The FTAA -- Blueprint for Disaster

By Paul Hellyer

Last month we published the first part of this article, based on a speech by the Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, given on April 20, 2001, at the Other People's Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Following, is the concluding part of his address.

A few years ago I was writing a book and I interviewed a hundred people that I knew by asking them the question,
"Where does money come from?"
At first, they were a little bit uncomfortable with the question. So I said, "It's not going to bite you. Take a stab at it." Without exception, they said, "Governments print it." The lowest estimate was 60% and the highest was 100%. Now many of you know the real answer, and if more of the public knew, it would be a very different system than the one we have now. The important thing is that these people were doctors, dentists, lawyers, business people, newspaper editors-in-chief, publishers and financial writers -- and there was not one in the whole hundred that had what you could call a good working knowledge of the monetary system. Yet they are the people who have been advising our governments and telling them what to do.

Banking, in fact, is a 4,000-year-old scam. But I am not going back 4,000 years, because you haven't got long enough to listen to that long a tale. I would like to go back to, perhaps, the era of the goldsmiths in London.
From time to time, when the wealthy used to store their gold in the Tower of London, the kings stole it. So they decided it would be safer to store it with goldsmiths who had strong boxes that they fashioned for their own purposes. The goldsmiths, of course, were obliged to give their 'depositors' receipts or certificates and even paid the depositors a small amount of interest on their deposits with the understanding that the goldsmiths could lend the gold out to their friends at higher interest rates. Of course, the goldsmiths never parted with the gold in their vaults, they simply loaned it out in the form of certificates to their friends. Also, it was understood that when somebody who had some gold on deposit wanted to buy, say, a fur coat for his wife, he wouldn't go and get the gold out of safekeeping necessarily. To save time,.he would just hand over his gold certificate to the shopkeeper who could go and collect the gold, if he wished. But why bother, when the certificate was "as good as gold."

It didn't take long for the goldsmiths to realize that they could have many more certificates out there earning interest than they had gold in their vaults, without anyone knowing the difference. This system was legitimized a few years later when King William was fighting a war and ran out of money. Someone said, "Why don't you start a bank?" So he had a chat with some of his friends and they started a bank -- the Bank of England in 1694. Rich investors invested 1.2 million pounds worth of gold and lent it all to the King at 8% which was fair enough. To show his gratitude, the King said, "You can now print an additional 1.2 million pounds worth of bank notes and lend them to your friends at interest." So, in effect, to show his gratitude, he said, "You can lend the same money twice."

Well, over the years, due to the greed of the bankers and the collusion of the politicians, that ratio has become much more generous. In the early years of the 20th century, in the United States, federally incorporated banks had to have a cash reserve of 25%. So, in effect, they were allowed to lend the same money four times over. When I was younger, Canada required 8% cash reserves, which meant our banks were allowed to lend the same money twelve-and-a-half times over. Today, in the United States, the cash reserve on checking accounts is 3%, on savings accounts 0%. On Euro-dollar accounts it's 0% and here, in Canada, it is 0%! So you are lucky if your bank has a cent or cent-and-a-half of legal tender for every dollar you think that you have in the bank.

It is interesting to note that the same Prime Minister who sold us down the river with the Free Trade Agreement is the one who eliminated the cash reserve requirements for the chartered banks over a three-year period from 1991 to 1994. This gave the banks, in effect, a bonus of a few billion dollars a year which helped bail them out of some of the bad loans that they had made in South America and other places.

While the revision of the Bank Act in 1991 has proven to be a big bonus for the banks, you have to ask yourself the next important question: "Well, how do banks create that money?" It happens this way:
if you go in for a loan, they try to kid you a little bit, by giving you the impression that they only lend their depositors' money. In other words, the money someone else put in the bank yesterday, they lend to you or me today. Well, that is, of course, a myth. What happens is this:
if you go in and want to borrow $30,000 to buy, say, a new car, you have to give the bankers collateral like some stocks or bonds, or a mortgage on your house. Or if you don't have any of these things, you may have a rich mother-in-law who is willing to co-sign a note for you, which will satisfy the bank's collateral requirements. Next, you sign the note, accepting the rate of interest they are going to charge you, say, at prime-plus-l-or2%; they tap some computer keys and presto there is $30,000 in your account! Minutes earlier that money did not exist, except for a very small capital reserve requirement.

I think the example of the house builder is even better. Say, a house builder wants to build another house for $250,000. He goes to the bank and pledges a couple of unsold houses and gets the money. He signs the note and then uses the money to pay the people who build it: the carpenters, stonemasons, plumbers, etc. However, when the house is built guess who owns it? -- the bank -- and all the banker did is tap a few computer keys. The builder, of course, then has to sell the house for more than the amount he borrowed in order to make a little profit. If he fails to do that, then he might end up taking a little loss. Or worse, if he can't pay the bank back what he borrowed, the bank will foreclose on one of the houses he put up as collateral. So the bank really does own that house until the mortgage is paid off. And that is the way the system actually works.

Banks create money to lend to governments in exactly the same way. Now, if you were to win a lottery for a million dollars and you decided to invest it all in government bonds of T-bills at 5%, you would get $50,000 a year in interest. But, if the banks were to somehow increase their capital by a million dollars, they could buy 20 times that much in bonds or T-bills which, at 5% interest, would get them 20 times $50,000 or one million dollars in interest per year on their million-dollar increase in capital! - "Nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if you've got a bank charter."
--
So now, you are beginning to understand why the banking aspect of this whole thing is so tremendously important.

Presently, in Canada, the private banks create nearly all of the new money. Last year it was 97 to 98% or so. If you look at the total money supply in circulation to date, approximately 95% has been created by the private banks and only 5%, which is represented by the legal tender, has been created by the government of Canada, through the Bank of Canada. But this wasn't always so, and here is the point that we really have to come to grips with.
I speak now from the perspective of someone my age.

In 1938, in Canada, there were no jobs -- none! Then the war came along and all of a sudden everyone was working either in the armed forces or they were building factories or making munitions. Everybody was working and unemployment was way down to 2% or less. You might ask, "How is this possible -- all of a sudden everyone is working when we were right in the middle of a depression?" Well, what happened, of course, was that the Bank of Canada printed some money -- yes, "printed." It is a bad word to a lot of people. You see, the government instructed the Bank of Canada to print some money and it paid for it by handing over IOUs, in the form of government bonds, to the Bank of Canada. The government then began paying the Bank of Canada interest on those bonds. At the end of each year, the Bank of Canada would pay that interest back, in the form of profits or dividends, to the government. In effect then, the government gave itself interest-free loans by using the Bank of Canada to finance the war. The printed money was spent bv the government into circulation.
When the banks got hold of this money -- defined by economists as "high-powered money" -- they were able to loan out multiples of that money based on the current cash reserve requirements. They loaned that money to the private sector for the construction of factories, the making of munitions and for people to buy war bonds.

In effect, the system we had back then was one where the money creation function was shared between the Government of Canada, using the Bank of Canada, and the private banks. The same thing happened in almost all other countries, including the United States which wasn't too different. And that was the system we had in effect from 1939 to 1974.

In 1974, the Bank of Canada held more than 20% of all federal government debt in the form of bonds and T-bills. As I indicated before, that was the same as an interest-free loan from the government to itself.
In 1974, in concert with other central banks around the world, those in power changed the system. They adopted the ideas of Milton Freedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago and it has been downhill ever since.

Today, the Bank of Canada only holds about 4% of our federal government debt. And when the government stopped buying its share, it encouraged foreigners to buy the bonds it wasn't buying, through high interest rates. That is when we started getting in hock to other countries, like Japan, the U.S., Germany and others. In effect, when the central banks of the world did that, they started to give back to the private banks their virtual monopoly on each nation's money supply.
You may ask what this has got to do with the FTAA and globalization, and the answer is, "Everything!"
- that's a big part of what it's all about.

The new global system is being designed to take away the right of nation states to use their central banks creatively. In 1997, when unemployment in Canada was 8 or 9%, I had some econometric studies done by Infometrica in Ottawa and it showed that with the modest use of government-created money, unemployment could be cut in half in four years and the budget, which was way out of balance then, could be balanced. Not only that, but the GST could be eliminated without replacing it with another tax -- all in four years. That was the alternative to the disastrous 1995 federal budget. That budget was absolutely unnecessary. It managed to either minimize or destroy everything we had built up in the previous 40 or 50 years.
Now, we have the same choice as far as the future is concerned.

