The Charter of Rights has done Canada no favours

Just over three years ago in our May 1999 issue, we published the following article by David C. Thompson, "an Ottawa lawyer," which appeared in the May 1, 1998 issue of The Globe and Mail. Because its content is becoming more relevant with each passing day, we are reprinting it in this June 2002 issue for the benefit of newer readers.

Professor David Beatty's hymn of praise to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Lament for a Charter -- April 15), with his regrets that it has not been more extensively applied to our courts, will not find approval with a substantial number of people. Until the enactment of the Charter 25 years ago, Canada was a country based upon English common law and the theory and practice of parliamentary democracy. Canadians enjoyed what many European states would consider an irresponsible freedom to do as they wished. Only those things expressly forbidden could not be engaged in, in contrast with the European model of being permitted those things that were specifically allowed. Then the relatively benign "patriation of our Constitution" (with which few would quarrel) expanded beyond recognition into the constitutional Charter of Rights, and we moved to adopt the European concept of legislated rights, without any counterweight of legislated duties. The Charter shifted to the courts powers that in a democracy belong to elected representatives -- the law-makers. Our courts may now make essentially political decisions; but our judges have been trained in law, not in sociology or politics. Even if they are willing to accept their new roles, and some do most enthusiastically, they are ill-equipped to venture into these other areas. Worse, they are not accountable for their decisions.

One can understand why the public, exasperated by the antics of discredited politicians, would turn at times to supposedly dispassionate judges for more sensible resolution of thorny issues. But judges are sensitive to the pressure of activist groups that press their views on a quiescent majority, and they are not qualified to make social policy. Judges carry the intellectual and moral equipment they acquired in their formative years. Parliamentarians can be removed or sidelined every four or five years; judges are with us until they retire or die, or, as in the Supreme Court of Canada, reach the age of 75.

One of the more serious blows dealt to Canada by the Charter was the emphasis on rights of the individual or of special-interest groups, to the detriment of the common good. This has not, and cannot, foster the long-term interests of a country. Litigiousness and self-interest hardly seem to be values of any use to a state. Quebec, with its emphasis on the group rights of its society, has felt particularly alienated by the Charter and the celebration of individual and interest-group rights that some English writers embrace. To avoid court challenges, the province has been forced to use the Charter's "notwithstanding" provisions to promote its view of society. One of the benefits Prof. Beatty sees from the Charter is the phenomenon of judicial activism, the power of appointed judges to invalidate acts of an elected legislature. This power is unknown in English law and, in my opinion, is the United States' most dangerous contribution to the science of government in North America. Judges do not merely disallow or invalidate legislation; they impose policies, and "write in" clauses they think should be in the law. Nobody seems to question whether this power held by unelected judges with virtual lifetime tenure is reconcilable with our historical tradition of parliamentary democracy through elected representatives. Why should the policy preference of judges, who are, after all, lawyers in judicial gowns, be superior to the policy preferences of our elected representatives? How ironic that a country like ours, with such a deep-rooted distrust of things American, has followed so slavishly the American model of judicial intervention.

It was predicted in 1982 that adoption of the Charter would be a blessing to criminal and immigration lawyers, litigators in general and special-interest groups, but a curse to the state. Our Charter has indeed led to a much more litigious and fractious society. Promotion of special interests has led to dangerous divisiveness, fostered the wrong ethos and angered one of the four founding provinces of our country (Quebec) without increasing our freedom one whit. Far from criticizing the timidity of our judges in failing to be more aggressive with the Charter, I find myself in sympathy with Mr. Justice John McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Vriend case. He lamented the temerity of rights-fixated judges who, marching to the seductive beat of the Charter drum, engage in judicial activism by "reading in" or "reading out" things they feel should, or should not, be in some piece of legislation.

Prof. Beatty laments that judges do not do enough of this, and suggests some "public control of the appointment process" to ensure appropriate intervention. He wants only judges who agree with his point of view. We already have too many of them. (End of Mr. Thompson's article)
OUR COMMENT in our May 1999 issue: A most dangerous contradiction is found in Sect. 15 of the Charter, sub-sect. 1 of which states that "every individual is equal before and under the law," but then, in sub-sect. 2, goes on to state that this does not preclude any law, program or activity which gives preference to members of disadvantaged minority groups. In other words, we're all equal before the law, but some are more equal than others! This, in reality, far from guaranteeing equality, in fact, enshrines the basis for inequality, based on race, religion, colour, etc.!
COMMENT (in this June 2002 issue): Mr. Thompson's concerns, expressed four years ago, have certainly been validated and confirmed by Supreme Court rulings these past few years on Aboriginal issues, one of which could lead to the destruction of our fishing stocks; and another one (the Delgamuukw ruling) which accords to Aboriginal folklore and legends precedence over recorded treaties or historical documents in determining Aboriginal land claims and taxation exemptions. Canadians today enjoy less rights and freedoms than before the Trudeau Charter, when we enjoyed all rights and freedoms except those specifically denied by law (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.). Today, rights and freedoms not denied us by law, may nevertheless now (under the Charter) be abrogated or otherwise denied at the discretion of a politically-appointed judge or tribunal.

