicted even those who expected to be beyond its reach. This must have hit just a little bit too close to home for some Canadian judges recently. Too bad it doesn't make them realize what happens in some of the cases that come before them, how the media first vilifies the accused person in free speech cases, thus softening up the public and (dare we suggest?) the judiciary to agree with their censorship and subsequent punishment. Just how Canadian judges should deal with the media was discussed at a meeting of the Canadian Superior Courts' Judges Association recently. They were addressed by a panel of media persons, including the Globe and Mail's justice reporter, Kirk Makin, who covered the Ernst Zundel trial, and other representatives of the communications industry.
The ironies that emerged were interesting: Some of the very same judges who were quick to adopt the media version demonizing persons who had come before them, charged with word crimes, expressed their horror at "unfair personal attacks."

According to the Lawyer's Weekly of August 24, 2001: "Supreme Court of Canada Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube, said unfair personal attacks on individual judges damage the judiciary as an institution. Alluding to the National Post's coverage of personal criticism of her in 1999 by Alberta Court of Appeal Justice John McClung, who was later reprimanded by the Judicial Council, Justice L'Heureux-Dube said such `savage attacks' risk silencing and intimidating judges at large.
'I would ask the people in the media to answer me what is productive in personal attacks against judges?' the Supreme Court's senior judge, her voice shaking with anger, asked the panellists.
`We are human beings and the pressure that the media in those circumstances put on us is very damaging,' she said.
`To me . . . it's an attack really against the independence of the judiciary.'" [end of excerpt]

The media and judges both should know that free speech means free speech for everyone, even when it may "hurt my feelings."

2001 George Orwell Award Dinner
For fifteen years, the George Orwell Award and dinner has been held without public advertising, some years virtually in secret. This has been done to avoid disruption by people who don't tolerate free speech, and the consequent cancelling or destruction of our meeting venues. Protestors against freedom of speech for their political adversaries have for their part, terrorized meetings at libraries and other public places where we have tried to allow a voice to the victims of censorship so people could hear for themselves what and who was being censored. This experience has driven the free speech movement partially underground, but free speech should never be "underground." It was never obtained by timid souls who censored themselves or tried to curry favour with the powerful, by being politically correct.
Free speech will never be maintained by timid souls who gather in secret to talk about it to people who already agree.

If we decide to suppress free speech in order to preserve ourselves from acts of violence and murder, then terrorism has truly won. We have all become as oppressive, tyrannical and narrow as the alleged fanatics we purport to oppose. So we are therefore advising that we are going to hold the George Orwell Free Speech Awards Seminar and Dinner on Saturday, November 10th between 1 p.m. and 7:30 at a location in the greater Victoria area.
The cost will be $35 per person or $60 per couple. We hope you will contact us for details and make a reservation. The phone number to call and leave a message is 250-385-1022.
If you call, have the names of the persons for whom you intend reservations and their (or your) telephone number so we can avoid duplication. We are still considering who should be this year's recipient and would like you to make suggestions. We will make a decision before October 15th, so please advise us soon. Use the form at the bottom of the last page to make your reservation or suggestion.
A prize will be awarded of $100 for the person who sponsors the largest number of new attendees to this seminar and dinner, so please collect first time people and give us their names. We will award the prize at the dinner.

Terrorist Attacks to Result in Lost Liberty?
One of the gravest casualties of civil emergencies often is the liberty of citizens as governments cope with other "more pressing" threats. Suggestions for and implementations of much greater control over the North American citizenry followed almost as soon as the hijackers hit their aims on September 11th.

Fear, and its usual corollary, the desire for security, have taken a great toll in both the U.S. and in Canada. It remains to be seen what the end result will be, but the prognosis is not good, as usually when governments implement emergency measures, they do not repeal them when the state of immediate emergency ends. Of course, the real necessity for such things is not easily measurable by ordinary citizens, who are not privy to all the government-held information, and emotions often reign. People often willingly resign their freedom, on faith.

In light of the quite justified intense emotions that resulted from the terrible attacks and the sad events following them, some interesting freedom-related facts emerge. One is the number of great writers who are emerging from the crisis, to help us all clarify our understanding -- columnists and commentators who are doing their share to preserve freedom of speech by their thoughtfulness, their integrity and honesty, and often very moving, writing. There is not a unanimity of opinion about the events, and there are some tremendously valuable voices who dare to speak their sometimes unpopular opinions.