If we are going to leave the banks in control, we will not be able to afford proper healthcare, education, environmental protection, the armed forces or anything that really requires some attention. There will be no capacity to do it. Only with government-created money is there any possibility to make the system work for the benefit of the people. And if this is true for us, it's even more true for most of the other countries that are meeting here this weekend in Quebec. The irony of all of this is that our cousins to the South, largely because of the influence of big business and the banks in New York, are pushing this idea of one currency for all, that is, the dollarisation of all currencies in the Americas.
This, in effect, is a form of larceny or theft.

First of all, it takes away our freedom to determine our own destiny, plus it takes away our choices and our lifestyles, but, as well, it takes away hundreds of billions of dollars that are needed for healthcare and education and all of the other social programs from the 33 other countries. So we are being urged to adopt a common currency, similar to the Euro, and by doing that, give up our monetary sovereignty as well as our political sovereignty. The irony is that this was the issue on which the United States' war for independence was fought.
We were told in school it was "tea and taxes."
But Benjamin Franklin in his memoirs said it wasn't about the high tax on tea -- it was about money. The colonies had been printing their own money, called "colonial scrip," because of a shortage of gold and silver coins and that system had been working just fine. The colonists had full employment, were building bigger and better ships and were doing a lot of wonderful things. All of a sudden, the banks in London got wind of it and they realized that they were losing control of their great market in America. So they got the British parliament to pass a law prohibiting the colonies from printing their own money. That, of course, caused a depression which triggered the war for independence. Ironically, the Americans won that war but they lost the next one by allowing the privately owned Federal Reserve system to set up shop in 1913 and adopt, in effect, the British system.

Right now, the choice for the Americas, and for the world for that matter, is whether we are going to be slaves of the private banking system -- or whether we are going to reclaim our monetary sovereignty and use this tremendous power for our own benefit. It is the most important tool in the economic arsenal. There is nothing like it. And we are being asked to give it up without a whimper -- in fact, we have already given it up to a very large extent already. So, we'll have to fight to reclaim it.

To give that power away to private interests means that we are going to be working for the private banks most of our lives. You know, there is a clock that says how long we work for government each year based on all the taxes we pay. Soon we are going to have to have a clock that says how long we will be working for the private banks -- and I don't think that many of the people of the Americas want to be slaves forever to the international banks. I don't think we want to be slaves at all, but that is what we face at the present time. And that is what our democratically elected governments are doing for us, here today -- trading away our freedom. And they wonder why we are protesting ... Let's let them know that we don't want to be slaves to the financial elites.

Friends, the real fight for freedom and genuine democracy has just begun!
(End of Mr. Hellyer's address)

The Honourable Paul Hellyer was Deputy Prime Minister in the Trudeau government in its first term. He is now the leader of the Canadian Action Party; and he is also the author of eleven books including the newly released "Goodbye Canada," available from this Service - $20 postpaid. This address by Mr. Hellyer was first published in the Number 11 issue of Monetary Reform Magazine, which may be contacted at R.R. #2, Shanty Bay, Ontario LOL 2LO. Its phone number is (705) 726-7300, and its e-mail www.monetary-reform.on.ca

Words of Insight and Wisdom
"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." -- William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, 1935

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

Three views on "the war on terrorism"
Bush and Sharon agree on policy

The Toronto Sun, February 3, published the following article, under the above caption, by its foreign affairs correspondent Eric Margolis.

When President George Bush called for a "crusade" against terrorism last fall, flustered aides quickly claimed he had misspoken and really didn't mean to invoke the medieval Christian invasions of Muslim nations. But in his bellicose state of the union speech last week, evangelical Christian George Bush left no doubt that a crusade was exactly what he had meant. Better a crusade than facing the spreading Enron scandal or explaining away a looming deficit brought on by reckless spending. Or explaining the mess made by the administration in Afghanistan: spreading chaos and warfare; Russia's takeover of the north; full force resumption of heroin exports to the U.S. thanks to the overthrow of Taliban; 5,000-plus civilians killed by punitive U.S. bombing; murder or inhumane treatment of captured enemy fighters; and, of course, the escape of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership. No matter.

Afghanistan, trumpets the White House, was a great military victory that will be duplicated against other Muslim malefactors who resist America's will. Bush proclaimed in Churchillian tones that an 'axis of evil' composed of 'terrorist nations' Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, threatened the U.S. and the world.
This silly, simplistic reduction of complex foreign policy issues into comic book terms, and Bush's threats of more military action around the world, made good political theatre in the U.S., where war fever has been stoked to fever pitch by the White House and the all too accommodating American media. Interestingly, the most-wanted on America's new hit list Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- just happen to also be top enemies of Israel. (North Korea supplies missile components and technology to Israel's Arab foes and Pakistan.)

A near unanimity of policy and views has developed between the Bush administration's super-hawks and Israel's hard right Likud government led by Ariel Sharon. Both are intent on liquidating any Muslims who resist, both have declared war on the PLO and its chief, Yasser Arafat, both view resistance by Muslims as "terrorism," and both disregard international law and UN resolutions. In short, Gen. Sharon's iron-fisted policies have become those of George Bush. Bush's speech made it disturbingly clear that the U.S. has become the enemy of the Muslim world. Muslim nations must either bow to American dictate or be deemed hostile.

White House claims that Iran is a mortal danger to the U.S. because:
a) it supports Lebanon's Hezbollah movement, and
b) is trying to develop limited strategic weapons.

This shows how disconnected from reality the administration has become, and how much its policies are being shaped by parties who do not always place America's interests first.

Gueirilla war
Hezbollah waged a long, dirty guerrilla war against Israel's long occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel and its media supporters branded Hezbollah "terrorists." But most nations regarded Hezbollah as a legitimate national resistance movement fighting to free Lebanon from Israeli occupation, which was repeatedly ruled illegal by the UN and in violation of international law. Iran helped arm and finance Hezbollah, whose guerrillas were to Iran what the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan "freedom fighters" were to America. To brand Iran a "terrorist state" because of its support of a legitimate resistance movement is mendacious and Orwellian. Iran has opposed U.S. hegemony in the Mideast, sometimes by covert operations. But bombings of U.S. military bases, long blamed on Iran, were done by the al-Qaida group.

Before damning Iran, look at America's own record. During WWII, the U.S., Britain, and the USSR invaded Iran, an independent nation. In 1953, the U.S. and Britain overthrew Iran's government when it sought to gain control of its own oil resources. The U.S. put Shah Mohammed Pahlavi on the throne and kept his outrageously corrupt kleptomaniac regime in power through the army and the dreaded U.S. and Israel-trained secret police, SAVAK, which tortured and killed tens of thousands of Iranians.

Funding Iraqi military
After the Shah was overthrown by the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. sent Iraq's Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and crush its Islamic government. The U.S. secretly supplied Iraq with money, arms, intelligence, and chemical and biological weapons. The U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner and waged a naval war against Iran in the Gulf. Iraq's invasion cost Iran 250,000-500,000 dead. The U.S. repeatedly sought to overthrow the Iranian government, even financing the terrorist Mujihadin-i-Khalq organization, which assassinated much of Iran's leadership with bombs. Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, but is developing medium-ranged missiles that may reach Israel. Such weapons, claims Iran, are for self-defense, to counter Israel's nuclear/ bioware arsenal. Israel has openly threatened Iran with nuclear attack.
If Iran's missile and strategic weapons program is "terrorism," then Pakistan, India, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, South Korea, Turkey, and many other nations are equally guilty.
Instead of threatening war against Iran, a nation of 68 million, the U.S. should be pressing all Mideast nations -- including Israel -- to scrap their weapons of mass destruction and work for peace in Palestine.

The terrible 9/11 attacks were the result of America's five decades of policy blunders in the Mideast. The U.S. does not need any more enemies.
(End of Mr. Margolis' article)

PoW status helps to keep secrets safe

The February 3rd Toronto Sun, under the above caption, published a column by highly respected columnist Peter Worthington, whose main contention and focus was on:
The position of our new External Affairs Minister, Bi11 Graham, who wants prisoners captured in Afghanistan "treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, ostensibly to ensure they won't be tortured. … isn't the issue. The reason why many countries that routinely ignore the Geneva Convention want PoW status for select prisoners being interrogated at Guantanamo Bay, is unease about what they may tell," says Worthington. Probably quite true. It seems that war itself tends to brutalize both sides to the level of the least civilized.
Mr. Worthington goes on to claim that "criticism of America is emerging in other ways -- such as a revival of accusations that U.S. support of Israel is responsible for terrorism ..." This isn't the story this Service is getting from our monitor-of Middle East observers, Peter.
l Mr. Worthington has high praise for the performance of President Bush, and ends his column as follows: "If you think about it, it's a better, safer world today than it was before Sept. 11 -- thanks to American resolve and the way Bush and his team have maintained purpose, patience, courage and leadership.

