The Aylmer Case pits one bible against another, and the new one doesn't work!

The July 22nd issue of The Report newsmagazine, under the above caption, published the following column by Ted Byfield, arguably today Canada's pre-eminent English-language journalist. As mentioned here last time out, fundamental human rights are on trial this summer in two court cases. In one of them, discussed in my last column, the Supreme Court of Canada must decide whether people who believe in God, and therefore derive their moral principles from a Divine authority, are unfit to serve as school trustees in British Columbia. In the other, an Ontario court must decide whether the state has the right to seize any children whose parents spank them with an "object," meaning a stick, a strap or anything else. In the "spanking case," the Children's Aid Society, acting on the report of a caseworker, led police to a home near Aylmer, Ont., and removed the seven children of a Christian couple. One youngster, clinging to her father, had to be actually pried away and was carted off screaming, while he held his hands aloft to show he was not "obstructing justice" by hanging on to his little daughter. But that was only the beginning. The trial judge next imposed a gag order forbidding any reporting whatsoever of the evidence. Otherwise, she said, the children would suffer "emotional harm." The logical inference, as columnist Christie Blatchford observed in the National Post, was that "the youngsters" treatment at the hands of their parents was so outrageous that merely having the ghastly details repeated in the public domain would cause them pain or subject them to ridicule." However, she wrote, "nothing could be farther from the truth."
This became abundantly clear when media lawyers successfully appealed the publication ban, and the whole story could be told. True, the children had occasionally been spanked -- with a belt, a clothes hanger, once with the metal end of a fly swatter, usually on their bottoms and through underwear. Their "rescuers," however, could find nary a mark on them. All seven were hale, healthy, well-mannered and "clearly loving of their home and their parents and one another," wrote Ms. Blatchford. They were also courageous, bravely defending their mother, their father and their faith against assorted questioning adults. So why the seizure?

It was based on the report of a 27-year-old freshman caseworker, whose recent acquisition of a Master of Social Work degree both qualified her as an expert at raising children and imbued her with a philosophical dogma. Spanking a child is intolerable, she had been taught. Her obvious duty as a "professional" was to eradicate the practice from every home. Consulting the society's manual -- Risk Assessment Model 2000, which outlines six degrees of "child abuse" -- she deemed the Aylmer case a No. 3, and recommended seizure. For the childcare industry, the incident occurs at an especially sensitive time. The Ontario Appeal Court has decided that the use of any object to spank a child should not be tolerated."

If the Supreme Court of Canada can be persuaded to endorse this proscription, then the war will have been won. True, something between one-third and one-half of Canadian parents would automatically become criminals. Nevertheless, with enough caseworkers to enforce the new law (to whip the country, so to speak, into prohibiting all whipping), the vision of a New Canada would be greatly enhanced, thus hastening the shining day when trained professionals will raise all children, and the hopeless fumbling of mere mothers and fathers becomes just an evil memory.
For the Children's Aid Society, however, the Aylmer case has proved disastrous. To almost anyone not yet indoctrinated in the society's statist viewpoint, the beleaguered family began to appear almost idyllic, while the supposed defenders of children seemed a fanatic contingent of ideological zealots, delirious with the powers unwisely conferred upon them by a succession of soft-headed governments. Further, the entire incident prefigures the kind of bureaucratic terror that will everywhere reign if the Supreme Court endorses the Ontario decision. With an all-seeing government everywhere alert for the slightest evidence of "abuse," no parent will feel safe in disciplining any child for anything.

Two other points should be noted. First, those Aylmer parents have definite beliefs about child-raising -- beliefs grounded in the Bible, and observed for millenniums by parents everywhere. The Children's Aid Society has novel and different beliefs about child-raising -- beliefs grounded in another bible, currently entitled Risk Assessment Model 2000.
As Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente noted, this is a case of one bible against another. That is, the state is not neutral here; it seeks to eradicate one belief and impose another. Secondly, the new ideas don't work. Since society began imposing them, conduct and welfare of children has steadily declined. Never before have we seen youngsters coming to school armed, police patrolling the halls, teachers abandoning the profession in droves, pregnancy a not-unusual high-school phenomenon, and instances of mass shootings. Is it unreasonable to conclude that the promulgators of this philosophy utterly fail to understand human nature? Far from "aiding" children, they are doing vast harm. It's time to scrap their bible and return to the old one. (End of Mr. Byfield's column)

COMMENT: Having lived and observed more than three score years of adulthood under both of Mr. Byfield's bibles, we do indeed agree with him and much prefer the "old one." As a matter of fact, the question that comes to our mind is simply this: Unless we DO get back to the "old one," is civility in our social order, or even civilization itself long possible?

Who's supplying the arms?

The Globe and Mail, June 24, 2002, under the caption, "Arms sales undercut war on terrorism study says," published the following report from the Guardian New Service in London:
"Western governments are undermining their 'war on terror' and their claims to want to end armed conflict by supplying huge numbers of weapons to developing countries, says an Amnesty International report to be released today. "The human-rights group points out that international terrorism and promoting stability in Africa are high on the agenda of this week's Group of Eight meeting in Alberta, yet notes that every year G8 countries supply more than $25-billion (U.S.) worth of arms to developing nations. "Those arms represent more than 80 per cent of all new weapons reaching the developing world and are destined for unstable regions, the report says. It adds that armed groups such as al-Qaeda and countries such as India, Pakistan, Israel, the Philippines and Zimbabwe have acquired huge arsenals that can be traced back to G8 nations. "The United States, the world's largest arms trader, exported more than $14-billion worth of military equipment to developing countries in 2000. As recently as last year, Osama bin Laden's supporters bought U.S.-made missiles and small arms from dealers in Peshawar, Pakistan, according to Amnesty.
"Britain exports $600-million worth of arms to Africa each year and a total of $1.5-billion to developing countries across the world.
Russia is increasing its export of Kalashnikov rifles to African countries, including Zimbabwe. It has supplied tanks, attack helicopters and armed personnel carriers to Sudan, where government forces have carried out summary executions, torture, abductions and the forcible recruitment of children, Amnesty says.
"In sub-Saharan Africa, about 20 per cent of the population is affected by civil conflict or conflict with other states." In other words, it's our Western World's financial-industrial-military complex, enriching itself selling arms and weapons to Third-World countries, all the while condemning violence and warfare while themselves waging 'war against terrorism,' the main cause of which seems to be Washington's huge financial and military build-up of one certain Middle East client state! Little wonder those in the Islamic world who have figured out this racket are seething with anger and hatred. And it's about time we in the West, who are getting the blame for this Western-based conspiracy, woke up and reined in our financial globalists running this dangerous and potentially suicidal scam.