Reading the wide range of ideas, the different stories and perspectives from around the world (which can only result in deeper understanding) gives us great hope that the terrorists cannot destroy freedom in North America.

Another interesting feature of the past several weeks is the amazing resource of the Internet in providing ordinary people with information, bypassing the state authorities, or the often uniform presentations of the major media, but going directly from individual to individual. This always will have its downside, but on the whole, it is one more demonstration of the power of a free and unhindered media, in this case, a media which includes every citizen that has access to the Internet and cares to communicate. Through the Internet a wide variety of views is available to the average person who desires to look, to read, to think. True, the harrowing electronic images of death and destruction will play and replay in the memories of our generation, as long as we will live, but the thoughts and ideas that can only contribute to more reason in our world, in the face of fear and anger, make a profound difference. Keltie Zubko

******LATE NEWS*******

Just as the paper version of this newsletter had been stuffed, sealed and ready to mail, we received word that writer Doug Collins had died yesterday, after a sudden illness. His one hope, after seeing the book "In Freedom's Cause" which Doug Christie had prepared was that all the Members of the Legislature would receive one. This will be done by the Canadian Free Speech League. Regarding the Human Rights Case before Tom Patch, Doug Christie had written to him recently asking when he would make his decision on the constitutionality of the legislation, and was told only that it was not ready. More in the next newsletter.

CANADIANS VOTE: GOODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE!

from Doug Collins in Canada

It isn't very likely that the world was holding its breath to learn whether British Columbia was going to rid itself of the worst government in the province's history, but it should have. Not for nothing were some people calling B.C. a socialist republic. But in the recent election our Sikh premier and his New Democratic Party bit the dust. One hopes for ever.
The NDP was neither democratic nor new, and after ten years of misgovernment the worm finally turned and gave Ujjal Dosanjh and Co. only three seats out of 79. He lost his own seat, and if two scheduled recounts change nothing, that party will not even have official status in the legislature.

Gordon Campbell, the Liberal premier-in-waiting, could grant them such status but says he won't. Good. Even one NDP member would be one too many. A full list of NDP idiocies and corruption would only send you to sleep. Suffice it to say that it included fudge-it (lying) budgets, cheating people in the infamous 'Bingogate' scandal that led to the conviction of a former finance minister, the desire to hand over much of the Province to the Indians, an attempt to please the unions by building enormously expensive "fast ferries" that didn't work, a disastrous pro-labor and anti-business programme, and Dosanjh's never-ceasing demands for "tougher federal hate laws". Worst of all was the party's own attack on freedom of speech, beginning with the amendment to the Human Rights Act of 1993, which removed the right to free expression. And there's the rub.

Restrictions on free speech never figured during the election. They were mentioned neither by the media nor by Mr. Campbell. The misnamed rights law was clearly intended to silence dangerous rotters like Yours Truly, who challenged multicult, immigration, homosexuality, abortion on demand, and the holocaust industry.

The politically correct had nothing to worry about, of course, but that doesn't mean the law could not be used against anyone on practically any grounds. As the Press Council stated, anyone telling a 'Newfie' joke could be hauled before a rights tribunal. I can guess why Liberal leader Campbell was silent on the matter. He put forward 200 proposals for change, spoke nightly in TV ads about education, health, and other safe subjects, but uttered nary a word about the NDP-imposed limits on free discussion. My guess is that he didn't want Jewish groups on his neck before the vote was held. He had to be concerned about being denounced as a "racist", and about Can-West Global's (meaning Izzy Asper's) nearly blanket control of the print media in Vancouver and Victoria, plus a significant part of television. Will he get around to doing something about the free speech issue?

Knowing how weak politicians can be in the face of press power and political correctness, I am not sure that he will. But there is some hope. At this writing, the man most likely to become attorney general is Geoff Plant, who a few months ago denounced the Human Rights maniacs in B.C. (British Columbia) for their many "goofy decisions". He said the system needed to be reviewed. This did not go entirely unnoticed.