Consider: International terrorism, for the first time, is in retreat.
Pakistan's secular President Musharraf has restored control over his country that was threatened by internal religious zealotry mindful of the Taliban.
Russia has emerged as an American ally, with Vladimir Putin and George Bush more allied than any American and Russian leader in memory.
American troops are now based in Kazakhstan and Taijikistan, which would have been unthinkable a year ago.
Even Sweden, long a sanctuary for political terrorists, is now summarily chucking them out -- inconceivable before Sept. 11.
Yemen and Libya, hitherto terrorist sanctuaries, have reconsidered and seem to be taking anti-terrorist stances.
Yasser Arafat is in disarray, and his days numbered, as Israel can more freely attempt to curb terrorism.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein clearly expects to be a target; his allies, such as they are, are disengaging from him.
Britain has found new resolve, and a new Anglo-American alliance is growing.
Even Canada, at long last, is aware its military must be revived, unless the government is content to continue as a freeloader on security and be the Luxembourg of collective defence."

Well, if we can consider outbombing, outkilling and outdevastating foreign countries as effective 'anti-terrorism,' and the road to 'peace,' and all without examining the real cause of this whole carnage, then we can agree with and acclaim the policy and wisdom of President Bush and his advisors.

One of our readers exercises his freedom not to read CIS!

These past few months, we have received three or four mild complaints that our coverage of the 9/11 attack and subsequent 'war against terrorism' has been biased against the U.S., President Bush, and the Israeli state, 'mildly anti-Semitic,' being one term used. But, inasmuch as the Palestinians are a Semitic people, while the Zionist invaders of their homeland are primarily not of Semitic origin, I'll let our readers judge the validity of any charges on this question.

Two or three years ago, during our war against Yugoslavia, we were on the side of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) -- a terrorist revolutionary army of Albanian Moslems who for years, due to a porous Yugoslavian immigration policy plus illegal immigration, had been 'invading' the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. But at that time, no one suggested that we were 'anti-Moslem'! Different strokes for different blokes!

However, recently one of our readers in a large Ontario city, e-mailed us a subscription cancellation plus his thoughts on our 9/11 take. A few excerpts from his scolding:
"Dear Sir: I am totally disgusted with this section of the Canadian Intelligence Service. You seem to have joined the ranks of those who feel that to be a patriotic Canadian means being Anti-American. I for one am fed up with that attitude. As for Eric Margolis, I used to think this American had an unbiased and knowledgeable opinion, now I think he has been smoking something illegal, which he may have got from his buddies the Taliban. The reason I call them his buddies is, I am using 'Dubya' words, you're either for us or against us, and Margolis is so Anti-American it is oozing from every column he has written since Sept. llth. ... "
I think 'Dubya' has done a fantastic job, and I hope he has the backing to keep going and get rid of some of the other terrorist leaders, before they, (with help from useful idiots (Stalin's words) like Margolis and the New Times Survey, attack with a 'Dirty' bomb in a suitcase. "
I realise along with many people that the Middle East is a quagmire, and to constantly insinuate that this is all America's fault does nothing to help this situation. ... You could point out that all of the countries in the Middle East are run in the name of religion. This is the crux of the problem, not one democracy in the whole Arab world, the only exception being Israel.
"… To finish, I am not prepared to renew my subscription, so you can spout off Anti-Americanisms in the guise of Patriotic Canadians. …"

There were many things I could have said to Mr. ---- by way of rejoinder. However, I let things rest for a few weeks, and on January 29, replied as follows:
"Dear Mr. ----: "Your December 22nd e-mail was received last month. I note your reaction and response to our perspective on some aspects of the 'war on terrorism,' and I respect your right to express in no uncertain terms your thoughts on this issue. Thank God for freedom to agree or to disagree. We shall follow your instruction to terminate your subscription when due, but with a sense of sadness. "I respect you as a man of concern and commitment, searching for a world of justice and peace. I, too, share your concern and seek such a world.
"First, a few words about myself: I'm a Canadian in my 84th year, and come from a family much involved in the two Great Wars of the last century. During my life to date, I've witnessed no less than eight wars -- WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War (Iraq), Somalia, Yugoslavia/Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. It seems the general consensus is that we won or stalemated all past seven, as we now get bogged down in No. 8 facing the prospect of an escalating war with the Islamic world. "Therefore, it seems to me that this course we're following these past decades has proven itself rather counter-productive, to say the least. Surely, there must be a better course.
"No, I'm not 'anti-American,' Mr. ----. The American people are my friends and neighbours, victims, too, of these never-ending foreign wars. Many of them are subscribers of this newsletter. Nor do I 'hate' President Bush, though I disagree with his present international policy and question the wisdom of the advice he's getting. Nor do I suggest that Mr. Bush himself, or the members of his Congress, knew in advance of the time and place of the 9/11 attack. But Washington had to know that there was danger of an attack, and surely was aware that American policy in the Middle East -- especially its financing and military buildup of the Israeli state -- is a major cause of the rising hatred and anti-Americanism throughout the Islamic world.
"So, what can we do to alleviate our present situation and danger? My suggestions, and the policy being put forward by this Service, include the following points:

Recognizing that, due largely to lax immigration policies in the Western World since WWII especially in the USA, Canada and the UK, we now face a terrorist enemy both from without and within, therefore we must tighten up our immigration policies, especially from those countries from which most of the terrorists have come.
At the same time the US, Canada, the UK and other allies, must relentlessly track down terrorists already within our borders, incarcerate them until our security situation is completely under control, and then punish them, under the law, for their criminal acts. At the same time, use every avenue necessary to persuade foreign countries who may be harbouring suspected terrorists wanted for crimes within or against our countries, to extradite such persons to stand trial in our jurisdictions.
And, immediately, our Western leaders should meet, discuss and assess the policies and actions on our part which have offended and contributed to the escalation of bitterness and hatred within certain third-world countries, especially within the Islamic world.
Hopefully, this would lead to a larger international meeting, including Islamic and other countries feeling aggrieved. Out of this might come some real soul-searching and the first step towards better international understanding -- and the faith and trust essential for any genuine, lasting reconciliation and peace.
It''s worth a try! "My warm regards, Mr. ----, "Ron Gostick (Publisher)"

A Few Words of Comment (to our readers)
I should add that my January 29th letter evoked a reply dated February 1, which was respectful and made some very valid points, such as that "years of incompetent government in Canada have left us defenseless," and completely dependent upon the USA for defense of our country. Militarily, right on!
That "the United States is a democracy, with all the mistakes and errors that entails. They have had good Presidents and bad Presidents, but we only need to look in the mirror to see bad and incompetent leaders starting with Pearson, through Trudeau, Mulroney, and the present incompetent.
Our foreign policy is downright criminal, with squandered money, and supporting corrupt regimes like Castro's.
Our domestic policy with its waste and patronage, our defense policy which would be a joke if it weren't for the fact that we endanger the lives of our soldiers with old and faulty equipment. …"
Right on! We've been pounding away on the shameful quality of federal government for years past.
And his final point: "It is militarily STUPID to criticize your allies." I respect that admonition, but with this caveat: A true friend and patriot, involved with friends and allies in an action involving major consequences for all of us, not only has a right, but indeed a solemn duty, to warn of any overlooked factor or danger which could prove costly or disastrous to all concerned. -R.G.

On Target Section

Hail Switzerland!
We recently received by e-mail the following piece by widely respected American journalist, Joseph Sobran.

Whenever I hear someone brag that America is "the greatest country on earth," I want to ask, "Have you ever been to Switzerland?" Well, I have. I spent a whole week there once. Very dull. No war, no international crisis, no crime, none of the things that give life its savour for red-blooded people like us. Nobody even knew who the president of the country was. The Swiss have never even had a great president. Their national hero is still that guy with the crossbow. Their national pastime is yodelling. I don't intend the blasphemous suggestion that Switzerland is the Greatest Country on Earth, but it has a fair claim to be the sanest. It has had less history over the last thousand years than most African countries have had in the last generation. You know the old Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." The Swiss have no memory of interesting times.
They have a proud history of not making history.

Switzerland sat out two world wars, for which it is resented by the sort of people who think war is a duty. The Swiss seem to feel that the rest of the world can enjoy mutual slaughter perfectly well without them. They have never joined the United Nations, NATO, or the European Union. They are content to hunker down within their sheltering Alps, while Americans will cross oceans, simultaneously if necessary, to get into a good war. Nor do they have troops, battleships, submarines, and military bases around the world. And no nukes.