Incidently, the Toronto Sun's foreign affairs columnist Eric Margolis, in his July 28th column, noted that former American President, General Eisenhower, as he was leaving office, "warned his people that the gravest threat they faced was not from abroad but from their own military-industrial complex."

Rule by fear

The Toronto Sun, August 23, under the above caption, published the following column by Peter Worthington.
Arguably, the only benefit Robert Mugabe has bestowed on Zimbabwe during his 22 years of power is to reduce, if not eliminate, racial prejudice. The majority of black Zimbabweans and the dwindling white population are increasingly united, spiritually if not in practice, against Mugabe. His bureaucratic tyranny transcends racial lines as he oppresses more and more of his countrymen, most of whom want him gone, but who have limited power. Mugabe rules by fear. Using murder, intimidation and force to confiscate land made productive by white farmers and their local workers, has zilch to do with fairness and redistribution. But everything to do with maintaining and expanding power. The policy is neither popular nor legal. Magistrates who try to uphold the rule of law increasingly get thwarted, bullied, abused and beaten up.
Still, there are those in the judiciary who gallantly struggle on. Last week, one of those quiet, heroic figures of Zimbabwe was in Canada, seeking to explain the situation and rally support. Roy Bennett is a white farmer elected to Parliament in an almost totally black area -- only 11 whites among his constituents. He is not an extremist, simply a brave man whose home is Zimbabwe (fourth generation). He and others have no intention of quitting: "This is our home -- where can we go?" Speaking by phone from London on his way back to Zimbabwe, he said his farm was being invaded by so-called "veterans," Mugabe's people and the army. Loyal workers were holding out, but the crisis was deepening. Bennett agrees Mugabe's goal "is not land, but to break and eliminate any viable opposition." He notes the people who initially supported Mugabe from abroad are the same ones who mounted international pressure that overthrew apartheid and white Rhodesia. "They are now embarrassed by Mugabe, but don't know what to do," he said. "All that most in Zimbabwe want is democracy, human rights and a legitimate government. When Mugabe is finally replaced, Zimbabwe has the potential to be a 'turning point' for the rest of Africa, which is why so many feudal leaders in the rest of Africa are uneasy." Racism is no longer an issue -- if it ever were.

Bennett and others like him have won the trust of blacks they deal with, and want to be rid of a tyrant whose role model resembles nothing so much as Stalin -- unprincipled, cruel, bureaucratic and seemingly without conscience. Bennett is a member of the MDC -- Morgan Tsvangiria's Movement for Democratic Change, which would surely have won the recent election had it been fair.

Our beloved Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, whose personal knowledge of Africa and things African approaches zero, threw his lot in with Mugabe when Commonwealth leaders meeting in Australia sought to impose sanctions to curb his excesses. Last week, Bennett met with Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham -- a cordial but unproductive exchange. Left on his own, doubtless Graham would find everything about Mugabe offensive, but he's not going to do anything that upsets Chretien. On the surface, Zimbabwe looks hopeless. Once black Africa's most productive and harmonious society, it now faces starvation, poverty, desperation, lawlessness, thuggery by hooligans of Mugabe, many pretending to be "veterans." Only those paying homage to Mugabe are assured enough to eat. Again, this is how Stalin ruled. Fear and favours. Contradictory as it may sound, there is hope. Mugabe is 78 and, like Castro in Cuba, won't be around indefinitely. Remove him, and the dynamics change. Because of Mugabe's tyranny, a curious unity has evolved among those who want better for their country. It could be argued there is less anti-white racism in Zimbabwe today than anywhere else in Africa. Oppressed whites and blacks are allied against despotism. And the courage of the MDC is astonishing.

Judges, too, have shown spurts of integrity and nerve. Bennett and the MDC, who will have to reassemble the pieces after Mugabe, bode well for the future. If they survive. This is what should concern Canada -- not catering to the aging, brutish Mugabe. If only we had a PM who could inspire as well as intimidate, who could make Canadians feel proud. But we don't. Our PM won't even shake hands with the Dalai Lama for fear of offending China, much less challenge someone like Mugabe by meeting an elected representative of the Zimbabwean people. Small wonder most Canadians want Jean Chretien gone. (End of Mr. Worthington's column)

COMMENT: Well, our PM, of course, has in mind a quite different course for Canada. But then, he has another objective in mind when he plays his African card! After all, this past while, our PM has been touring the world for photo-ops, at our expense of course. Especially in Africa, promising them he'll raise billions for them in financial aid from the G8 countries. Already he claims to have set aside $500-million of our taxpayers' money for African governments -- and that's just a beginning. For, didn't we already realize that Africa's to be a key building stone in his legacy! That's why he couldn't risk offending Comrade Mugabe. After all, there are quite a number of Mugabes in Africa today. But our PM may be pretty shrewd in his sub-Saharan calculations -- that he could buy more legacy per tax-dollar from leftist African rulers than he can buy in Canada where he's known. After all, for decades he's been ladling out billions of our taxdollars, especially in certain regions of our fair land; but all his pork-barrel politics and generosity with our dollars in Canada has bought him a legacy of shady dealing and corruption. And it's perhaps finally beginning to dawn on our pathetic Prime Minister that time's running out.
Remember, for the next 18 months the main business at hand is Legacy, not the welfare of our country. So watch out you don't get stuck in the newly-set pavement, or hit by one of the galaxy of tax-dollar grants flying by. And please don't tattle to the Auditor-General and dump on his legacy party. After all, he's only 18 months now to build one.

An idea for our PM

A CP item dated June 18 and captioned "Army raids budget to pay for aid," was received by us three months ago by e-mail. Here it is:
"MOLLAH ABDULLAH KARIZ, Afghanistan -- The Canadian military has set aside enough money to dig about 10 wells and fix three schools for poor Afghan villages after a government grant that was supposed to help bankroll their humanitarian effort failed to materialize. "Capt. Alex Watson, the soldier in charge of the project, has won some funding from the American civil affairs program, allowing him to fix up other schools and provide water to villages surrounding the Kandahar airport, which are still suffering from the devastating effects of endless war. "But he was hoping to get money from the Canadian International Development Agency. "He applied months ago, but the grant never came through. "The military finally dipped into operational funds for the humanitarian assistance required in their mandate here. "Watson has already started putting the pieces in place to get the projects finished before the tour ends next month. " 'You can effect big things without much money around here,' he said in an interview. For $5,000 US apiece, Watson is having two small schools in two nearby villages prepared for classes. "A bigger one in another village cost $13,000. …" With a few more dollars, Watson said, they could be doing much more.
But our PM is too involved catering to his African Mugabes and political legacy, to even note the opportunity to help the poor souls in Afghanistan rebuild what the U.S., Canada and Britain have recently devastated. And the CA party is too dull to even notice its opportunity to use a few of its dollars to build a few schools over there and gain a million dollars worth of political credibility.