A month before the election took place the Western Jewish Bulletin ran a story headed, "Libs may repeal hate law', in which such a prospect was viewed with alarm and in which the name of the unmentionable Doug Collins figured. Mr. Plant was reported as saying his party might remove segments of the Rights Code that cover "hate propaganda". (What is hate propaganda? Anything the pressure groups say it is.) But the mainstream media either didn't notice his statement or didn't want to.

The government's attorney general said that Plant was out of touch with ordinary people, which is a real laugh, seeing that the NDP never gave a damn for ordinary people when it conspired with the usual suspects to introduce the Code. One might also be forgiven for thinking, in view of the NDP's stunning defeat, that ordinary people were not too favorably impressed with regard to what that party was doing for them. Needless to say, the Canadian Jewish Congress stated it would "want to have some input" if any such dangerous change were to be considered.

Despite his silence during the election, Liberal leader Campbell has promised on at least two occasions to get rid of the law. He said so in 1993 in a press survey of politicians' intentions, and again some years later at a B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers convention. We shall see. Perhaps he will be too worried about Izzy's Media. But with such a massive majority in the legislature he could do as he pleases.

Globalisation Is Killing Canada
Following, are the major portions of an address to The Ontario Club by former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Paul Hellyer on June 6, 2000. It is reprinted from the January/February, 2001 issues of The Canadian Intelligence Service. Mr Hellyer has also published an excellent book The Evil Empire: Globalisation's Darker Side. Presently we do not have stocks of this but it can be ordered for Aust$22 from Heritage Books, Box 1052J, GPO Melbourne 3001:

The issues I would like to talk about tonight are major and profound. They include what is happening to Canada, what is happening in the world, and what is happening to each of us as individuals - the extent to which we are losing control over our lives and destiny. We are all being affected by globalisation which we are led to believe is both inevitable and good. This statement, like many others, contains a dash of truth and a litre of lie.

When I think of globalisation the best analogy that comes to mind is cholesterol. There is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. The good can be life enhancing, the bad can kill you. Much of the good globalisation is technology driven. The internet for example, is changing our lives and the way we do business. It gives us access to a range of knowledge and opportunity unprecedented in human history. The downside is that the internet can become another addiction with both physical and social consequences.

The bad globalisation is unrestricted capital flows and the unrelenting concentration of ownership and industrial and financial power in fewer and fewer hands. This kind of globalisation is agenda driven. It is an attempt by a relatively small number of international banks and transnational corporations centred largely in the five major industrial powers - to take over governance of the world for their own benefit.

Is it inevitable? Only if we let it happen. Is it good? It is good for two to five percent of the richest, most powerful people in the world. It is bad for the vast majority. It may be advertised as the road to Nirvana but, in my opinion, it is the highway to poverty, homelessness and disease for ten of millions of the earth's inhabitants.

Of course, there are areas where global cooperation is essential! These include protecting our oceans and fish stocks, the ozone layer, our global ecology, including endangered species, and fighting international crime, as some examples. It is the relentless concentration of power and wealth that must be reined in. They call it the ascendance of market economics. In reality it is the ascendancy of monopoly economics on a world scale. We are losing control of our most important industries.

As we give up domestic ownership of our assets, we lose the most exciting and challenging jobs which too often move to the new corporate headquarters outside Canada - and young people who want those jobs must follow. It's part of the brain drain.

The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The globalisation process, which was not new, got a rocket-assisted boost with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Canadians were led to believe that this was a trade agreement. That's what the newspapers said. I must admit that I was naive enough to believe them. Then, two or three years later, I read it and found, to my dismay, that it was primarily an investment agreement. Sure, it called for reductions in tariffs, but this was already happening under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The most important parts of the FTA were about investment. The Americans wanted our industries and resources - especially energy and water. They also wanted our land. Instead of Canada being open for business again, as Prime Minister Brian Mulroney proudly boasted, it was up for sale. Mr. Mulroney allowed the Americans to insert a "national treatment" clause which was a new concept in international law which gave U.S. investors the same rights in Canada as Canadian citizens. I think this is wrong in principle! Where is the value of citizenship if foreign investors have the same rights? In fact, the "national treatment" clause gave American investors the right to invest in Canada without conditions and without limits.