An open letter to Steve Harper on how he can Win without selling out the store

The following Westview article by Ted Byfield, the widely respected Western journalist, under the above caption was published in the April 29th National Edition of REPORT Newsmagazine.
Dear Steve: Here's some more advice -- not that you lack advice. It's coming at you from every quarter, I'm sure. However, this is further to my suggestion that you get the party out of Ontario and everything east.
Now wait, Steve! Before dismissing me as a closet western separatist, hear me out. I can show you this is not really so radical. First off, you have to make a deal with the Tories. I know it; everybody knows it. As long as the so-called right-wing vote splits, the Liberals are in forever. But as you've made clear, you won't make a deal with Joe Clark. Well done. You also got the lost sheep back into the fold. Again, well done. But now, what kind of a deal can you make with the Tories? Would they ever agree in advance to an elected Senate? Hardly. Are they likely to agree to referendums on moral questions? Certainly not. Might you come up with some waffle terminology that avoids both issues? This would be immediately identified as a sellout of the whole 10-year Reform-Alliance movement and -- believe me -- invite a major split in your western ranks. So how can you make a deal with them? Here's how.

Tell them the Alliance will pull out of everything east of the Manitoba-Ontario border, if they'll pull out of everything west of it. What would they be losing? One seat: Joe Clark's in Calgary.* (What a tragedy!) The Alliance would be writing off two: Scott Reid's in suburban Ottawa and Cheryl Gallant's in the Ottawa Valley. Both are valuable members, but couldn't they in such circumstances win Tory nominations? I think so.
The terms of the deal would be simple. The leader of whichever party won the most seats would become opposition leader. If together you won the election, you would then form a coalition government with a Tory prime minister since they would have won far more seats. Until they elect a serious leader, of course, no deal with the Tories need be considered. But with the Alliance gone from Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, and with no need to worry about the West, it would be obvious that whoever won their leadership would have a good chance of winning the country. Some formidable candidates would certainly come forward.

This collaborative strategy also has two further advantages: First: It would confuse the liberal media. They wouldn't know whom to attack, the Tory leader or you. It's hard to smear two people at once. They'd say that neither was a "national party," of course. But so what? European countries, particularly Germany, work just fine on this basis. Second and more important: It would enable you to make a deal with the Tories without compromising the Alliance platform. The cause which the Alliance, in its pre-existence as the Reform Party, was originally constituted to serve would be far from lost. The movement would retain not only its identity, but also its independence. (A case could actually be made for restoring the name "Reform Party.")
If the coalition won the election, all points at issue would have to be negotiated within its own caucus. However, the usual sellout of the West would not be nearly as likely.

Going back to the Mulroney experience is instructive here. The West voted for him because it bought the old story: If you want a government sympathetic to your cause, then vote for the winning side. But when the Tories got in, the West's significance rapidly evaporated. Marcel Masse, a Quebec separatist, was soon made energy minister, and it took two years or more for them to scrap the most vicious tax-grabs of Trudeau's National Energy Program. Then a major aerospace contract was yanked away from Winnipeg and given to Montreal. It became obvious that in any contest between either what Ontario or Quebec wanted and what the West wanted, the West inevitably lost. But had the West been represented, not by the governing party, but by its own party with its own leader, western voters could have put fierce pressure on their western party to stand by its principles.
Moreover, that western party could defeat the government -- and here's what matters -- while strengthening, rather than weakening, its electoral position. Their constituents would say they did what they were elected to do, and happily re-elect them. The same confidence, however, would not attend upon any government that brought on its own defeat.

In other words, in that circumstance, Mr. Mulroney probably would have yielded. But as long as we were all Tories together, he didn't need to and really didn't dare to. He could disregard us, and on crucial decisions he did. In this scheme, things would be different. The Clark Tories, of course, would never buy this -- but the Ontario Tories might. And if you made the offer conditional upon Alliance acceptance of the Tory leadership, just as they would have to accept your leadership, it might sell. Just a thought. Sincerely, T. Byfield (End of Mr. Byfield's 'Letter to Steve')
COMMENT (by R.G.): Mr. Byfield's rather ingenious political proposal, given outstanding leadership all round, might improve our quality of government in Canada, especially for the West. However, assuming his plan doesn't materialize, I'm not yet convinced that all is lost for the Alliance Party east of the Ontario-Manitoba border. The cold reality is that under both Manning and Day, between elections, little or no grassroots organization was done and set up for an election. And the party's campaign leading up to the last election was a disaster from Day One, with Stockwell Day facing an unprecedentedly vile and pernicious onslaught by the Liberals and almost hostility from the Manning element within his party. It still elected two MPs in Ontario and ran a strong second in many more.
A united party under competent management and leadership, might well elect up to fifty or more Members in the next federal election east of Manitoba. But unless Stephen Harper and his organization get into high organizational gear this year in Ontario, their next election campaign will again fall far short. But I sense that a major breakthrough in Central Canada is possible within three years.