ON TARGET SECTION

Our Australian counterpart speaks out

The following series of items are reprinted from the August 2nd issue of the On Target newsletter of the Australian League of Rights, published in Melbourne.

Thought For The Week "The Grand Madam of Babylon was drunk and in maudlin mood. She sat on her throne beside the meeting-place of the abundant waters from many rivers. All peoples, all nations of every language congregated here in submissive obeisance to her. All the kings and rulers of the world had come to her and committed fornication with her. ... Clad in purple and scarlet and glittering with every kind of fine jewelry and precious ornament she ventured forth, holding up a wine cup filled to the brim with the filth of her abominations and her harlotry's ministrations. ... "Why were her dreams now plagued with visions of impending doom, of disease and death, of sadness and mourning, of famine and fire? ... Had not every kind and ruler of the earth sought her dalliance and enjoyed the favours of her prostitution? Were not all the merchants in the world's marketplaces delighted with their riches obtained through her debaucheries? ... in her nightmare, she was being doubly repaid in her own coin for all that she had exacted unjustly from others ... She was being made to drink a double dose of her own poisonous mixture." -- From The Book of Revelation, paraphrased by Peter Lock in "The Great Harlot," 2002

Staring Into The Abyss
By Jeremy Lee

Events in the financial world over the last two or three weeks have grabbed governments and industries by the throat, shaken them, and gradually increased pressure on the economic windpipe. Robert Gottliebsen (The Weekend Australian, 20,21/7/02) started his article:
"The American market has fallen too far to be going through a normal correction. What we have seen is the bursting of the biggest stock market bubble the world has ever seen. The repercussions are already beginning to vibrate round the globe and they will influence international economies for a long time …"
Describing the Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan's address to Congress, Peter Hartcher pointed to the crucial areas excluded:
"… Greenspan made his appearance amid a disastrous performance by Wall Street. While the chairman of the Federal Reserve was trying to assure everyone that all was well, the stock market was sending precisely the opposite signal. "By the end of trading on Wednesday (17/7 - Ed.) the Standard & Poor's index of 500 firms' share prices was down by 21 percent. "If falling stock prices destroy enough wealth, they start to affect the performance of the economy. Since the start of this year the total wealth destroyed by lost share values is $US2.1-trillion ($A3.8-trillion) ..."

Pardon me? Two million US workers have been laid off in less than two years, and more are losing their jobs every day. The stock market crash has swept past America into Europe, and is starting to crunch Asian economies. And Australia, which saw $15-billion wiped off savings in 24 hours. All sorts of 'bogeymen' are being blamed -- accountants, pessimists, over-investment during the Nineties, etc. We haven't yet got to the excuse offered by one economist during the Great Depression, who believed that sun-spots had something to do with it!
David Wessel (Australian Financial Review, 19/7/02) suggested we had yet to find out: "With extraordinary speed, the US has gone from a macroeconomic miracle to an economy enveloped by doubt about American-style government-supervised corporate capitalism ... A reminder that the lessons learned in mastering the economic rapids of the last few decades didn't teach us all we need to know to steer through the whitewater ahead …"

Rushing back home from -- of all places -- Kyrgyzstan -- on July 24th, the US Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Paul O'Neill, immediately went into a huddle with a number of bankers, including Abbey Cohen of Goldman Sachs, John Lipsky of Morgan Stanley, Bruce Steinberg of Merrill Lynch, and William McDonough of the New York Federal Reserve. He refused to comment on emerging, except to say they'd had a good lunch. One former economic official, Harald Malmgren, commented: "The Administration has no strategy to deal with this. They're improvising." While they were meeting it was revealed that another two trillion dollars had been wiped from values.

It's the Debt-System, Stupid: Those now panicking under the financial meltdown are looking everywhere for the cause other than the right direction. Greed, corruption and gambling are symptoms of a deeper cause, and however great the surveillance and regulation, dealing with symptoms can provide no solution. The cause lies in the way the nations of the world are financed -- solely through the extension of interest-bearing debt. Borrowing our way into the future may stimulate growth, efficiency and all the other buzz-words. The moment of crisis can be put off by getting leaner and meaner and undercutting markets to extend sales. The marvels of technology, which mean more production for less effort, can prolong the agony for a considerable period. The casualties thrown out by the system burgeon. But sooner or later reality must catch up. The latest figures show that the world is groaning under a total debt burden of $400-trillion, while the combined GDP of all nations is one-tenth of that figure -- some $40-trillion.

How to make the 40 catch up with the 400? Under the existing arrangements by borrowing more; and debt is expanding faster than the means to repay. Such a cut-throat system means that only the most vicious and corrupt can survive. The vicious and corrupt are themselves now toppling over. The 'gurus' who provide the theology for this madness can only manoeuver the world between the extremes of boom-and-bust. When things are steaming they restrict borrowing. When things are stagnant they entice and beseech us to borrow more. But what do they do when interest rates and other restrictions are at historic lows and people are still too scared to borrow? Or have already borrowed so much they can go no further? They have no other answers. US interest rates have been below 2% for four years. They can try zero interest rates as Japan did. But what if that doesn't work?

The real picture in the US The June Aida Parker Newsletter gives this stark oversight: "… With zero savings, householders hold $7.6-trillion in debt. Such debt is at its highest level in US history, with consumers holding $1-trillion more in debt than they earn in disposable income. All told, householders hold $5.3-trillion in mortgage debt, with $1-trillion in new home mortgages acquired in the last year. Personal bankruptcies last year were more than double those in 1990/91. 2002 will be even worse .... "Morgan Stanley projects that the US trade deficit could reach 6% by next year, which means a deficit of $2-billion a day. Net real investment in the US is now nil .... "Much of corporate America is in deep trouble. There have been five consecutive quarters of declining corporate profit. US companies now owe a record $4.7-trillion to banks, venture capitalists, bondholders, money funds and other institutions. The Fed says the debt is growing almost three times faster than GDP.... "In 2001, more than 40,000 businesses filed for bankruptcy. Estimates are that 652 big companies will have a tough time surviving another year. Xerox has $162-billion in debt, exponentially more than it has in assets. Nextel has $16.7-billion of debt, only $4.2-billion in cash reserves. Both could fall into bankruptcy. Del Monte, General Mills, Trump Hotels and Casinos, Ford, Kellogg, Campbell Soup, 7-Eleven, all are in trouble ....