We can no longer say "You are welcome if you invest in Thunder Bay, or Trois Riviere; or if you hire mostly Canadians, or export part of your output, or leave the technology behind when you pull out." No conditions can be imposed! Similarly, they can invest without limits. We can no longer say "You can't buy more than 50% of our forest industry" - because the treaty says they can buy it all. And we can no longer say "You can't own more than 80% of our oil and gas reserves" - because the treaty says they can own all our reserves. The same rule applies to our best farmland.

With the FTA, Brian Mulroney accomplished two things. He virtually guaranteed the demise of Canada as a nation state, and he allowed Ronald Reagan to do, with one stroke of the pen, what American generals and American armies had failed to do on more than one occasion - and that is to conquer Canada. The conquest is still tentative, perhaps, for about two more years. Then we will reach the point of no return after which annexation by the United States will become inevitable.

I want to stress that I am not anti-American. Many thoughtful Americans are strongly opposed to corporate globalisation. I am however, dead set against the annexation of Canada by the U.S. - and the end of our country. I am concerned that several hundred years of experiment in popular democracy is coming to an end because globalisation is really a code word for corporate rule and colonisation. And, in Canada's case, due to our unique geographical location alongside the United States, first we have economic and cultural colonisation and then annexation.

In reality, the "national treatment" clause is the foundation for an empire every bit as bad, and in some respects even worse, than the evil empire which was the Soviet Union.

NAFTA - The Final Straw?

When we signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), we really gave the store away. We granted U.S. and Mexican investors greater rights in Canada than Canadian citizens enjoy. Chapter 11, the disputes settlement chapter, allows foreign investors to sue if our governments - federal, provincial or municipal - pass any law or regulation that affects their corporate profits or potential profits. And we are being sued. The first suit was the celebrated Ethyl case. When the Canadian parliament passed a law prohibiting the importation into Canada, or the distribution within Canada, of MMT, a manganese based gasoline additive, the U.S. Ethyl Corporation sued the government of Canada. Because our lawyers said we would likely lose the case, the government settled out of court for $20-million in legal costs. Far worse, it also agreed to repeal the law.
So who is running Canada when a foreign corporation can dictate to the Canadian parliament?

Equally bad, the settlement agreement required two Canadian cabinet ministers to read statements to the effect that MMT was not harmful either to the environment or to health at the very moment that the latest scientific evidence suggested that it may indeed be injurious to the health, especially of children. The Ethyl case is the only one that has been settled, but there are others pending.

The Sun Belt Water Corporation of California is suing for $1.5 to $10.5-billion because we won't let it sell our water. Pope & Talbot Inc., a U.S. forest company with a large Canadian operation, is suing for $500 million because it claims it was not treated fairly in the allocation of quotas for lumber shipments to the U.S. (Why are quotas necessary if free trade really means free trade?) And United Parcel Service (UPS) is suing for about $200-million because it claims Canada Post is subsidising its courier service. These suits are just the tip of an iceberg that would sink any Titanic.

The WTO is Anti-Democratic

The World Trade Organization is another threat to our democratic traditions. It has ruled that the auto pact with the U.S. is illegal. It has ruled that the European Union has to accept U.S. and Canadian beef that has been raised on bovine growth hormones. It said that the U.S. could not ban tuna caught in nets that drown sea turtles. (In every case involving an environmental issue, the WTO has ruled against the environment.) Now the WTO has ruled that our drug patents are too short and that, in effect, we have to change our laws to correspond with U.S. Iaws. In addition to this affront to our sovereignty, this ruling, if it stands, means that we will have to pay untold millions more for drugs at a time when our health care system is already in crisis from inadequate funding.

What Kind of Democracy?

The decline of democracy in the U.S. has reached the point where Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's magazine, says the U.S. has two governments - the permanent government and the provisional government. The permanent government comprises:
(a) the Fortune 500 list of the largest American corporations;
(b) the largest law firms in Washington that do their legal work for them;
(c) the largest public relations firms in Washington that do their advertising and public relations; and
(d) the top public servants, both civil and military.

These groups make up the permanent government which really runs the country.
Then there is the provisional government - "politicians for hire."