Bishop and Federal Minister take opposite sides on Catholic homosexual prom date

We received on April 10th an e-mail respecting "The imposition of homosexual agenda upon Christian doctrine and institutions." The item was captioned as above, and reads as follows: OTTAWA, April 9, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Toronto Auxiliary Bishop Anthony Meagher has written a response to Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty regarding McGuinty's Communication to a Catholic school insisting the school allow a male student to bring his homosexual date to the school prom. Meanwhile, Federal Industry Minister Allan Rock has written the Catholic school board also urging them to give in to the student's demand. In the first known public statement by a member of the Canadian Catholic hierarchy on the matter, Bishop Meagher wrote:
"There is also no doubt in my mind that if permission by a principal in our Catholic school system is given for any 17-year-old boy to take another male as his 'date' for the prom this will be a clear and positive approval not just of the boy's 'orientation,' but of his adopting a homosexual lifesyle."

In the April 4 letter obtained by LifeSite, the Bishop noted that "a concerted effort is being made here to get the Catholic school system to approve a homosexual lifestyle and our 17-year-old is being manipulated in this effort." The letter, addressed to McGuinty, who claims to be 'Catholic,' concludes: "Do we want to abandon our right to stand up for the teaching of Christ in serious moral issues?" The organized intimidation of the Catholic board by gay activists and their prominent supporters has been extraordinary and unprecedented. A letter issued by Liberal Industry Minister Allan Rock marks the weighing in of politicians at all three levels of government. Toronto City Councillors Kyle Rae (openly homosexual), Olivia Chow and Joe Mihevic, Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and Liberal MPP George Smitherman (also openly gay), and now Federal Liberal MP Allan Rock, have all lobbied the Catholic school board to allow the homosexual prom date.

The Toronto Star reports that in an open letter to Durham Region Catholic School trustees Rock wrote:
"I encourage you to set an example for all Canadians of social justice in action by not discriminating against a student based on sexual orientation. It is our responsibility to encourage and assist young Canadians to reach their full potential rather than placing roadblocks along their journey."
COMMENT (by R.G.): The foregoing item was followed by an account of a rather unruly Durham Region Catholic School Board meeting on April 8th, at which the 17-year-old gay school boy and his 21-year-old 'boyfriend' appeared and several people pro-and-con made submissions. Ontario MPP George Smitherman, a self-avowed homosexual, addressed the meeting in a threatening fashion and, together with the 17-year-old gay boy (Marc Hall) threatened legal action against the school board.
The e-mail item continued: "Following the presentations, Board Chair Mary Ann Martin explained the Board's decision to continue to refuse Hall's request: 'The teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality is very clear and well understood by Catholics and many others. ... In a pluralistic society like Ontario, there's room for different viewpoints and different practices. However, we consider those who would force their views on us, and have our Board ignore the teachings of the Catholic Church as being intolerant of our religion,' said Ms. Martin. "
After the meeting Hall called the board 'homophobic' and said he plans to take his 'boyfriend' to the prom nonetheless. He said his lawyer will ask for a court injunction to reverse the board's decision."
FURTHER COMMENT (by R.G.): Both the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach that homosexuality is a sin. It follows naturally that Catholic institutions have a perfect right to require the observance of Christian standards within their jurisdictions. Certainly, in a free country we do not derive our moral values from the state, or from the advice of politicians. Young Mr. Hall perhaps doesn't belong in a Catholic school if he is not prepared to comply with its moral standards. Certainly, he has no right to attempt to impose his own non-Catholic values upon a Catholic institution. But more appalling is the arrogance of Liberal and gay politicians who attempt to advise and urge Christian institutions to tolerate lower moral standards and requirements. Mr. Rock wants to help deviates "to reach their full potential." What 'full potential,' Mr. Rock? ... of disease, destruction and death?

On Target Section

Canadian Political Scene: Notes & Observations - by Ron Gostick -
Harper's new shadow cabinet

Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, at his party's April convention in Edmonton, named his new shadow cabinet. Here are a few key appointments:
ä Diane Ablonczy, moves from Health to Immigration.
ä Grant Hill, retained his Deputy Leader and Health posts.
ä Charlie Penson, Finance critic (new).
ä Stockwell Day, Foreign Affairs critic (former Leader).
ä Rahim Jaffer, becomes Mr. Day's assistant responsible for Middle East affairs. An interesting note: Mr. Day, a staunch pro-Israel critic in the past, had requested the foreign affairs post. However, Mr. Harper told the media that Alliance policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be one of neutrality, and Mr. Jaffer, whom he appointed to assist Mr. Day, is a Muslim. Mr. Harper said that he, Day and Jaffer would all be carrying out the new Alliance policy and "speaking the same message."