"As hundreds of thousands of home owners are laid off, so the recent real estate bubble bursts. Sales of existing homes dropped 8.3% in March, and continued down in April and May. There's overcapacity and dwindling demand for new office space and shopping malls ... "On top of all else, it is a banking catastrophe. A reported 4,913 banks suffered an increase in bad loans in the first nine months of 2001 ... "The final nail in the banks' coffin is derivatives: high-risk bets on stocks, bonds and foreign currencies that now stand at truly staggering levels. In 1998 US banks held about $27-trillion in derivative contracts. Today, according to the US General Accounting Office (GAO), US banks are exposed to more than $40.5trillion in derivatives … "Prospects are that the position will continue to get worse, not better.

In the face of worldwide economic recession, escalating geopolitical tensions, with Israel on the boil and Mr. Bush threatening war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the US market now in its 35th month of bear market decline, US recovery prospects appear nil ... "To quote Bill Buckley of The Privateer newsletter:
'America has imposed a draconian clampdown on the freedom and liberties of its own citizens. It has dived headlong into deficits. It has lost control of government spending. It has antagonized its friends and allies with import tariffs, demands for military alliance and ultimatums that you are with us or against us. No neutrality is allowed. For any historian, all that is necessary is to substitute Greece, Rome, France, Spain, Germany, Britain or indeed USSR for the US in the above paragraph. All these events have been duplicated by EVERY empire in the process of its dissolution ..."

Yes, there will be the odd spike, accompanied by frenzied claims that "the market has bottomed"; "the corner has been turned"; and that "there's a light at the end of the tunnel." We can expect more genial smiles from our beloved Treasurer as the cracks deepen. But the future is bleak indeed. (End of the Australian O.T. article)

Further 'Down-Under' Perspectives

The same Australian On Target Supplementary Bulletin (Aug. 2), published the following rather challenging perspective by Betty Luks, national director of the Australian League of Rights, under the caption, "Calling down the 'wrath' of God"

I don't like the implied threat in Pastor Wedrat's (Chinchilla, Queensland) letter to those who would dare criticize modern Israel's treatment of the subjected peoples of Palestine (The Chronicle, July 25th, 2002 - "Israel God's chosen nation") and I can only say, with spokesmen such as this man, no wonder organized Christianity is in such a schizophrenic state. People who try to live by the 'golden rule,' quite apart from any church organization, must shake their heads in disbelief at the double standards applied by such people as the good pastor. He warns his readers (no matter how the leaders of modern Israel behave, no matter how they treat the subjected peoples of Palestine), "The nations of the world need to be very careful how they treat Israel as a nation, simply because 'the law of the harvest' applies: 'Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.' (Gal. 6:7)." But then, is this man referring to the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or is he referring to those ancient 'laws' of cursing and revenge legislated and imposed upon a people by the leaders of that tiny province of Yehud three thousand years ago?
Too many people cannot see the double standard in their claims to be 'Christian' and defence of the inhumane treatment meted out to the Palestinian people -- in their own land -- by the occupying forces of modern Israel. Definitely a philosophy of the-one-way-street.

Another example: John Chuckman gives another example of this philosophy: "Disturbing the planet and blaming the mess on others" -- March lst, 2002, Yellowtimes.org -- Canada.
Having written articles critical of America, he was asked why he hated the nation. He replied he didn't hate America but there were things, about America he found deeply disturbing. "What a big fat disappointment America is today," he criticized, "an affluent, noisy, moral netherworld. A place where fundamentalist pitchmen in blow-dried coifs and pan-cake makeup plead to fill the moral void, but only add to the noise. A place where jingoism and mediocrity are lavishly praised ... A people without grace who always blame others for what goes wrong." Again the philosophy of the-one-way-street!

A 'do unto others' approach: Rector Jonathan Holland (Queensland Anglican newspaper Focus, July 2002) presents a more balanced approach to a grave problem "The war on terrorism," he writes, "is really an attempt to address the symptom, rather than the causes. In hindsight the response to the attack on the World Trade Centre should have been to treat it as a crime needing investigation, rather than a decision to declare all-out war on terrorism. The question that should have been asked and addressed is 'What is it that gives rise to terrorism?' "
The answer for the Rector is two-fold: First, poverty around the world is a breeding ground for terrorism. He believes U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson got it right when she said the world superpowers should pay more attention to healing Third-World ills, if they were serious about tackling terrorism. In a world of plenty, where women spend fortunes to stay thin, others die for want of a decent meal.
The second breeding ground is injustice. There can be no peace without justice. Here he gives examples of the double standard applied by the international community. "Unless justice is brought to places like Palestine and Israel there will never be peace; and there will always be terrorist responses." He compares the attitudes adopted on the one hand towards Iraq and Israel on the other. Iraq is continually criticized, especially by America, for failing to meet UN resolutions; while Israel on the other hand has no pressure put on it to meet similar U.N. resolutions, in particular Security Council Resolution 242 calling for it to leave the occupied territories. "Israel's obligation to obey UN resolutions is exactly the same as Iraq's, yet Israel receives $US3-billion every year in aid from America," he observes. "Meanwhile," he cautions, "Australia should be wary about appearing to give unconditional support to American policies, especially foreign policies." (End of Betty Luks' comments)

COMMENT: Australians have a reputation of addressing problems forthrightly and pretty straight from the shoulder. Jeremy Lee and Betty Luks certainly uphold that reputation. And, needless to say, we in Canada face basically the same problems in Canada that confront our kinsfolk 'Down Under.' There is just one thought that I'd like to inject into what otherwise does indeed presently appear that we're facing a rather bleak and hopeless future: A wise and distinguished British Christian writer, philosopher and historian, noting the precarious and almost hopeless situation facing his country at that critical time, suggested that perhaps the most hopeful possibility was offered by the very gravity of the situation itself. So often individuals, communities and nations, simply refuse to face up to reality and address a problem until their very future is threatened and it seems almost too late. But it is at that critical moment, when all we cherish and life and future itself are threatened and there's no escape from Reality, that there is the possibility of conscious realization and constructive action which almost miraculously turns the tide. Of course, at that critical moment, it's essential that there is a 'dedicated minority' with understanding and Faith to lend a hand and give hope and direction. And I feel confident that Jeremy Lee and Betty Luks, in Australia, are most actively engaged in preparing for that Critical Moment. -R.G.

Enterprise Section

Killing Americans for Oil and Israel

We recently received by e-mail from the United States, an article under the above caption by Edward W. Miller, an American journalist. Here it is, in full.