Every few years there is a charade called an election, which picks a political actor to go on stage and read the scripts written by the permanent government. As some actors read scripts with less improvisation than others, the permanent government checks them out in advance and decides who they want. Then they put up the money to get them elected.

There Are Strings Attached

The evolution of the system has led to a government that is little more than a big bully enforcer for giant American corporations. If Time Warner wants a bigger slice of Canadian magazine advertising revenue, it says to Washington, "go get 'em." The U.S. government goes to the WTO, which doesn't know the difference between Maclean's and Time magazines, and gets a ruling forcing us to accept U.S. split-run magazines. This is the most blatant form of dumping imaginable - and, if the shoe were on the other foot, the U.S. wouldn't tolerate it for a minute. The net result is that Canadian taxpayers will have to provide subsidies of $100-150-million a year to keep the Canadian magazine industry alive.

If Dole and Chichita want a bigger share of the European market for bananas, they tell the U.S. government "go get 'em." And again the government goes to the WTO. It doesn't matter that the U.S. doesn't even grow bananas. Their giant corporations want to dominate world markets. They want the European Union to drop any preference for its old colonies, primarily Caribbean producers, small independent operators - usually women. Then the giants can put them out of business, buy their land, hire them for a few weeks a year as casual labour, and leave them as unemployed indigents for the balance of the year.

In a globalised society, people don't matter - only corporations do.
Small independent operators and family farms are doomed by globalisation.

Aggressive Agribusiness

One of the cosiest arrangements has been between the U.S. government and Monsanto Corporation - now in the process of changing its name due to a bad image. Monsanto is the company that gave us Agent Orange, the allegedly-safe defoliant used in the Vietnam War which has been proven unsafe and has now claimed thousands of casualties. Monsanto is also one of the companies developing terminator seeds. These are seeds that will grow a crop but cannot be replanted because they are genetically altered to be sterile. This is one of the most frightening developments in modern history.

There are about one-and-a-half billion subsistence farmers worldwide who depend on planting the seeds of plants they grow in order to stay alive and feed their families. Attempts to corner world seed markets and sell only genetically altered seed would impoverish millions of people.

When I learned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had assisted Monsanto in the development of such a patently evil product, I wondered how this could be possible in a democracy. Then I learned that one of Monsanto's key directors was one of President Clinton's key fund raisers and the light went on. Another case of putting profits far ahead of people and nature.

It is a matter of national shame that the Canadian government has been aiding and abetting the U.S. in promoting the interests of this destructive company, including its increased control of Canadian agriculture. In other words, Ottawa is helping to drive Canadian farmers out of business.

An estimated 25,000 Western [Canadian] farmers - some say this estimate is too low - will go bankrupt this year. Twenty-five thousand families with no homes to live in and no jobs to go to.

Another problem facing rural communities is that Canada is competing with countries where farmers are more highly subsidized. In fact, our farmers are the lowest subsidized producers in all the 29 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, except New Zealand. This situation is the result of naive but dangerous theorists in Canada's permanent government who talk of globalisation, rationalisation and market forces without understanding the consequences. Globalisation in agriculture means three or four giant agribusinesses are determined to monopolize the world food supply with their genetically altered species and make us all dependent on them for our food. As we capitulate, and let our farmers go under, these aggressive corporations are buying up some of our best agricultural land.

National Fire Sale

At the same time, many of our best companies are being bought out. The giant of the Canadian forest industry, MacMillan Bloedel, was sold without a murmur of dissent. And on the other side of the continent, Le Groupe Forex. Club Monaco was sold, also Tim Horton's. Even Canada's famous Canadarm, in which taxpayers had invested millions, was sold to an American company. Thirteen thousand Canadian companies have been sold to foreigners in the last decade or so - more than 10,000 to Americans. And the pace is quickening.

In a stunning admission to the National Post in early March, Industry Minister John Manley predicted the end of federal restrictions that prevent foreigners from buying Canadian air lines, communications companies and even banks. This means that Air Canada will be bought by an American airline, ownership of both Shaw and Rogers cable companies will move south of the border, Bell Canada (with CTV in tow) will be bought by AT&T, and all the Canadian banks will be bought by international banks the size of Citibank or Chase Manhattan - and it won't matter whether our banks have been allowed to merge or not. There will be nothing left of Canada but an empty shell.