Ottawa appeals judgement
Last month, we published a report of a court ruling giving a tax-free status to a group of aboriginals in Western Canada. Ottawa, it would seem, realizes that one effect of such a preferred status would be the elimination of any competition of tax-paying business, and probably an increase in smuggling, which would mean a large tax loss for government. The April 4th National Post reported that Ottawa has filed a court action seeking a stay of the tax-free ruling.

Political upset in Quebec
The Globe and Mail, Apr. 17, carried a report captioned "Super Mario moves into the spotlight." Here are excerpts: "The youthful Quebec leader fondly known as Super Mario moved from the political margins into the spotlight yesterday after his party's spectacular upset of the Parti Québécois in the separatists' own heartland. "Mario Dumont's Action Démocratique du Québec has been described as everything from a protest party to a parking lot for disgruntled nationalists. Yesterday, it was being touted as a spoiler in Quebec politics. ... "
Party candidate Francois Corriveau -- young and clean-cut, in the image of his leader -- won the by-election for Saguenay, a seat that has been PQ for more than 20 of the past 30 years. Mr. Corriveau's entry into the National Assembly doubles the ADQ's seats to two. "The vote is being interpreted as a slap in the face to Quebec's established political parties. Voters registered their disenchantment with the governing PQ, but balked at voting Liberal. ... "
Monday's victory was a measure of Mr. Dumont's personal popularity. A bilingual economics graduate from Concordia University in Montreal, Mr. Dumont has managed to match his older and more experienced rivals in voter support. A CROP poll published last weekend in La Presse placed the 31-year-old at par with Premier Bernard Landry and Liberal Leader Jean Charest in voter confidence. …"
Mr. Dumont and his party are Sovereigntists but not Separatists. They want more provincial rights -- in other words,' they want the return of provincial jurisdictions which the Central Government has been usurping since World War I. Right on! Mario. Every Canadian should be working for a return to Constitutional government.

MPs quietly raise own salaries
The National Post, Apr. 12, under the caption "Quiet raise puts MPs' salaries at $135,000." Here are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - MPs were quietly allotted a $3,550 pay increase this week, bringing their base salary up to $135,000 a year plus a $15,000 expense allowance to cover apartments in Ottawa. "The pay hike, which gives most MPs a salary of two or three times more than the average family income in their ridings, was automatic under a new formula introduced last year. "There was no public announcement of the parliamentary increase. Peter Milliken, the Speaker, informed MPs with a private memo circulated only to them.
"Extra salaries paid the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, opposition leaders and House officers such as party whips, House leaders and committee chairs, were also adjusted. "Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, who once deflected criticism about parliamentary salary increases by saying NHL hockey players make more than MPs, now receives $135,000 annually on top of his base pay, for a total income of $270,000, while Cabinet ministers get an extra $64,824. "Mr. Milliken receives $199,800, as does the official Opposition leader. Mr. Chretien, Mr. Milliken and the Opposition leader also reside rent-free in well-kept official residences. "The raise was supported by the Bloc Quebecois, 14 Canadian Alliance MPs and six Tories. NDP MPs voted against it."

It might be noted that until May of last year, when the Commons voted in a retroactive pay increase for MPs, their base annual pay was $68,425, with an annual expense allowance of $22,000, for a total annual income of $90,425. Today, one year later, they're getting $135,000 plus $15,000 expense allowance, for a total annual income of $150,000. That's a 65% pay hike in just over a year! When you're able to give yourself fat pay and pension hikes at the boss's expense, you don't need a union! I wonder how many MPs advised their electors when they asked for their vote last election, that they weren't satisfied with the salary schedule and intended to boost it 65% if they were elected? Once in Ottawa, it seems our MPs soon become 'Ottawashed.' Because, except for NDP members, it does seem rather obvious that a greedy and unaccountable Prime Minister has restructured most opposition members in his own image. Thus do they wound their own spirit and weaken themselves in the great challenge to restore faith and integrity and rebuild our great country.