The media is full these days of accusations, recriminations, congressional hearings and much political jazz, aimed at either deflecting criticism from Washington's failure to warn us of September 11th or suggestions regarding revamping our so-called Intelligence Establishment. While the embarrassed CIA and FBI sit as humbly as possible through endless "hearings" our bubble-head President is erecting a Department of "National Security" which will, he promises, bind together over 100 Federal offices with their personnel and expertise thus guaranteeing that in the future, every bit of intelligence information which may drift into this monolith will receive its proper scrutiny and dispatch. The Department will have a budget of $37.5-billion, and employ some 169,000 employees. Washington has not explained why the CIA and FBI are excluded, but Bush will perhaps straighten this out once the two cease their infighting.
Washington has been addressing its "terrorist threats" in much the same manner as Tel Aviv, by focusing attention and resources on protection and security rather than addressing the underlying causes.

Since her 1967 war of aggression, Israel experienced at her borders and recently at home, violent responses from neighbours she invaded and tried to subjugate: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank and Gaza. Here in the United States, until that memorable September 11th, we had been punished for our criminal behaviour toward both the Iraqis and Palestinians only at the periphery of our so-called field of interest, first in Lebanon, then Africa, and Yemen. Israel negotiated safe borders for herself with both Egypt and Jordan, under prime ministers less addicted to violence than Sharon. The hate and distrust she created in Lebanon, however, made it too expensive in terms of Jewish lives, and despite the Israeli farmers' interest in stealing Litani River water for irrigation, she withdrew. The Jews, though, are still carting away truckloads of rich Lebanese topsoil from border areas Israel pretends to dispute. The reluctance to make peace with Syria has to do with the avarice of Israel's Russian immigrant farmers (kibbutzim) who, having displaced 120,000 Syrian farming families from their rich turf in the Golan, have the political strength in the Knesset to keep Israel from returning the Golan. The West Bank and Gaza are targets of the Jewish Religious Right with their dreams of Greater Israel (Eretz Israel). Their almost daily thefts of Palestinian land by Jews from Detroit, New York and southern California who receive cheap loans, low mortgage rates and tax relief on their stolen property will continue so long as American Jewry dictates to Washington.

Since the early days of Israel's fascist expansionism, Washington's tacit and often active support of the Jewish State has been costing American lives. During Sharon's bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon our Ronald Reagan killed the citizens of Beirut with shells from our USS New Jersey, stampeding some 600,000 into the mountains east of their city. As a punishment for this criminal act, we lost some 241 US Marines, plus an uncounted (by Washington) number of sailors from Reagan's Battleship, as the Lebanese retaliated, bombing our military barracks in Lebanon as well as the French military barracks at the Beirut National Airport. Our lack of consideration for their religion, when our military failed to leave the Saudi Kingdom after the Gulf War as promised, resulted in a bomb which in 1996 killed six American soldiers bivouacked in the Saudi city of Khobar, and injuring some 400, mostly Saudis. Washington has always been a slow learner.

On May 28th, 1998, reporter John Miller interviewed Osama Bin Laden in his mountain headquarters in Afghanistan. In this detailed exchange available to the world via ABC News, Osama threw down the Muslim gauntlet to Washington, saying: "Your situation with the Muslims in Palestine is shameful ... and ... by testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American-led sanctions have resulted in the death of over a million Iraqi children. All of this was done in the name of American interests. We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only ways for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means ... It is a punishment that fits the crime. Americans accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists, children who have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time they (Israelis) defend a country with airplanes and tanks."
Though Osama's words resonated with over 1.2 billion Muslims across the world, Washington paid no heed to the message. Our embargo of Iraq and our illegal bombing and overflights continued while Clinton tacitly supported Israel's repression and expansionism in Palestine. On August 7th, 1998, our embassies in both Tanzania and then Kenya were destroyed by bombs, killing a total of over 224 civilians including 12 Americans. Clinton, in a knee-jerk response sent missiles into Afghanistan, missing Ben Laden, but killing 19 young Muslim students studying in their madrassa. Clinton's missiles then destroyed the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in Khartum, wiping out African's only access to drugs for sleeping sickness, malaria and Dengue Fever. The plant was NOT producing biological weapons. Despite Osama's warnings plus angry protests at the UN, Washington again displayed no interest in debating or even questioning its policy.

The US carefully-designated embargo against Iraq arranged at the UN still forbade some 600 items Saddam's people required to provide potable water for their children dying daily of water-borne diseases from sewage poured into their Euphrates River; and, with Washington's tacit OK Israel continued its violent harassment of the Palestinians, stealing their land with illegal settlements. Over 2,000 Palestinian families had by this time been turned out homeless into the streets, their houses bulldozed, often on a few moments notice. On the 13th of October our USS Cole, quietly moored in Yemen's port, experienced a sudden explosion killing some 18 of its crew and blowing a huge hole in its port side. Again, no sign that Washington cared one iota for the lives of even its own citizens as our media daily demonized Osama Bin Laden while our FBI sent its investigating teams into Yemen. Our mistreatment of Iraqis and Palestinians continued unabated. ...

(Last) September 11th as New York's citizens were enjoying clear skies and a warm autumn breeze, their famous Twin Towers suddenly exploded in a volcano of smoke and debris, while in Washington our Pentagon staff watched in awe as a third passenger jet slammed into their concrete fortress, killing some 200. With three thousand dead in Manhattan plus some 220 in Washington, there was still no move by our President, Congress or State Department to re-examine a foreign policy that was killing more and more Americans. Targeting Osama Bin Laden, the US now demanded Afghanistan's Mohammed Mar, head of the Taliban, deliver Osama to a US court. The Taliban government, however, remembering Washington's corrupt "Star Chamber" trials afforded Noriega and then, Sheik Abdel Omar Rahman, demurred, offering Osama instead to an International court. As the Bush-UNOCAL negotiations over oil-pipeline access in Afghanistan had become frustratingly slow, our President seized on this moment, and casting aside any more efforts at diplomacy, declared the Taliban to be supporters of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Without significant Congressional debate, and with a hastily-constructed "War Powers Act," Bush was given the go-ahead to begin military actions against Afghanistan's Taliban and, essentially, against the Afghan people.