In short, the Swiss are what all right-thinking people have learned to call "isolationists." They have stubbornly maintained their independence. As a result, an awful lot of Swiss didn't die violent deaths in the twentieth century. Oh, by the way, the Swiss aren't afflicted by terrorism. Osama bin Laden has probably never heard of Switzerland, unless he stashes his money there. It may not be the Greatest Country on Earth, but nobody calls it the Great Satan, either. Not that the Swiss aren't ready to defend themselves. The men are required by law to serve in the militia and keep firearms in their homes. But when they say "defense," they mean defense -- not empire, not New World Order, not "global leadership."

They have a federal system of government, and in Switzerland federal still, oddly enough, means decentralized. Each canton treasures its independence. The national president has little power, little opportunity to achieve "greatness." The Swiss franc is one of the world's most stable currencies. Swiss banks are the world's most secure vaults. Naturally, a country like that, free, peaceful, and prosperous, isn't going to be left alone. A few years ago there was an outcry against Switzerland as a repository of "Nazi gold," which turned out to be a scam, an attempt to blackmail the Swiss. They were given a choice between coughing up billions or facing international opprobrium and sanctions. It later transpired that the Nazi gold was mythical, the accusations a cynical smear campaign. Independence is always hated by centralizers and internationalists.

The papacy is hated because the Pope, unlike politicians and journalists, can't be bought or bullied. Switzerland is hated because it remains aloof from the "international community." I'd offer other shining examples of resistance to the pressures of internationalism, if I could think of any. Switzerland has enjoyed the kind of history Americans once hoped for. But while America has been drawn back into the quarrels of the Old World its people had hoped to escape, Switzerland has in effect managed to secede from the world's strife without leaving the continent. If you want excitement in Switzerland, you just have to roll your own; the state won't provide it for you.

You can sum it up by saying Switzerland is a country that has lost more lives in skiing accidents than in war. The story of Switzerland is the greatest political success story of the modern world, yet we never hear about it. Why not? Because it puts all other states to shame. Most rulers want to Americanize their countries; but if they really cared about their people's welfare -- lives, liberty, property, and all that -- they would try to Swissify. It's a sign of the times that I am forced to coin this indispensable verb. (End of Mr. Sobran's article)

A note on "Globalization" and "Anti-Terrorism"
We received a Jan. 15th e-mail, which included a significant press release by the leader of the Canadian Action Party. Here is an excerpt:

"TORONTO - In a statement today, Paul Hellyer, leader of the Canadian Action Party, said he was deeply disturbed by the Foreign Affairs Committee's plan to force the government's hand on the subject of further Canada-U.S. integration including the possible adoption of the U.S. dollar. " 'I am outraged that Bill Graham, chairman of the committee, would present the plan to hold country-wide hearings as a genuine exercise in democracy, designed to encourage debate, when in fact it is just "process" as a prelude to propaganda.'
"Hellyer is particularly concerned that the committee's mandate has been either influenced or determined by Bill Graham, M.P. for Toronto Centre-Rosedale (and since, appointed our new External Affairs Minister - Ed., CIS).
'Graham is a member of the Trilateral Commission and this would pre-determine the nature of the outcome.'

"In his latest book, Goodbye Canada, Hellyer points out that the Trilateral Commission is one of the three major organizations pushing the idea of a world without borders designed to benefit the richest and most powerful people at the expense of both democracy and economic justice. …"

FROM MONTH TO MONTH

RCMP Boss goes imperial style
The Toronto Sun, Jan 24, published a report captioned RCMP sarge slams boss. Here are excerpts:

"OTTAWA - RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's extravagant spending has demoralized the rank-and-file and undermined potential pay hikes, a 35-year veteran of the force charged.
"In a scathing e-mail obtained by Sun Media, Newmarket Staff Sgt. Peter MacNeill blasted his boss for his 'ostentatiousness' and demanded he set a better example for the troops by tightening his belt when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. " 'Members are extremely disappointed by this kind of spending and believe your actions will only serve to undermine the RCMP and our dealings with Treasury Board in any discussions about underfunding as well as our pay and benefits,' wrote MacNeill in his Dec. 3 e-mail to the commissioner. ...

"Access to information documents obtained by Sun Media last year revealed Zaccardelli billed taxpayers $1,064 for a pair of custom-made riding boots. ... The documents also revealed government decorators spared no expense in redoing (his) office at RCMP headquarters last spring. Some $180,000 was spent to renovate his digs ... "

'This is not about legitimate repairs or even reasonable upgrades to the commissioner's office. It's about an imperial style that has absolutely no place in ... a police organization,' (MacNeill) wrote.
" While this kind of inter-office e-mails at RCMP HQ raises a question about the quality of discipline and morale within the force, it would seem that perhaps our Prime Minister's obscene profligacy with buddies and patronage is rather contagious in Ottawa. Certainly the commissioner should be able to catch criminals on foot with those grand imperial boots!

Canadian sanctions against Zimbabwe?
The Jan. 25th National Post carried a report captioned "Canada pushes for sanctions against Harare." Here are excerpts:

"OTTAWA - Canada condemned Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's President, yesterday for cracking down on the media and opposition forces and said Ottawa would urge a crucial meeting of Commonwealth ministers next week to consider imposing sanctions on Harare.

"Joining a chorus of international complaints, Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that effective international pressure had to be brought to bear on Mr. Mugabe before a presidential poll in March in which he is seeking re-election. ... "
'I will be advocating we should be exploring the use of sanctions by the Commonwealth as a way of, if not effectively ending what he (Mugabe) is doing, at least demonstrating we have a policy which is totally disapproving of his present conduct,' Mr. Graham said. …

" Well, if we can remember back to the mid- to late-'Sixties, our Commonwealth had sanctions against Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) because the government, then headed by liberally-minded Ian Smith, was cracking down on Marxist revolutionaries of the Mugabe stripe, who by terrorism were attempting to seize control of the country. That was the time of our Liberal government of Lester Pearson.

Liberals oppose tighter immigration
The National Post, Jan. 14, published a report captioned "Immigration Bill an 'Ambush': MPs." Here are excerpts:

"Elinor Caplan, the federal Immigration Minister, faces an uprising from Liberal backbenchers disturbed by Canada's new retroactive immigration policy, with one prominent Grit saying urban MPs have been politically 'ambushed.' "Liberal MPs have been caught off guard by the tougher rules, especially a clause that would probably see the federal government disqualify thousands of immigration applicants on Canada's waiting list. ...

"Mark Assad, Liberal MP for the Quebec riding of Gatineau and a member of the Commons immigration committee, ... predicts that he and other Liberal MPs who make up a majority of the committee will come out against (the) retroactive clause. ...

"Liberal MPs, especially those in big cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, have historically enjoyed strong support from new Canadians in their ridings. …" Right on! That's precisely why the Liberals, from the Pearson/Trudeau era to the present day, have been using a loose open-door policy to flood our cities with third-world immigrants who will naturally vote Liberal and keep them in power for decades to come.
Our governments' concern and actions have not been determined by the needs and welfare of our country -- but rather by what will keep them in office and power.

PM admits Canada becoming helpless!
The National Post, this past Dec. 22nd, carried a report captioned "PM: Only U.S. can end our recession." A few excerpts:

"OTTAWA - In an unusual admission of powerlessness, Jean Chretien said yesterday that Canada has become so economically dependent on the United States that it must rely on the Americans to lift our economy out of recession. ... "Canada must rely on the economic management of George W. Bush, the U.S. President, to revive the North American and even the global economy, he said. ... " 'We are very much dependent on the American economy because 87% of our exports is in that market' ... the Prime Minister said."

Isn't it strange that years ago, when Canada's population was much smaller, and our vast natural resources largely untapped, we were able to stand proudly on our own feet, depending on no single foreign market for prosperity or national defence. Yet, today, with our great natural resources now pouring forth great wealth, which the U.S. needs -- probably more than we need her fruit, vegetables and warm-weather condos - we're ready to roll over and surrender our independence! My God! I ask what's happened to the spirit of Our True North, Strong and Free? There's something fundamentally wrong here, Mr. Prime Minister.