Financing Trudeau's legacy
The architects of the decline of our nation seem obsessed with the idea of somehow memorializing the legacy of former P.M. Trudeau, at public expense. First, the Liberal government was going to rename Mount Logan after Trudeau, which ignited a storm of criticism with suggestions that Mount Debt might be more appropriate. And now there is the publicly-funded Trudeau Scholarship idea, which the National Post, in a March 6th editorial commented on as follows:
"And now there is the Trudeau Fellowship Program, unveiled two weeks ago by Allan Rock, the Industry Minister. The program, which is finally generating the criticism it deserves, commits $125-million of taxpayers' money to scholarships for students choosing research topics that were the late Prime Minister's most politically controversial preoccupations -- such as environmentalism and social justice. "
One noteworthy objection to the new scholarship scheme is that Canada already has a $150-million per year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with a mandate to fund such academic research. And these grants are rigorously peer-reviewed, rather than being doled out on the basis of ideology by a board of directors that consists almost entirely of Liberal cronies, as is the case with the Trudeau fellowships. ... "
A quarter of the $125-million is to be allocated to scholars from outside Canada. This international component allows Mr. Rock to present the program as a Canadian analogue to Rhodes Scholarships, which take students from around the world to Britain. But such a comparison does not bear more than momentary scrutiny. First, Rhodes Scholarships are funded with private money, not from the public purse. Second, they are available to students across the spectrum of academic disciplines; they are not confined to the preoccupations of the man they memorialize. …"
Might we suggest that many Canadians, who understand and treasure our Common Law heritage of freedom and justice, believe that we're already paying a heavy price for Mr. Trudeau's legacy. Like the fox guarding the henhouse!

"Zimbabwe elected to UN rights watchdog."

The National Post, May 1, published a report captioned "Zimbabwe elected to UN rights watchdog." Here are excerpts:
"The United Nations Human Rights Commission reinforced its ranks yesterday with some of the world's worst human rights violators, including Zimbabwe, which got the call even though Robert Mugabe secured his own re-election as president in a violent campaign widely denounced as rigged. "Rights groups attacked the move, pointing out Zimbabwe joins China, Syria, Sudan and many nations that flout human rights on a commission meant to protect people against just such abusers. " 'It's a huge problem. It has created a crisis said Joanna Weschler, the UN representative for Human Rights Watch. …"

U.S. rejecting International Court?
We received a May 6 e-mail of an "AFP" report (The Times of India Online) dated May 5. Here it is, in full:

"NEW YORK: The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty setting up an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by (the) Clinton administration is no longer valid. "The 'unsigning' of the treaty, which is expected to be announced on Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes, the New York Times reported. "The administration has long argued that the court has the potential to create havoc for the United States, exposing US soldiers and officials overseas to capricious and mischievous prosecutions. " 'We think it was a mistake to have signed it,' an administration official was quoted by the newspaper as saying. " 'We have said we will not submit it to the Senate for ratification.' "

The renunciation, officials said, also means the United States will not recognize the court's jurisdiction and will not submit to any of its orders. "In addition, other officials said, the US will simultaneously assert that it will not be bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties."

The foregoing item is very surprising, indeed startling, to those students of international affairs knowledgeable of the aggressive role played by American-based international financial interests in the centralizing policy of "globalization." At first glance it seems to appear as a nationalistic action -- a statement of undiminished national sovereignty that would warm the heart of any patriotic antagonist of globalization. Yet, there is another meaning one could take from this astonishing action contemplated by the Bush administration, which I'll briefly sketch for the consideration of our readers:
These past several years, the United States, without even declaring war ('war' has now become 'peace-keeping,' and who needs to get permission from the citizenry, or even parliament, to wage 'peace'!), has been dropping bombs on a number of third world (mainly Islamic) countries such as Libya and Iraq. And less than three years ago the U.S., with Canada, the U.K. and other allies, was smashing up the infrastructure and people of Yugoslavia, all in the interest of 'peace,' of course. Now, under international law these countries, led by the U.S., have been committing war crimes. An international court, we note, presently is trying former Yugoslavian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, for war crimes. But it was the U.S. and British Commonwealtb countries and allies who dropped the bombs and did the killing. So, obviously, like the Nuremberg trials after WWII, it's victors' justice.'
And these past months, in order to attack the al-Qaida criminal organization, the same allied countries have bombed and killed hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of helpless and innocent people in Afghanistan. Again, someone is guilty of monstrous war crimes, under international law and the convention spawned at Nuremberg by the same Allies. Now the question:
Does the Washington brain trust now begin to sense the danger they could be getting themselves into for some of these past crimes, and also for some of the plans they are now preparing for the future, if they acknowledge the jurisdiction of the international war-crimes court now taking shape? If the answer is Yes, then the U.S. action is understandable, even though it's anything but comforting for those Mr. Bush & Co. have in their sights! Surely it's time every country began carefully weighing the long-term consequences before starting to fling bombs at anyone who doesn't instantly jump to attention and say, Yes Sir!