By late June 2002, Bush's Afghan War had degenerated into skirmishes with invisible Al Qaeda who could strike at any moment. Though US and British "Special Forces" had been bombing one cave after another, some containing ammunition left over from the Soviet years, few Al Qaeda had been found though the killing of civilians had hopefully lessened. Afghans naturally protect their own, so Talibans and Al Qaeda, like their Pashtuns and Tajiks, just disappear into the Afghan crowd. The fact that US command headquarters remains in Florida continues to create blunders killing Afghans as well as some of our Canadian buddies. Washington wants to forget that though the Soviets conquered Kabul in 24 hours and controlled most Afghan cities within the following three days, they never had a moment of peace, and after nine long years, with some 19,000 dead and the loss of 425 expensive helicopters, they left.

As for the Mideast, Sharon's wanton killing of civilians plus his physical destruction of West Bank cities, including the Jenin Refugee Camp, the pathetic and demeaning imprisonment of Arafat in his Ramallah headquarters, the mindless and unnecessary stand-off in the Church of the Nativity by a Jewish military openly contemptuous of the Christian World, plus the successful effort by an Israeli-controlled media in this country to portray the essentially-unarmed Palestinians, backed against the wall by the world's fifth largest military, as "THE TERRORISTS," is provoking more and more anti-Israeli, and so anti-Semitic, feeling across the intelligent world, as well as anti-Sharon sentiment in Israel itself. ... The ongoing campaign against Saddam Hussein, led in this country by such Zionist Jews as Bill Kristol, William Saffire, Jeffrey Kent, Richard Perle and Senator Lieberman, and reinforced by Presidential-hopeful Senator McCain, may sidetrack any efforts at Mideast peace.

The President of Iraq's impoverished country, despite our media's almost daily onslaught, presents no danger to anybody. The UN's international atomic inspection team recently gave Saddam a clean slate; and Scott Ritter, former UN Chief Inspector, says Saddam is no threat. Not a single Arab neighbour approves of Bush's proposed strike against Saddam, while our Washington Chiefs of Staff argue strongly against it. Again, it is only Israel and our Jewish lobby that are urging that Americans continue to die for Zionism. Charlie Reese, once columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, recently described Bush as a ventriloquist's dummy, sitting on the lap of Israel's Sharon. In reality, our President's focus on the Mideast, including both Iraq and the Palestinians, is distorted -- first, by his abysmal ignorance of history, by his emotional bonding with a Religious Right which supports Sharon's expansionist dreams, and finally, by the awesome power of Jewish money, best exemplified by AIPAC with tentacles which reach into both the political and media spheres. Just how Bush will circumnavigate these dangerous waters is anyone's guess. Speaking to a sold-out Berkeley audience on June 20th, world-famous columnist Robert Fisk said it clearly: "The safety of America depends on its behaviour overseas." (End of Mr. Miller's article)

COMMENT: Edward Miller's article stands on its own merits, and it is encouraging for at least two reasons: first, that more and more American journalists are beginning to perceive and reveal the terrible danger of present U.S. foreign policy; and second, that re-examination and change of both policy and strategy are crucial for both peace and the survival of mankind.

Limited disclosure

More should be known about judges before Supreme Court appointments The Calgary Herald, August 11, under the above heading and sub-heading, published the following editorial.
The highest court in the land has a new member and only Prime Minister Jean Chretien knows why she is really there. The trouble with having the PM singularly appoint judges to the Supreme Court of Canada is demonstrated again by Chretien's latest choice. Judge Marie Descharmes, 49, of the Quebec Court of Appeal has been selected to replace former Justice Claire l'Heureux Dube, 74, who resigned her position on July 1. The sense one gets from the legal community is puzzlement that Descharmes was selected over other, more qualified candidates. So why did Chretien choose her? Good question.
If Canada had a transparent, public confirmation process, such as the vetting function performed by the Senate in the United States, Canadians might have an answer. Surely it must go beyond her husband's connections with the provincial Liberals, her gender and her love of the arts? Surely? Had Descharmes been required to defend her credentials in public, here is a sampling of some of the noteworthy items that would have been revealed from her voting record with the Quebec Court of Appeal.
In April 2002, she rejected the bid of boxer Davey Hilton Jr. to have his sexual assault sentence reduced from seven years to four, because his victims were young girls and the acts against them were serious and degrading.
In May 1996, she refused the demands of federal lawyers to postpone Brian Mulroney's $50-million libel suit, and openly laughed at some of the lawyers' most absurd arguments in favour of delay.
In February 1996, she upheld the acquittal of disgraced Senator Michel Cogger on charges of influence peddling, saying the $212,000 he billed a client for attempting to secure $45-million in subsidies, was not undertaken with a guilty mind.
In August 1995, she dissented in a ruling that ordered a new trial for a Hell's Angels gang member convicted of five slayings, arguing that the accused's guilt was obvious and his demands for a separate trial were suspect.
In April 1995, she lessened the waiting period for parole from 20 years to 14 years for a man convicted of murdering two people, saying a 20-year minimum period was "exaggerated."
In March 1995, she overturned a man's sexual assault conviction because the judge had incorrectly disregarded the testimony of two friends that gave him an alibi.
In December 1994, she freed a heroin trafficker from his five-year sentence, arguing that lenience was in order due to his troubled childhood, which included a mother that moved in with a heroin-addicted boyfriend when the boy was 12.
In August 1994, she ordered an accounting firm to pay $249,000 in damages to a Montreal doctor, when an investment in real estate the firm recommended turned sour. So what does all this say about the newest appointee to the bench?

Descharmes is a person who is not easily swayed by government lawyers, she is tough on organized crime but she has a mixed record of judgments on other serious crimes, she seems to favour rehabilitation over restitution, she is somewhat ambivalent toward the value of personal responsibility and she appears to have a soft spot for the weak and disadvantaged. This may give Canadians an idea of how Descharmes will adjudicate the law now that she is one of the most important lawmakers in the land, but it's an incomplete picture. Since Supreme Court justices have tremendous power to shape Canada's social and cultural policies, much more should be known about potential candidates before they are appointed. But the way things work now, only the Prime Minister gets to know for sure. (End of the Calgary Herald editorial)

COMMENT: Indeed, the Herald makes a valid point.
The Canadian Constitution Committee's Draft Proposal for an Updated Canadian Constitution has the Answer: "The Supreme Court of Canada shall be comprised of Eleven Members, one from each province and one from the Territories combined ... Candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada shall first appear before an All-Party Parliamentary Committee comprised of Senators and Members of the House of Commons, for questioning concerning their qualifications, following which the Governor-General, after consultation with said All-Party Committee and his Council, shall appoint the new Member or Members of the Court." We can supply copies of the CCC' Draft Proposal - $7 each.

Supplementary Section

A report on the assault on our traditional social order

Canada becoming anti-religious A recent issue of The Edmonton Sun published the following article by the widely respected national columnist, Ted Byfield.