Canadians somewhat divided on 'war'
Press reports these past three months indicate -- at both political and media levels -- that there is some difference of opinion in Canada concerning the expansion of our "war against terrorism." For instance: A report in the National Post, Dec. 21/2001, captioned "PM Balks at Hitting Iraq Next," said, in part:

"Jean Chretien ... has warned the United States that Canada will not support an attack on Iraq if the issue of UN weapons inspectors is used as the justification. ... "Mr. Chretien said Canadian forces had joined the international coalition to fight the Taliban and the al-Qaeda network of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. " 'The question of development of armaments of (mass) destruction is a problem that is debated at the UN and is not the object of the coalition,' he said. …"

Toronto Sun writer Peter Worthington, in his Feb. 6th column, drew attention to President Bush's strong resolve to continue his war against terrorism, now on the "Axis of Evil," comprised of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Worthington's piece:

"This week's Time (as the Sun reported last week) credits that nice David Frum with the 'Axis of Evil' phrase, while on Chris Matthews' Hardball political analysis show, Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens said 'a Canadian, David Frum,' one of Bush's speech writers, came up with the phrase. "There's some irony in a Canadian (my son-in-law) coming up with this memorable phrase, since the Canadian government is among those countries uneasy about any actions against Iraq and Saddam Hussein -- the obvious evil target. "The genius of the Axis-of-Evil inclusion, is that it doesn't concentrate on Muslims only, and is a figurative shot across the bow of North Korea and Iran -- as well as unmentioned regimes and groups for whom the definition of 'evil' fits. ...
"Iran was behind the ship loaded with arms destined for Yasser Arafat that Israel intercepted …"

Quite so, Peter, but you might have mentioned that another country closer to home, where your son-in-law is employed, for half a century had been pouring money and weapons into that little country which has been invading and terrorizing Mr. Arafat's homeland! But we quite understand why, for family reasons, that wouldn't be too wise.

Political writer Edward Greenspon, in his Feb. 9th Globe and Mail column, quotes our new Deputy Prime Minister John Manley:

"I don't think the war against terrorism should extend beyond what we see as being direct links to Sept. 11; and, without a connection to that, I don't think that countries that are involved as part of that campaign are going to want to see it extended." Mr. Greenspon, further quotes Mr. Manley:
"I think we tell Americans when we think they're wrong and we go along with them when they are right. ... "
Sovereignty is about being able to make choices. The irony in Parliament, it seems to me, is half the time the Alliance party wants us to agree with the United States even when they're wrong and the NDP wants us to disagree with the United States even when they're right…."

The same Feb. 9th G&M. in its Political Notebook column, had the following little item captioned "Day glow":

"When your adversaries applaud loudest when you return to the field, you might be in trouble. "Former Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day, who is hoping to reclaim his job, made a rare appearance in the Commons this week to ask the government to condemn the Palestinians. "As he stood to ask his question, he received a boisterous round of mock applause from the Liberals. " 'I am moved my Liberal friends missed me,' he told the house. 'But do not despair, I promise them I will be coming back.' "More boisterous Liberal applause. A curious silence from the Alliance benches."

Rather pathetic, to put it mildly: the politically prodigal son returns home, and the most inspiring message he has for his friends and colleagues is "condemn the Palestinians" -- the poor, homeless people who for half a century have been victimized and despoiled in their ancient homeland.
Well, at least Stockwell makes even Mr. Chretien look good! Getting our priorities right!

THE BATTLE FOR CANADA
(Cont'd from last month) Twenty years ago, in 1980, Eric Butler and I co-authored a booklet titled The Battle For Canada, published by The Canadian League of Rights. Our past two issues reproduced the first part of the booklet dealing with our political/constitutional problem at that time. In this March issue we are reproducing the first few sections of the second part of the booklet, by Eric Butler . --Ron Gostick

FOUNDATION STONES OF CANADIAN UNITY
-- By Eric D. Butler --

Some Canadians may regard it as an impertinence for an Australian to offer any suggestions concerning a reformed Canadian Constitution. But Canadians, along with Americans, belong to the same stream of history as Australians. We share a common heritage, and that heritage is under the same type of attack everywhere. What is left of that heritage is now struggling to survive against the dark forces of totalitarianism. And if those who share this common heritage do not stand together, supporting each other, they will collapse separately. What I have to say is based upon a long study of the history of government, and is designed to assist Canadians make what could be a vital contribution to the defence of the whole of Western Civilization, which in turn would benefit Australians. I also have a strongly personal interest in the future of Canada: my five grandchildren are Canadians.

The Purpose of a Constitution
One of the tragedies of these critical times is that relatively few understand that the question of individual rights, freedom and security, is directly associated with the idea of a constitution of some description. The mere mention of the term "constitutionalism" creates in the minds of many a picture of lawyers arguing about dry, technical, legal matters of no importance to the great majority of people, or beyond their understanding. But most human activities are governed by the idea of a constitution of some kind -- the idea that it is necessary to define, in advance, relationships which individuals can observe. Even the simplest game played by children requires a set of rules which all agree to observe.
There has been much loose talk in recent years about freedom, as though this were a situation where the individual does as he likes. True freedom is impossible without rules which govern human relationships, and which all agree to obey.

What is called the Rule of Law does not restrict the freedom of the individual, but alone prevents anarchy and guarantees true freedom. Road laws are an example of a set of rules which ensure, if all individuals obey them, maximum freedom and security for all. Constitutional rules are not only necessary to govern relationships between individuals, but also to govern relationships between individuals and governments. The defence of the rights of individuals requires defence of constitutions which are designed to ensure that those rights are inviolable and not to be ignored by any government, irrespective of its majority.
Constitutional rules concerning governments must be related to basic truths which cannot be altered by voting, but which must be accepted. Which raises the question of the true purpose and realities respecting government.

Servant or Master?
The long history of government reveals certain truths which we ignore at our peril. One of the greatest men of this century, the late C. H. Douglas, made the profound observation that the rules of the universe transcend human thinking, cannot be changed, and that the sensible thing to do is to discover what those rules are and then make every endeavour to obey them. The ultimate source of all Authority is God. As Malcolm Muggeridge points out in his brilliant little essay, The Great Liberal Death Wish, the end result of rejecting belief in God is not the obliteration of belief, but rather belief in every absurd idea of which the human mind is capable.

The basic question concerning human associations and government, is philosophical. It is a waste of time even discussing constitutional reform until this basic question is resolved. If there is no general belief amongst the members of a society about the purpose of institutions and governments, then no satisfactory constitutional rules can be evolved. In this situation, a reformed Canadian Constitution could even worsen the present critical problems by further centralizing power.

Ever since men have been striving to govern themselves, the central problem has been how to create a government which does not become a tyrant. It has been said that there is no such thing as good government, that all government should be regarded as a necessary evil, and that the minimizing of the evil requires that the powers of governments be strictly curtailed. One of the absolutes concerning government was enunciated by the famous British Christian philosopher and historian, Lord Acton, when he said, "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Rejecting the Christian concept of absolutes, the liberal mind stresses what ought to be instead of accepting reality as it is.

Another distinguished British historian, Lord Bryce, wrote in his History of Modern Democracies, that the tendency of all governments is to increase their own power. The late James Guthrie, in his excellent little work on government, Our Sham Democracy, observed that "Governments are a very convenient means of taking power from the individual and handing it over to a legal abstraction called the 'State.' This tremendous accretion of power is then used by a small gang to impoverish and destroy any section of society which manages to raise its head above the serf state..."
Guthrie stresses that genuine democratic government requires effective decentralization of power, with government as close to the people as possible. The elevation of government into an end in itself instead of being but a means to the end of serving the individual, is a manifestation of the type of sin condemned by the early Christian philosophers.

As in so many other areas of human activities, the concept of bigger and more centralized government being more "efficient," readily appeals to the liberal mind. The call for "strong government" is but an echo of the cry of the desperate Romans, as their civilization disintegrated, for a strong Caesar. The more power is centralized by governments, the less power there is for the people. And the more centralized power becomes, the more difficult it becomes for the Member of Parliament, no matter how conscientious, to be responsible for how the power is used. The inevitable result is the delegation of power to a vast army of irresponsible bureaucrats, governing by regulations, ordinances and decrees which have the force of law.

A former British Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, warned of the erosion of self-government shortly after the First World War in his aptly entitled classic, The New Despotism. Lord Hewart's work caused a stir when first published. But the centralization of government power continued everywhere, with the result that by 1952, seven years after the end of the Second World War, the eminent British constitutional authority, Professor G. W. Keeton, was writing in his prophetic book, The Passing of Parliament, "The history of modern political society is in large measure the history of the struggle of the ordinary citizen to exercise some influence upon government and of his repeated failure to achieve that modest ambition."