Governor-General's title disgraced

The National Post, April 19, carried a report by its Paul Gessell captioned "Ricci novel has Jesus as child of rape." A few excerpts: "The new novel by one of Canada's leading authors depicts Jesus as a 'bastard' conceived when his mother, Mary, was raped by a Roman official. "Testament was written by Nino Ricci, a Governor-General's Literary Award winner, and published by Doubleday Canada. ... "
Testament provides a far different version of the life of Christ than is preached by Christian churches around the world. "Some of the most potentially explosive material in Testament occurs in the portion of the book narrated by the Miriam character" (Mary, mother of Jesus) "who at 14 years of age was raped by a Roman legate who was a friend of her father's. "Miriam (Mary) became pregnant, the unnamed Roman legate left town and Miriam's family was left in disgrace. A marriage was hastily arranged with Yehoceph (Joseph), a man three times Miriam's age. "Despite the marriage, Yeshua (Jesus) is considered a bastard under Jewish law. His illegitimacy ultimately drives him from his family, leads him into all kinds of trouble and eventually to the cross. ... "By the time of the crucifixion, Yeshua is called Jesus in Testament. The last of the four narrators, Simon, reports rumours that Jesus was resurrected. However, readers are left with the impression those rumours are not fact but may become a surviving myth. …" Surely it's only in Canada that a Governor-General -- the representative of Queen Elizabeth II, Defender of the Faith -- would lower herself to permit her title to be used in rewarding such a blasphemous attack upon the religious faith of the majority of her own fellow Canadians. I'm sure, indeed, that such behaviour does not reflect the oath of loyalty our Governor General took when she was honoured with this high office. And I shall be drawing this matter of the scandalously poor and inappropriate judgment of her Canadian representative to the attention of Queen Elizabeth in the immediate future. -R.G.

An Israeli soldier says that the root of terrorism is occupation
The Globe & Mail, May 9, in a report by its Jeff Sallot in Ottawa, said in part: "Like most Israelis of military age, Elad Lahav says he is ready to defend his country, never more so than now, just after a suicide bomber killed young Israelis in his hometown. "But he is also among a small number of Israeli soldiers who have refused to serve in occupied Palestinian territory. ... " 'I agree we have to fight terrorism. I'm not naive,' Staff Sergeant Lahav said yesterday. But the root of terrorism, he believes, is the Israeli occupation, which has humiliated Palestinians and driven them to despair. ... "
A computer programmer in civilian life, Staff Sgt. Lahav said his experiences as a soldier convinced him the only path to lasting peace is for Israel to pull out of occupied Palestinian territory. ... "As a young draftee in 1993, he served in Israel's so-called security zone in southern Lebanon in what he said was a 'stupid war.' Four of his friends and a cousin were killed fighting it. "Staff Sgt. Lahav changed his view after being called up again last year for service in the occupied West Bank. His unit was assigned to a checkpoint on the road between Ramallah and Jericho, and to protect a Jewish settlement built in an area Israel occupied after the 1967 war. " 'What we were doing had nothing to do with the security of Israel,' he said. "The military is simply guarding small Israeli settlements that never should have been established in occupied territory in the first place, he said. He was embarrassed to stop families on the road for searches."

Enterprise Section

War Without Choice
The following article by Jeremy Lee, the highly respected Australian writer and lecturer on national and international affairs, is reprinted from the March issue of The New Times Survey, published in Melbourne.

Writing in The Bulletin on February 28, Fred Benchley canvassed the question of whether Australia were now in a position to determine its own future, and its response to events on the international stage. He said, inter alia: "... After September 11, any review of Australia's security should, in reality, start with one word: unpredictable ... A wounded U.S. is threatening to pursue both non-state terrorist groups and the states that harbour them. President Bush's 'axis of evil' trail is rattling U.S. allies and enemies alike. Will he attack Iraq, or Iran, or even North Korea? "Australia should be under no illusion that the wider coalition that went soldiering with the US in Afghanistan will stick together. The Europeans are already distancing themselves from any U.S. moves against Iraq or Iran. If Washington needs a future anti-terrorism coalition, it might only include Britain, Australia and perhaps Canada and Japan. ... Could Australia really say 'no' if asked? ... Actually, Australia might already be swept up in the 'axis of evil' campaign without any decisions in Canberra. ... Australia's media got all puffed up at the navy's new role of co-ordinating the Persian Gulf blockade against Iraq, but that pretty much guarantees involvement in any chosen action against Iraq or Iran. …"

New Developments
Since that time, U.S. sabre-rattling has escalated considerably. The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review, made public this month, has stated Washington's intention to list those countries developing weapons of mass destruction, with a view to possible nuclear strikes against them. The Australian (13/3/02), enlarged the "axis of evil" list to include Russia, China, Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. In fact, the Pentagon has 60 countries on its list -- a third of the countries in the world. Australia's Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, has stated that Australia is committed to the war against terrorism "beyond Afghanistan." But how much further? Do we simply march to the Pentagon drum? Is Operation Enduring Freedom another case of "all the way with the USA"? We might just remind ourselves that it was America that first developed nuclear weapons, and still has by far the biggest stockpile in the world. It was America that first used them in anger, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki will attest. It was American corporations that were involved in selling nuclear technology to other countries, and now the U.S. wishes to strike at those who acquired that technology from the same corporations.