If Canadian Christians, particularly Catholics, are becoming somewhat paranoid these days and forming the impression that the direction of Canadian public policy is the enfeeblement, if not the outright eradication, of the serious practice of their religion, that's because they're being given so much evidence of it. The federal prohibition on any mention of God at the Sept. 11 memorial service was merely a minor instance. There are several major ones.
Example: An Ontario court last week ordered a Catholic school to lift its ban on two young men attending a school dance as a couple because, said the court, homosexual rights take priority over religious rights. So 17-year-old Marc Hall and his boyfriend turned up at the Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic high school in Oshawa, successfully defying the school and the Catholic school board. The implications are horrendous. Protestant schools, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim schools all teach that homosexual activity is sinful. If they are forced by the state to accept it in their own social functions, how can they convincingly teach it? And how long before they're forced to quit teaching it, subverting their own scripturally founded principles to the dictates of Mr. Justice Somebody-or-Other? This case will undoubtedly be appealed. But it is not unique.
In British Columbia, a Catholic school at Fort St. John introduced a rule that its teachers must be practising Catholics -- which meant, among other things, not living together unless married. The B.C. Labour Relations Board ordered the school to rescind the rule, and the bishop of Prince George -- reasoning that if a Christian school couldn't require its teachers to observe Christian morality, it couldn't be a Christian school -- closed it down. The board last month ruled that the bishop had acted improperly, presumably opening a new human rights case against the church. Which, of course, reflects the famous Vriend case in Alberta wherein a Christian college fired a teacher for advocating homosexual conduct to the students and was condemned by courts for doing so. Consider what such rulings, if upheld, will do to the real crisis facing the Catholic Church, first in the United States and now spreading to Canada.

The problem is portrayed as one of pedophilia among priests, which has cost the American church an estimated $1.5-billion in out-of-court settlements. However, it's now evident that almost all the victims were not children but boys in their teens. Philip Jenkins, in a recent book, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, points out that the term Pedophilia refers to sex with pre-pubescent children. It's extremely rare among Catholic clergy, writed Jenkins (who is not a Catholic), occurs slightly more often in Protestant clergy, and is more likely still to occur among laymen than clergy. The victims in the American cases are almost all boys who are sexually mature but under the age of consent. It's technically called "ephebophilia." Leon Podles, writing on the same subject in Touchstone magazine, writes: "Homosexuals are often attracted to very young men because they combine the charm of boyishness with sexual maturity."

In the period of 1960 to 1980, when the abuse cases now being prosecuted occurred, says Jenkins, there were an average of 150,000 Catholic priests in the U.S., and about 500 reported (not proved) cases of sexual involvement with minors, a rate of around one-third of one percent. Most of the cases involved boys 15 to 17 years old. This means that what the church faces is not a pedophile problem, but a gay problem, and there the evidence against the church is serious. There are no statistics on the percentage of Catholic priests that are gay. Podles quotes the head of one seminary as citing a figure of anywhere from 20% to 80% depending on the seminary. Jenkins favours the 20% figure, but even this is nearly eight times the population average. In this circumstance, the Vatican is pressuring the North American Catholic Church to screen out gays from the ministry. But if that's against the law, the church would be prohibited from cleaning up its most pressing problem. Put all these pieces together and you see why Christians have a growing sense of alienation from Canada itself. It's not becoming a non-religious country but an anti-religious one, a very different phenomenon. (End of Mr. Byfield's article)

However, the attack upon freedom of speech is not confined to Catholic personnel or activities, but is international in scope and particularly pointed at the so-called 'free world.'

The June 2002 issue of Free Speech Monitor, published by the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc., in Etobicoke, Ontario, published the following relevant item:
"It's heartbreaking, but the Canadian Alliance seems more and more bent on joining the ranks of the politically correct. Despite the many fervent Christians in their ranks and a grassroots opposed to special privileges for minorities, the Alliance teamed up with homosexual Svend Robinson in backing a private member's bill adding sexual orientation as another privileged group covered by Canada's notorious 'hate law.'-- Section 319 of the Criminal Code."
Report Newsmagazine (National Edition) in its July 8th issue published a revealing article on this question by Tristan Emmanuel, a Presbyterian minister. Here it is, in full:

"Bill C-415 is a private member's bill introduced in Parliament by NDP MP Svend Robinson on November 22, 2001. On May 29 the bill passed second reading. Astonishingly, the debate collapsed within the first hour because none of the parties put up enough speakers to keep it going. "You are probably wondering what Bill C-415 is. After all, it has been given no attention in the mainstream media. In fact, its journey through the House is more akin to backdoor shenanigans than open and free democracy. "Still, we're not totally in the dark. Gwendolyn Landolt, national vice-president of the lobby group REAL Women, has shed some light: 'The bill,' she explains, 'purports to expand the Criminal Code definition of "identifiable groups" relating to genocide (Section 318) and hate propaganda (Section 319) by including "sexual orientation" as an identifiable group.' "This means that homosexuality will be elevated to the class of colour, race and religion as a characteristic specially protected from 'hate propaganda' in our Criminal Code. "In fact, Bill C-415 is another example of how sexual deviants are seeking to reorder Canada's criminal law to suit their own objectives. The bill exposes to criminal prosecution anyone who makes statements that could he construed as 'promoting hatred' against homosexuals: a nebulous and ill-defined crime if ever there were. Mrs. Landholt predicts it will 'close down public debate on the homosexual issue.'

"Activists and media pundits will probably deny this by insisting that the law will contain safeguards against vexatious private prosecutions, and will allow for legitimate dissent and freedom of religious expression. But if recent Human Rights Commission rulings are anything to go by, such optimists should know better. "We could start with the Canadian Alliance party. CA Justice critic Vic Toews explained to Mrs. Landolt that the caucus hoped to make amendments in committee or at the time of the third reading and therefore determined not to prolong the debate at the second reading.

For the record, Mr. Toews opposes this bill, but only because it is not comprehensive enough. It excludes 'a number of vulnerable groups in our society that are routinely subject to discrimination,' he says, and therefore it needs to be 'broadened' to include other groups; this is the political way of saying, 'we're not going to raise a moral objection to "sexual orientation."' "Why not? Well, to avoid being attacked by the media for 'homophobic' rejection of the bill, of course. This might have diverted media attention from the Liberals' ongoing corruption scandals. "I don't know about you, but I'm tired of political games especially when there is so much at stake. I'm especially tired of political cowardice when it comes to matters of morality.