One chapter in Professor Keeton's book carried the chilling heading, On the Road to Moscow. He pointed out that the act of political voting does not of itself protect the individual against tyranny. Voting must take place inside a constitutional framework which effectively curbs the power of government and enables the individual to have effective control. The term "democracy" is derived from the Greek, meaning that the will of "demos" -- the people -- prevails.

During the period of the Greek Civilization, it was demonstrated that effective self-government was possible in the small City States. In some cases, representatives were selected by drawing lots and those chosen risked death if they did not perform satisfactorily. This type of threat no doubt kept the politicians of that period alert to the necessity of producing satisfactory results for their fellows! Something similar is required for today in order that electors may quickly call for the "political death" of those politicians not genuinely serving their electors.

Like the Romans who borrowed from them, the Greeks grappled with the age-old problem of how to curb the power of government and protect the liberties of the people. The technique of dividing power, and providing in-built checks and balances, was developed with the bicameral system of government, with a Lower House and an Upper House, generally known as a Senate. The Roman Civilization eventually collapsed, not because of the superiority of the barbarians outside but because of an internal rot resulting basically from escalating debt, crushing taxation, progressive monetary inflation, and an attempt to prevent disintegration by centralizing excessive power in Rome -- with the inevitable consequent growth in bureaucracy and corruption.

The lessons of history are clear: excessive centralization of power always produces destructive friction between both individuals and groups, as witnessed by developments not only in Canada but throughout the world; and, conversely, true unity is possible only when an association respects the diversity of individuals and groups. This is one of those absolutes which no liberal theorizing can change.

Christian Constitutionalism
As admitted by the Christian leader Augustine, most of the basic truths concerning politics had been enunciated by the Greek philosophers before the Christian era; yet, even the great Aristotle could only conceive of liberty as an expediency, not as an end. The coming of Christ, who claimed to speak with the Authority of God the Father, completely revolutionized all prevailing conceptions of human association. Christ's message was not directed towards groups, organizations or any other manifestations of collectivism. It was directed towards individuals. Every individual counted and was unique in the eyes of God. Every individual could come to know the Father through the Son. The leading proponents of collectivism of that day, the Pharisees, were swept aside with the revelation that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath -- which meant that all systems must serve the individual.
There was the amazing statement that the individual should render unto Caesar only those things that belong to Caesar, but unto God the things that belong to God. Christ was saying, in effect, that as man is a social being he must live together in society and therefore requires government, but not so much government that there is nothing left for the individual with which to serve God. Thus did Christ give the State a legitimacy it had never had previously; but He also set bounds which had never previously been acknowledged.

In resisting the temptation of complete world dominion on the Mount, Christ rejected the concept of using power to create the Kingdom of God on earth. There are good reasons for believing that the early Christians were persecuted by the Roman Imperial Power not so much because they held religious views -- other groups at that time also held religious views -- but because the Christian's allegiance was to a higher power, to which even Caesar must be subservient.

Over the subsequent centuries, the Christian Church and its philosophers were concerned with the question of how to limit the powers of Caesar and to establish the God-given rights of the individual. A civilization is much more than material achievements; it is the incarnation of undergirding religious values and moral principles. Western Civilization was the partial incarnation -- the Word made flesh -- of Christian values and principles. The evolution of constitutional government, social behaviour and the arts all reflected the attempt to create an order in which, under the Authority of God and His Laws, the individual was secure in his rights and could develop his uniqueness.

Beyond doubt, one of the most distinctive manifestations of the Christian incarnation was in the British Isles, where local, decentralized government was held to be in accordance with the Christian concept of ensuring that power was in the hands of the individuals of society. The evolution of the Trinitarian structure of Government -- the House of Commons, or Lower House; the House of Lords, both temporal and spiritual; and a Christian Monarchy -- was a reflection of the Christian doctrine of the Trinitarian nature of Reality.

A genuinely Christian society is one in which the individual is secure in his God-given rights and in which there is balance and harmony. It is little known that up until 1917 British Lord Chancellors had expressly stated that Christianity was part and parcel of the English Common Law. The essence of English Common Law, as distinct from Roman Law, is that a system of law must be concerned with justice and rights for every individual.

Under English Common Law, an individual is held to be innocent until he is proved guilty. The spirit of the law is much more important than the letter of the law, a cleavage brought out in Shakespeare's play, The Merchant of Venice. Shylock insists that the letter of the law is the most important, even if it means death as the pound of flesh is taken. Portia's mercy speech is a reflection of the Christian viewpoint concerning law.

When a British House of Lords, weakened by the growing liberal, humanistic influence, declared in 1917 that Christianity is no longer part of the English Common Law, this was a turning away from a major feature of the Christian constitutional heritage. It was a break with the tradition of law as expressed by the great British constitutional authority, William Blackstone, who wrote: "The Law of Nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding all over the globe in all countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this..."
If man rejects the concept of government being subordinate to the Law of God, and accepts the doctrine of the "supremacy of parliament," now so prevalent throughout the world, the individual is left with little or no protection against Caesar.

One of the most influential Marxists of this century, Professor Harold Laski, who indoctrinated thousands of students at the London School of Economics, stressed that the idea of Christianity being an essential part of the British Constitution should be rejected in favour of the concept of the "sovereignty of parliament." The end result of the doctrine of the "supremacy of parliament" was spelt out clearly in the British House of Commons in 1946 when the Attorney-General in the Socialist Government said, "Parliament is sovereign, it can make any laws. It could ordain that all blue-eyed babies be destroyed at birth."

Commenting on this frank admission of what the "supremacy of parliament" means, Sir William Holdworthy, Professor of Law at the University of Oxford, said: "Herod could not teach our modern jurists anything. They are grimly earnest -- "Laws may be iniquitous, but they cannot be unjust.' " William Penn observed that if men are not governed in accordance with the Law of God, they will be ruled by Tyrants.

Prime Minister Trudeau attended the London School of Economics in 1947. According to Weekend Magazine No. 13, 1966, he told Canadian newsman Norman Depoe that Professor Harold Laski was "the most stimulating and powerful influence he has encountered."

Canada Could Learn from the United States

Visitors to Rynnymede on the Thames River, near London, will see a sign erected by the American Bar Association to draw attention to the fact that the roots of American constitutional development, based upon English Common Law, can be traced back to the historic signing of Magna Carta in 1215.

The United States of America belongs to the same stream of history as Canada and all other parts of the English-speaking world. Many Canadians overlook the fact that although the American constitutional system is Republican rather than Monarchical, it is a system derived from the same constitutional root as the Canadian system. The American Founding Fathers spoke of including "the genius of the British Constitution" in their written Constitution. Having been forced to revolt against the excessive centralization of the British Government of the day, American colonists were concerned with producing a Constitution which would ensure that they did not end up with a local Caesar exercising centralized power.

Writing in his Origins of the American Revolution, John C. Miller pointed out that the British Government of the time had violated the traditional British concept of limited government and a common law which,guaranteed the rights of all individuals. Miller wrote: "In rejecting natural law, Englishmen also denied the colonists' intention that there were metes and bounds to the authority of Parliament. The authority of Parliament was, in their opinion, unlimited, and the supremacy of Parliament had come to mean to Englishmen an uncontrolled and uncontrollable authority. Indeed, the divine right of kings had been succeeded by the divine right of Parliament .... It was the refusal of Americans to bow before the new divinity which precipitated the American Revolution."

In keeping with the spirit of the traditional British Constitution, the American colonists attempted to keep political power decentralized and divided. With few exceptions, the American States have Upper as well as Lower Houses. All the States are equally represented in the American Senate -- a powerful part of the American system of government.
With a House of Representatives, a Senate and a President with Veto powers, the American constitutional system is a reflection of the Trinitarian concept of government. The President might be described as an elected Monarch for a limited period of time. But although the President is the Head of State, the oath of loyalty in the USA is not to the President of the day, but to the Constitution -- this being originally designed to enshrine the permanent values of the nation.

The informed Monarchist will stress that, unlike the election of-the President in the USA, which divides the people as the parties struggle for power, the Monarch is automatically selected by the hereditary principle and unites a people rather than fragmenting them. There can be no power struggle to become the Monarch.

Writing on the occasion of the Queen's Silver Jubilee, Sir Arthur Bryand pointed out that "although as sovereign she has no part in governing, by wearing the crown and reigning, she speaks for us all. The Queen is the ultimate representative of the whole nation.
'The wisdom of our forefathers,' wrote Disraeli, 'placed the prize of supreme power without the sphere of human passions. Whatever the struggle of parties, whatever the strife of factions ... there has always been something in this country round which all classes and parties could rally.' Others are elected to represent our different and conflicting interests and opinions, but the Queen belongs to no class and no party, and her interest is that of the nation as a whole.
She is the common denominator of our democracy, the representative, not of a part of the people, but of the people themselves. ... The hereditary throne links the whole nation in a timeless union, the component parts with one another, and the living with the dead."