Nothing is Sacred

Nothing is sacred; even Laura Secord Inc. has been bought by Americans. This brave woman, who led her cow through the American lines to warn General Isaac Brock of the imminent attack, was a reminder that we won the war of 1812-14. Now we are losing this silent war without a shot being fired. And the kind of corporate-controlled government that allows this to happen is a cruel joke. Canada and the world are being re-engineered without the consent of the citizens who are having their birthrights sold out from under their feet. There is no longer any pretence of popular democracy.

Corporations Rule the World

The substitution of corporate rule for democracy is being imposed around the world. Countries have to sign treaties that give transnational corporations the right to cherry-pick their industries and assets. If a country has a business that begins to cut into market share, the transnationals can buy it, make it part of their empire, shut it down or move it to Malaysia, for example. If they do move the business to Malaysia, the same international treaty will say that the cheap goods produced there must be admitted to the losing country duty-free. Furthermore, it would be pointless for the displaced workers to buy the idle machinery and attempt to carry on because they couldn't compete with the cheap foreign labour.

Under the rules of globalisation, no country - other than the big five (or six) - can hope to achieve anything like self-sufficiency.

Laissez-Faire Gone Mad

All of this change is justified in the name of laissez-faire economics which insists that governments are bad and markets are good. Government owned services must be privatised. Even basic services like health and education are on the block. Alas, for-profit providers of these services are not accountable to sovereign citizens. They are only accountable to "sovereign" shareholders.

This is all in accord with the ideas of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. At first, the Friedman system (ideology) was called monetarism, but when that wasn't technically accurate, it was renamed neoclassical monetarism - and, more recently, just neoclassical economics. It should have been called retro-classical rather than neo-classical because it is not new. It is the same old pre-depression boom-bust system.

Neo-Classical Economics - a Dismal Failure

Mainline economists won't admit it, but their 25-year experiment with neo-classical economics has been a monumental flop. If you compare the data for the years 1949-1973 with the period 1974-1998 - the twenty-five years since Friedmanism was adopted by central banks - you will see the dismal results. In Canada, the average increase in GDP dropped 43% to almost 9%. All of this resulted in a monumental 2,289% increase in federal debt. The increase in debt was not primarily due to overspending as the right insists. It was primarily due to the slow growth of the economy and the debt compounding at high interest rates due to monetarist policies. Compound interest was the real culprit.

The data for Australia, and even the United States, are almost as bad. But world figures are the most shocking. From 1950 to 1973, the average compound growth rate of per capita GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was 2.9 percent. From 1973 to 1995, it was down to a disastrous 1.1% - more than a 50% reduction. So, when you see pictures of undernourished children, or read about the millions who cannot afford to go to school, or even see the homeless people in Montreal and Toronto, there is cause for these tragedies. They are due in large part to bad economic theory and bad economic management.

You have to ask where the writers who talk about "the unquestioned benefits of globalisation" get their information. Based on the data, one is forced to conclude they write fiction instead of fact. Or they are looking only at corporate profits and ignoring all else.

People Are the Victims

The cold statistics can be translated into the heart-wrenching experiences of many Canadians. If you are a doctor or a nurse, you are likely to find yourself so overworked and stressed out that you are unable to provide the quality of care you want to give. The same can be said for many teachers whose workload has been increased to the point where they have felt obliged to reduce or eliminate participation in extra-curricula activities like drama or sports. If you are a student, you may graduate with as much or more debt as the mortgage on your parents' first house. . .

Is There Any Hope?

There is hope but it will require a revolution of the intellect, followed by a revolution at the ballot box. First, and immediately, we have to abrogate the FTA and NAFTA in order to get rid of the "national treatment" clause that is killing Canada. This does not mean turning the clock back ten years on trade! Canada can compete in trade. We have proven that. But we cannot compete in investment - we just don't have money on the same scale as the elephant which is the reason we are losing control of our country. So, we must try to replace FTA and NAFTA with new fair trade agreements and, if that is not possible, rely on the General Tariffs and Trade which served us so well for so long.