Glaring omission
There is one glaring omission from the Pentagon list -- that of Israel, by far the most potent nuclear power in the Middle East. As 50 tanks at a time are now rolling into the refugee camps (and cities) in the Occupied Territories, demolishing meager dwellings and throwing women and children onto the streets if they can escape annihilation, it takes a special pair of rose-coloured glasses to de-classify Israel as a terrorist nation as the Palestinians are portrayed. It is somewhat biased to demonize the Palestinian Authority for attempting to purchase rifles and grenades from Iran, when the U.S. continues to supply its biggest arms client, Israel.

For decades, Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. But this is simply the start. Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2-billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have now disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4-billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's oft-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan.

Free Loans
U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. Government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest. In addition, there is more than $1.5-billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1-billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500-million in Israeli bond-sales (in the U.S.). The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible donations to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1-billion annually in recent years. Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 per cent of the world's population and already has one of the world's highest per capita incomes. (The full story on aid flows to Israel can be seen on wrmea.com the nation.com) All of which compromises any U.S. claim to be impartial in trying to resolve the deadly and destructive confrontation in the Middle East.

Right through the crescent of the Islamic world, as far south as the predominantly-Islamic Indonesia, the question of statehood for the Palestinians is openly nominated as the number one issue between Islam and the rest of the world. To expect that Bush's "axis-of-evil" and now "Operation Enduring Freedom" with the possible use of nuclear weapons can assuage the burning resentment in the Middle East and surrounding Islamic nations is naive indeed. And Australia? All this must be taken into account as Australia considers its future defence arrangements, with its half-million Islamic minority and the biggest Islamic nation in the world to our immediate north. Already, the aggressive British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has hung his coat on the U.S. peg, is facing mounting concern within the ranks of his own governing party. His European counterparts are distancing themselves from any further escalation of the war into Iraq. The sizeable minority of Islamics in Britain presents a major problem now, and an even bigger one should any further escalation take place. Add to this the continuing pressure from refugees, the majority of whom are coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Australia faces a tortuous path in the immediate future.

A blind dance behind the U.S. pied piper, chanting songs about "good against evil" and "those who are not for us are against us" is to act directly against Australia's best interests. So Benchley's question is of direct moment: Is Australia still in command of its own defence arrangements? To judge by the reactions of both government and opposition members in Canberra, no one has seriously tackled the issue of our own future. Simon Crean, so far, seems just as blindly acquiescent as Prime Minister Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to the latest whims of the most bloodthirsty of Presidents, George W. Bush. Time is running out. (End of Mr. Lee's article)
COMMENT: Mr. Lee, in rather plain and unequivocal language, probably expresses the 'gut' feeling of the rank-and-file of Australians, and also of the majority of the south Asian peoples to their north. It's a feeling that is already very widespread in Europe and the Islamic world, and is now on the increase in the Americas, including Canada. As we've previously pointed out, Washington has to make a choice: Either to continue on Bush's present aggressive policy of war, destruction, escalating misery and death, and thus earning throughout most of the world the perception of an aggressive, ruthless, war-mad dictatorship. Or -- r Step back, address the $64-question: Why have we made so many Islamic enemies? What have we done to arouse such hatred? How can we constructively address and overcome this problem, not by war, destruction and death, but by listening, by admitting bygone errors and mistakes, by understanding, and finally beginning to work together in understanding and charity and genuine peace, to build a better and more respectful world?

Further bits and pieces re. our 'war on terrorism'
l The Balfour Declaration: This Declaration is widely perceived as the legitimate authorization for the Zionists' seizure of Palestine. Following is this Declaration by the British Prime Minister, Lord Balfour. Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country'. I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. (signed) Yours Arthur Balfour

A few notes for clarification: ä Two words in the Balfour Declaration deserve attention: "nothing," and "non-Jewish." ä Palestine did not belong to Lord Balfour or Britain to give; nor did the Palestinians ever agree to relinquish their country or any part of it. ä Following the end of World War I, the League of Nations, in 1920, gave Britain a Mandate to protect Palestine as a protectorate. ä On Nov. 29, 1947, the U.N. came up with its Partition Plan to partition Palestine after final British withdrawal from its mandate, scheduled for May 14, 1947. The rest of this part of the sad Palestine story was covered in our January 2002 issue in the section titled "Background to Middle East Conflict."

Washington crowns an unwanted king

The Toronto Sun, April 21, under the above caption, published the following article by its Foreign Affairs correspondent Eric Margolis.