At the Queen's Coronation Service she was asked, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?" The Coronation Service reflects the traditional Christian view that the Crown as part of the Constitution must also be subordinate to the Law of God.

Canadians, in reforming their Constitution, would be extremely shortsighted to reject that which is of such priceless value. Every effort should be made to increase understanding of the value of the Monarchy, and to stress the role it can play in producing true Canadian unity. The events which led up to the Magna Carta in 1215, and the developments which took place on the Isle of Runnymede, contain vital lessons for Canadians today. The nature of Reality of God's world, has not changed over the intervening centuries. When King John, the Caesar of the day, had monopolized all power to the point where he was destroying the God-given rights of Englishmen, developed over hundreds of years under the influence of the Christian Church, he provoked an eventual revolt.

Significantly, the Marxists sneer at Magna Carta, claiming it was only the result of a type of class war between the King and Barons. The truth is that the Barons of the day were far better representatives of the people than are the party political hacks of today. They certainly provided the military sanctions necessary to force King John to negotiate. But the ultimate sanctions were provided by the Church leaders present, the most distinguished of these being the great Archbishop Stephen Langton. Here was the Christian Church, claiming to speak with authority concerning God's laws, not insisting that complete power should be taken from one man and given to another group of men, but that power should be divided and subject to God's Law.

As the British historian, Sir Arthur Bryant, writes in his History of England: "It was not Langton's wish to see the Crown overthrown, the law ignored, the realm divided, the Barons petty tyrants. What he wanted was that the King should preserve the laws his predecessors created. And it was to the law that the Archbisop appealed, not only of man, but of God. For it was the essence of mediaeval philosophy that God ruled the earth, and that man, and kings above men, should further His ends by doing justice or it was not in Christian eyes justice at all."
There was a time when Christian Church leaders were capable of putting the fear of God into Caesars.
In more recent times, they have abdicated their responsibilities and so Caesar keeps on robbing the individual of that which belongs to God.

It is not surprising that the majority of people, reeling under the impact of Caesar's direct tax burden, the hidden and immoral tax burden known as inflation, usury in the form of cruel interest rates, the progressive centralization of all power, and seeing no evidence of Christian leaders challenging Caesar, do not feel that Christianity is of any relevance in today's world.

The distinguished Canadian publisher and editor, Richard Malone, writing in The Globe and Mail, June 21, 1979, warned of the growing and irresponsible Power of Ottawa, and then went on to remind Canadians that "It should be remembered that our constitution derives directly from both the Magna Carta in 1215 and the Petition of Rights assented to by King Charles I (exactly 350 years ago this month). These charters, in both cases, were primarily drawn for the protection and liberty of the individual and his property against the power of the state. They were hailed as famous victories for the people, not the rulers."

Mr. Malone draws attention to the point that "An essential aspect of the Magna Carta was to prevent unjust taxation and levies against a person's income, capital and property," and asks the question: "Should we now establish some limits to reinforce this purpose?"
Modern governments have increasingly rejected the concept of having their powers restricted by any moral restraints, which means that they operate in a moral vacuum and become increasingly totalitarian. Dr. Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda director, in a moment of candour once said that the Nazis used the democratic voting system to obtain office and then "legally" proceeded to ensure that they had no effective opposition. The Marxists hold the same view.

Some type of Marxist state, even if not described as such, is inevitable if the view is accepted that once a government is elected, irrespective of what propaganda trickery it used to achieve that objective, that under the doctrine of the "supremacy of parliament," it can do as it likes. Those involved in producing a reformed Constitution for Canada should heed the message of Magna Carta.

It is essential that the Christian clergy be challenged to follow the example of Archbishop Langton and insist that such a renewed Constitution is based on the Law of God, and that Caesar's power be curbed.

Unity in Diversity

Traditional British representative government attempted to ensure that all interests, not only numbers, were represented. A nation consists of its constituent parts, and true unity can only be achieved through respect for the diversity of the parts. No federal system of government can be successful unless this truth is accepted. When representatives of the Australian States were working towards establishing a Federation, they rejected the Canadian system because it was felt to be too centralized! The American system was preferred because of the attempt to divide and decentralize power. The Australians also considered the Swiss system of federation, relatively one of the most successful in the world. The major reason for this success is that, although there are three major language groups, the Federal Government is regarded as the servant of the constituent parts, with power decentralized down to the cantons. And a system of initiative referendum and recall provides electors with the opportunity to force votes on major issues and to recall unsatisfactory members of parliament without waiting for general elections.
So far from Swiss constitutional provisions resulting in never-ending petitions, referenda and by-elections, the mere existence of these provisions tends to ensure that Swiss politicians are sensitive to the wishes of their electors.

Although New Zealanders at one time were interested in the possibility of New Zealand's becoming part of the proposed Australian Federation, they ultimately rejected the idea because they feared excessive centralization of government. It was only with the greatest difficulty that a majority of electors in the separate States were persuaded to vote for the establishment of a Federation, which began at the dawn of this century. The advantages of the States' associating were obvious.

In such a large geographic area, a federal government could, for example, more effectively look after defence and foreign policy than could the separate States. Free trade among the States offered economic benefits. But the main fear was that a central government would inevitably start increasing its powers at the expense of the States. Every effort was therefore made to ensure that the Federal Government was the servant of the constituent States, with the written Constitution limiting the powers of the Federal Government, major powers being left under the jurisdiction of the States. The creation of a directly-elected Senate, with each State, irrespective of size or population, having the same number of Senators, was designed to further protect the rights of the States.

The framers of the Australian Constitution attempted to make provision for the creation of new States as the Australian island continent was developed. However, as predicted by far-seeing observers, the Federal Government progressively used financial power to invade the rights of the States. The same development has taken place in the United States. Excessive centralization of power in both Australia and the USA has resulted in the same type of internal friction now afflicting Canada. The States are in open conflict with the Federal Governments. As yet, their position is stronger than that of the Canadian Provinces, primarily because of a more effective Senate system.

No effective and long-term decentralization of power is possible which does not include decentralization of financial power. The constituent parts of a federal system must have sufficient financial sovereignty to look after those matters which come within their jurisdiction. It can be predicted with absolute certainty that no true Canadian unity can be achieved unless it is based upon an acceptance of the principle that a federal system must be an association of constituent, diverse parts. And a major constitutional requirement is a Senate reflecting that diversity.

Government should create our money supply

The following letter by James Wilson, under the above caption, was published recently in the St.Catharins Standard: "Re. the Point/Counterpoint column in The Standard, Feb. 26:
With all due respect to columnists Randy Taylor and Doran F. Hallett, there are some fundamental points about debt and deficit issues that were not addressed. "Canada is far from being unique in our financial problems. "Although there is now more money in existence than at any time in the world's history, almost all the world's governments, rich, poor or in-between, stagger under massive debt loads. Why? "The short answer is that it's because of our present monetary system.
The plight of governments worldwide could be compared to Ma and Pa taking out their house mortgage from loan sharks. Scimp and save as they might, their debt is just not repayable, it is never going to be repaid, and the interest payments are going to go on and on forever. "This situation was not created accidentally by wasteful government spending on social programs; indeed, some of the world's most heavily indebted countries have no social programs at all. "No, this debt load is an innate feature of the present system of financing governments worldwide. And as long as the present financial system continues, the over-indebtedness/ cutback cycle will continue.

"The only solution to the problem of government debt is to return government to its rightful role as major creator of our money supply. "Government currently creates less than 5% of the money supply, while private banks create over 95%. "Ah, the naysayers will cry, but what is being proposed is something for nothing! There's no such thing as a free lunch! You have to pay the piper!

"Well, just consider for a moment just exactly what you paid for any of the following items: Textiles; the wheel; language; writing; the printing press; Arabic numerals; trial by jury; democracy; the physics of Newton and Einstein ... and many more. Yes, you got "something for nothing" -- in fact, you got quite a bit for nothing.
"These priceless inheritances have all come down to us absolutely free. Just by virtue of being born, every human being has a right to share in these blessings of civilization. "One day, I believe that another of civilization's blessings will be a financial system founded upon the ideal that individuals, businesses and governments alike shall be free of a debt-based money system that systematically enslaves the many as it enriches the few...."