Once we are rid of the "national treatment" clause, we must start screening foreign investment again and stop the sale of our best industries, and with it stop much of the brain drain. Then, we must refuse to sign any more treaties, such as the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) that will extend the "national treatment" clause to the tip of South America. And at the same time, we must take health care, education, agriculture and intellectual property off the table for the WTO negotiations. To give up our sovereignty in these important areas would reduce all Canadian governments to a state of impotence. This must not be allowed to happen!

Canada should say "No!" to any extension of WTO jurisdiction and influence until we can gauge the damage already done.

The Domestic Front

Once we have battened down the hatches on the investment front, we can turn our attention to the domestic front. Here I speak from the perspective of someone my age. In 1938, there were no jobs in Canada. None. Then the war came along in 1939 and soon everyone was working - serving in the armed forces, building factories or making munitions. You might ask how this was financially possible? The Bank of Canada (B of C) made it possible. The Bank of Canada started printing money and making it available to the Government of Canada at near zero cost. It printed money to buy Government of Canada bonds. The government paid the B of C interest on the bonds, and the Bank paid the interest back to the government by way of dividends. The net cost of the money was near zero.

The government spent the money into circulation and it wound up in the private banks where it became what the economists called "high powered money." In effect, it became the monetary base which allowed the banks to expand their lending and create money to build factories and lend to people to buy war bonds. The system, in a word, was one where the money-creation function was shared between the Government of Canada, through the B of C, and the private banks. It was the system that got us out of the Great Depression, helped finance World War II, helped build the post-war infra structure including the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and our big airports, while helping to lay the foundation for our social security network. It was the system that gave us the best 25 years of the century!

In 1974, the Bank of Canada owned more than 20% of federal government debt - the equivalent of an interest-free loan. But that is the year the central bank adopted the ideas of Milton Friedman and began to give back to the private banks their virtual monopoly to "print" money. The result is that today the B of C only owns about 4% of federal government debt, and the shortfall has to be borrowed from the market, including the private banks, at high interest rates. In effect, taxpayers are subsidising the private banks by $4-5-billion a year.

There is insufficient space to discuss monetary theory here, but anyone who is interested can read books on the subject, including one or two of mine such as Surviving the Global Financial Crisis, or Stop: Think, the latest one.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that a system where private banks print nearly all of the money is not a stable system (44 recessions and depressions in 200 years) and is not one that will provide full employment for Canada or the world. There is simply not enough money in the hands of rank-and-file consumers. So, we have to learn the lessons of history and revert to the system we had in effect from 1939 to 1974. Access to significant amounts of publicly created zero-cost (debt-free) money is the only way governments can meet the conflicting demands of increased expenditures for health care, education, environmental concerns, research and development, the arts and other legitimate areas of public concern, while permitting lower taxes at the same time. There is no other way to reconcile the claims of left and right.

The War for Independence

The next federal election will decide Canada's fate. If any party - or combination of parties - that supports FTA and NAFTA forms the next government, Canada is dead. And I mean all of Canada, including Quebec. After 400 years, the French language and culture will be on an irreversible slide to extinction. Our only hope is a genuine alliance of patriotic Liberals, Conservatives, Reformers, NDPers, Bloc Quebecois, and even people too cheesed off to vote, getting together in one powerful movement to turn the ship of state around before it is too late.

An independent Canada is best for us, the United States and the world. If we really believe that, we all have to enlist in Canada's war for independence and make it happen.
(End of Mr. Hellyer's address)

Comment: (by Ron Gostick, editor Canadian Intelligence Service)
Mr. Hellyer is to be commended for his knowledge and insight respecting transnational corporate operations and their impact on our country and others; and for the eloquence and challenge of his message. I would like to make a brief comment or two regarding the concluding sections of his address:
. Respecting laissez-faire economics of the Friedman school and privatising public services, I suggest that any privatised essential service should be subject to public scrutiny in order to protect the interests of the consumer. Private enterprise is, by nature, more cost-efficient, but not always consumer-friendly.
. Under "The Bottom Line" section, I question "full employment" as a valid goal in this era of rapid escalation of computerised industry which is displacing human labour. How about "shared employment" as a more realistic and constructive goal? . . .