"A stupid and useless war," is how Zahir Shah, Afghanistan's once and future king, recently described American military intervention in his beleaguered nation to an Italian newspaper. This is certainly the most intelligent and accurate statement made by the former king since he was deposed in 1973. On Thursday, the man who would again be king returned to Afghanistan after a 29-year exile in Italy. The king's acid description of President George Bush's muddled war in Afghanistan was a painful counterpoint to the tragic deaths of four Canadian troops serving as auxiliaries to U.S. forces in the conflict. Continuing the free-fire policy of attacking anything suspicious that moves in Afghanistan, a U.S. F-16 bombed the Canadians who were on a night firing exercise. Meanwhile, recriminations were flying in Washington after The Washington Post claimed Osama bin Laden had escaped last fall from the besieged Tora Boro mountain complex because the administration had refused to commit American troops to the battle, relying, instead, on "anti-Taliban" Afghan fighters. This claim is likely correct.

So-called Pushtun "anti-Taliban" fighters, a Pentagon euphemism faithfully adopted by the cheer-leading U.S. media, were in reality mercenaries paid by the U.S., through Pakistan's ISI intelligence service, to hunt al-Qaida. These mercenaries, some former Taliban themselves, simply took money from the naive Americans and then took more baksheesh from al-Qaida and bin Laden, who are widely admired by Pushtuns, to allow the hunted militants to escape. The White House was desperately trying to avoid American casualties in order to proclaim a bloodless victory. The story of bin Laden's escape conjured up uneasy memories of George Bush Senior's refusal in the 1991Gulf war to order U.S. troops to march on Baghdad to overthrow Saddam Hussein, thereby avoiding heavy U.S. casualties. Bush Senior's wise decision is today being condemned by Washington's draft-dodging neo-conservatives, who salivate for American troops to destroy Iraq for the benefit of Israel.

Zahir Shah was escorted back from Rome by old CIA "asset" Hamid Karzai,
the Arnerican-appointed, British-protected "interim leader" of Afghanistan.

The glib Karzai, who has no authority in Afghanistan and commands little respect - he's called the "mayor of Kabul" -- sought to acquire a measure of legitimacy by playing obsequious son and retainer to the 87-year-old monarch. The king's return had been engineered by the U.S. government in an urgent effort to try to cobble together a pro-American regime capable of running fragmented Afghanistan, which has dissolved into semi-chaos as communists, warlords, drug dealers, and bandits battle for control of turf. The pipelines that America's petro-geopoliticians have long sought to build through Afghanistan to export Central Asia's oil and gas riches cannot be laid until there is relative security there. Right now, none exists. Washington's plan is for King Zahir to convene a grand tribal council, or "loya jirga," that will confirm him as figurehead ruler and Karzai as de facto leader.
A NATO "peace-keeping force," backed by a U.S.-trained national army, will then ensure the protection of America's interests in Kabul ....

Lust for power
Perhaps Zahir Shah will manage to bring stability to Afghanistan without turning his demolished nation into an American imperial protectorate, but that seems unlikely. Last week, President Bush proclaimed a second Marshall Plan to rebuild ravaged Afghanistan, in spite of his previous vows not to engage in "nation-building" there. Construction of permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and neighbouring nations -- which we might now call "Chevronistans" and "Exxonistans" -- and plans to begin pipeline construction as soon as possible, show clearly the U.S. is marching ever deeper into South/Central Asia for reasons of oil and the lust for yet more global power. Hunting al-Qaida is a convenient excuse. Anyhow, after continuing to call Afghanistan a nest of murderous Islamic vipers, the U.S. could not withdraw its forces even if it wanted to, lest these same miscreants, who are hiding in the mountains, surfaced and made rude gestures at the departing Americans. U.S. commanders are now requesting more American troops because their Afghan mercenaries are proving unreliable and unwilling to be killed in a foreigner's war. These very same arguments were made by U.S. advisers in the early stages of the Vietnam war. Having just suffered a hugely embarrassing fiasco in the Mideast, and a second one by backing last week's failed coup in Venezuela, the stumbling Bush administration badly needs a showy victory in Afghanistan. But the more American ground forces are committed to Afghanistan, the more body bags will come home -- just what elusive Osama bin Laden has been hoping for. (End of Mr. Margolis' article)
COMMENT (by R.G.): Attempting to put the bits and peaces together since last Sept. 11, raises this question: Is the real object and reason President Bush and his financial backers have been pushing America into the Middle East, its Oil and strategic Bases? And has this whole 9/11 attack and consequent 'war on terrorism' been another 'Pearl Harbor'-type hoax to alarm, manipulate and mislead the American people and the Western world into a needless war, leading up to a One World Dictatorship? Simple questions, but someone has to ask them!

CORRECTION Our January Special Supplement titled Background to Middle East Conflict, footnote on page 4, refers to the Khazar kingdom "made up of pagan Turko Finnish tribes." It should have read "made up of Turko-Tatar tribes." Sorry for this error, and apology to the heroic Finnish people. - R.G. (Publisher)