"The Alliance doesn't pretend to be a Christian party, I realize that; but it does tout itself as Canada's only conservative hope. And this is what grates me. If the Alliance truly wants to work for a better Canada, then surely they could have used some of their political savvy to either stop or delay this bill at least until more Canadians were made aware of it. "Their general strategy of downplaying 'moral issues' is debatable, but their handling of this bill is downright pathetic. It's a little like the anxiety-ridden white man who idly stands by while his home is invaded, his wife is raped and his children are murdered, only to prove he's not a racist. "No, come to think of it, it is a lot like that.

Bill C-415 represents the public suppression of truth while the floodgates of moral chaos burst open.

Goodbye Canada, hello Rome.
The only difference: instead of being thrown to the lions, we'll be thrown to the Human Rights Commission. "Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. "A case in point: Gens Hellquist, executive director of Saskatoon's Gay and Lesbian Health Services, is outraged with Bill Whatcott of Regina, president of Christian Truth Activists. Mr. Hellquist recently told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix that Mr. Whatcott's gay criticism is 'hateful.' 'Why,' he demanded, 'hasn't (Mr. Whatcott) been prosecuted for using the term "sodomite"?' "Ken Norman, a University of Saskatchewan professor of constitutional law, agrees with Mr. Hellquist. He also told the Star Phoenix that the term ' "sodomite" may not be legal,' and suggested that it would be an 'interesting test for the courts.' "In other words, gay activists want to outlaw Biblical language. To do this, they need the State to publicly sanction sodomite euphemisms designed to cover up the deviant nature of gay sex, while they suppress the truth. This is what Bill C415 is all about -- the suppression of 'moral speech.'

"The party that should be driving this point home in the House debates and in the mainstream press is the Canadian Alliance. But then, let's not stop at Steve Harper and crew. They may be feeble, but they are in good company. The attorney general of Alberta, David Hancock, has stated, 'I support ... hate-crime legislation which prohibits people from spewing hate against anybody for any reason.' Likewise, Mike Harris, former premier of Ontario and hero to thousands of Ontario conservatives, wrote a joint letter with Howard Hampton, leader of the Ontario NDP, calling for the federal government 'to move ahead on' this type of legislation. "It's not as though Conservatives are totally devoid of principles. It's just that their principles are focused on pocket-book issues, and not everything that matters in life is about money." (End of Mr. Emmanuel's article)

Truth is no defence!

The July 1998 issue of this Service (Supp. Sect. #2), under the above caption, published the following report:

"A few weeks ago, Ernst Zundel of Toronto was hauled up before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, to face complaints from Sabina Citron and the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations, that the California website known as the Zundelsite was disseminating 'anti-Semitic' statements via the internet. "On May 27, the following report was carried on the internet: " 'On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that "Truth is not a defence" -- in other words, that the truth of any material on the Zundelsite is "irrelevant" to CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) proceedings. " 'The Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyers and the intervenors's lawyers were on their feet and objected over 30 times when they thought truth was becoming an issue in the cross-examination of Dr. Schweitzer. " 'Says Ernst Zundel: "This leaves us in a very difficult position. Frankly, what is there to do or say if truth is not relevant -- or (one is) even 'forbidden' to raise it in one's defense? Truth in history is thus outlawed?"

" 'Here is a telling excerpt from this nine-page CHRT ruling: " ' "...consistent with a focus effect rather than intent, it is the effect of the message on the recipient, and ultimately on the person or group vilified, that is the focus of the analysis. The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the recipient. The objective truth of the statement is ultimately of no consequence if the subjective interpretation, by virtue of tone, social context and medium is one which 'arouses unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification.' " ' "Therefore, in our view, whether the message is true or not is immaterial. Whether it is perceived to be true is outside the scope of this inquiry." ' "

COMMENT by Ron Gostick at the end of the foregoing 1998 CIS item: "This Truth Is No Defence Human Rights Tribunal ruling is the most obscene and deadly attack on freedom ever made in the English-speaking world. Indeed, it's the most treacherous and dastardly assault on English and Canadian Common Law since the infamous Star Chamber 'courts' of four or five centuries ago in England. "Consider what this ruling means. An accused is assumed to be guilty before the kangaroo hearing even starts -- not on evidence or fact, but simply on someone's 'perception,' feeling, dislike or outright lies, with Truth irrelevant and accused stripped of all Common-Law and court-rights protections. A 'justice' system where Truth is no defence -- not even relevant!" A good question, but no answer! When this 'truth is no defence, not even relevant' question came up at a subsequent hearing, Doug Christie, Mr. Zundel's legal counsel, asked the judge why, if truth is irrelevant and no defence, does the court swear in each witness to tell the truth and nothing but the truth! ... There was deafening silence, ... but no answer. May I suggest that no judge worthy of his estate would consent to preside over a judicial function in which truth were mocked and justice betrayed.

Just ponder the direction of Canadian society the past half-century:
No longer is religion -- at least the Christian religion -- protected or even respected by the state. It is omitted or banned from public ceremonies; and even truth itself 'irrelevant' in 'human rights' tribunals.
No longer are religious rights in education respected by the state; they are diminished and trumped by the sodomite life style.
Our Constitution proclaims that it is "the supreme law of the land," but court and tribunal judges ignore our Constitution and Common Law, and now proclaim that deviant sexual 'rights' trumpt all other rights of the majority!
Now, when the sole determining factor in the guilt or innocence of the accused is no longer truth and sworn testimony of witnesses, but rather merely the views or feelings of the accuser -- the prosecution - isn't it about time we cried out, Whoa! Wait a minute! Something's terribly wrong here ... Surely we now see the direction of our Canadian society, the heritage that's being stolen from us, and the debauched and corrupted legacy we're leaving our children and grandchildren. May God forgive us! --R.G.

Rising anti-war sentiment in U.S.?

Following, are excerpts from an August 17th issue of the National Post: "George W. Bush, the U.S. President, yesterday defended his Iraq policy from criticism within his own Republican Party … "Mr. Bush has made ousting Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi President, one of his top priorities, but dissent from within his own political ranks had persisted. Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor during the presidency of Mr. Bush's father, said this week an attack on Iraq could alienate U.S. allies… "Mr. Scowcroft, a key member of the previous Bush administration who helped build a coalition for the Gulf War against Iraq, reiterated his concerns in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. 'An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken,' Mr. Scowcroft wrote. 'There is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time …' … he said. … "Other key Republicans have also voiced concern, warning Mr. Bush has failed to make a strong case for an attack on Iraq and that a war could undermine the U.S. fight against global terrorism and destabilize the Middle East even further. …"

Thank God, there may be an awakening.