COMMENT: One thing is certain: It's no more inflationary for the Bank of Canada to create money than it is for any of our private banks; but were our governments to use its own bank for more of its financial credit requirements, there would be a tremendous saving in interest costs, which become the main component in public debt. Yes, and less multi-billion-dollar bank executives!

THE BATTLE FOR CANADA cont..

An Australian Lesson

The defeat of the Australian Whitlam Labour-Socialist Government, in 1975, provides an instructive lesson in the value of a Federal Constitution in which power is divided between a Lower House, a Senate, and the Crown. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, first elected in 1972, was in some ways a gifted man - articulate, well-read with a considerable knowledge of classical history. But he was also intellectually arrogant and imposed a style of government which increasingly produced resentment. That resentment had reached the stage where his political opponents, with a majority in the Senate, decided that the time had come to force an election. The Senate refused to pass the 1975 budget of the Whitlam Government. There was direct confrontation between the Government, with a majority in the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Continuous consultations took place between the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. When the situation had developed to the stage where Sir John Kerr, representing the Queen, was satisfied that the Whitlam Government was going to attempt to govern in defiance of the Senate, seeking ways of obtaining sufficient finance which many thought were unconstitutional, he decided to resolve what had developed into a dangerous national crisis by withdrawing Mr. Whitlam's commission to govern, and calling upon the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, to form a temporary Government to pass the Budget - Parliament then to be dissolved and the electorate asked to make its decision.

What could be more democratic than asking the electors to pass judgment?

By an overwhelming majority, the Whitlam Government was dismissed from office, demonstrating that it no longer had the confidence of the Australian electorate. Totalitarians have subsequently complained that Sir John Kerr acted like a dictator in dismissing Mr. Whitlam. What Sir John did was to demonstrate that in times of a great crisis, in which the politicians are concerned with both holding and obtaining power, the reserve power of the Crown can be used to resolve the crisis by forcing the politicians to go to the source of power - the electors. The great value of the Crown is that its reserve powers are a constitutional check upon the powers of the politicians - mainly because they are so rarely used. A sequel to the Australian crisis of 1975 was that, having been elected earlier than might otherwise have been the case because the Australian Senate had the power to check the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Fraser then moved to attempt to reduce the power of the Senate! He clearly visualized a situation in which he might find his Government also curbed by the Senate!

In his campaign to persuade the Australian people to change their written Constitution to weaken the Senate, 'conservative' Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was now aligned with Mr. Gough Whitlam, the Marxists and other advocates of more centralized government. This demonstrated once again the truth of Lord Bryce's observation that the tendency of all politicians is to increase their own powers. Fortunately, the Fraser Government's attack on the Australian Constitution was defeated because of the stand of sufficient Senators who were members of Mr. Fraser's own party, and the national non-party campaign by the Australian League of Rights.

It cannot be stressed too often that governments and elections do not protect the rights of individuals, but rather constitutions which effectively ensure that power is decentralized under the control of individuals. No government, irrespective of its label, can be trusted with excessive power. People who ignore this absolute truth do so at their peril.

A Moment of Opportunity

While it is true that Canada's internal crisis is much more acute than the crises affecting other parts of the Free World, it also provides Canadians with an opportunity to resolve that crisis through constitutional reforms based upon the lessons of history and the experiences of others. Such reforms could be an inspiration to the rest of the Free World. They must be initiated by individuals who have firmly grasped the truth that realistic constitutionalism must be based upon acceptance of absolutes.

The first and most basic absolute is that it is the God-given right of each individual to be free and to enjoy inviolable rights which no government can legitimately repeal. The power of government must be limited by effective decentralization and a system of checks and balances. A reformed Canadian Constitution should ensure that no changes can be made to it without direct reference to the people.

I would suggest that the basic requirements of a genuine Canadian Federal system include:
Preservation of the Canadian Constitutional Monarchy.
A Senate consisting of an equal number of Senators from each Province, elected directly by the electors, preferably under a system of proportional representation, and having the power to check, amend and initiate legislation.
Federal Government to have its area of sovereignty limited to defence, foreign policy, postal services, foreign trade, and associated matters; all other questions such as education, housing, resources, etc., being the responsibility of the Provinces.
Provision for electors to petition at any time for any proposal, such as tax reductions, to be decided by referendum; or to recall a Member of Parliament and require a by-election.
The establishment of a Supreme Court of Canada appointed by the Provinces, with one Judge from each Province.

As the essence of what is proposed is that Federal centralized powers should be drastically reduced, and as no Central Government is going to voluntarily relinquish power, the issue basically is the same one faced when the Caesar of the day, King John, was forced to sign Magna Carta in 1215. Individuals will therefore have to unite to demand a modern-day Magna Carta, asking that their Provincial and Municipal and Community leaders stand with them. And equally important, they are entitled to expect that the Christian clergy proclaim that there must be a limit to the power of Caesar in order that individuals might be able to render unto God that which belongs to God.

POSTSCRIPT
- By Ron Gostick, July 14, 1980 -

At the conclusion of each of the initial series of Constitutional forum-meetings mentioned in the Introduction, the following resolution was passed, in most instances unanimously: "That this public forum of Canadian electors, meeting at...., on ...., 1980, believes that for economic, security and other reasons, it is desirable that the present Dominion of Canada should be preserved; "And that inasmuch as true unity in a Federation is possible only when the sovereignty and diversity of the constituent parts are respected, it is therefore agreed that a reformed Canadian Constitution should provide for a Federal Government consisting of the Constitutional Monarchy, the House of Commons, and a Senate directly elected by a system of proportional representation with.an equal number of Senators from all provinces and having the power to amend and initiate legislation;
"And further, that Provincial and Municipal Governments and community leaders be requested to convene nation-wide conferences for the purpose of enabling all Canadians to consider our mounting constitutional crisis and to support a reformed Constitution embodying the central principle of decentralizing power in order that electors may control their own affairs more effectively."

The Canadian League of Rights made available at these forums a short brochure on Constitutional reform entitled, Is Canada doomed? ... Yes - unless the people speak up on a new Constitution!, together with a "voting form" or ballot enabling people to express their wishes immediately and "have a say" on the present Constitutional issue without reference to any politicians and without waiting for someone else to move. And this brochure and "voting form" were made available to the public and are now circulating widely. ... ...

on June 21 (1980), the (Toronto) Star published a report captioned Bring 'Yvettes' into talks: Begin. Following, are excerpts:
"OTTAWA (CP) - Health Minister Monique Begin says she would like to see something comparable to the Yvette movement from the Quebec referendum campaign spring up in the constitutional debate between the federal and provincial governments. "If individual Canadians do not become involved, 'if political leaders don't develop a way to make it possible for citizens to tell us what they want, then I can tell you right now that not only will there not be a renewed Canadian federation, there may very likely not be a federation at all,' she told a service club luncheon here yesterday.

"The Yvettes, a grassroots organization of women who supported renewed federalism in the May 20 Quebec referendum ... started after Lise Payette, minister responsible for the status of women in the Parti Quebecois government, accused federalist women of being passive."
Since the Quebec "referendum," Mr. Trudeau has been feverishly promoting his ideas for a new Constitution, without any intimation that there will be any opportunity for participation by the people in developing their Constitution! Canadians would be wise to closely examine any federal proposals to "enshrine" everyone's language and rights into any new Constitution.
The poor slaves of the USSR have all their rights "enshrined" in a constitution, too!
British Common Law has served us well over the centuries. Let us keep that in mind when renewing our Constitution in the weeks immediately ahead. True national unity can grow only from the grassroots, out of the hearts and the souls of our people. "Speak boldly, man, the truth is on they side!"
(End of The Battle For Canada booklet)

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick, May, 2000): Looking back twenty years to 1980, when this booklet was published, one can't help realizing that the more times change, the more they remain the same. We have the same problems today that we had in 1980: over-centralized federal government, ignoring our Constitution and invading provincial areas of jurisdiction, thereby imposing unconstitutional government and policies upon our country. The main difference today is that those problems just hatching and being imposed twenty years ago under Comrade Pierre, have now grown into monsters of nation-threatening proportions.

A little background
The Battle For Canada booklet was published at the time that the Trudeau regime was preparing to 'patriate' our BNA Act 'Constitution' from London to Ottawa, add onto it the so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a legal system the very antithesis of Canadian Common Law, and, without consulting Canadians by way of referendum, to impose this judicial hybrid upon our country. Within a few months - in late 1980 - I headed a League of Rights delegation to London, England, to lobby Members of the British House of Commons, urging them not to sanction this Trudeau ploy which at that time was opposed by several of the provincial governments. Then, when it seemed that his scheme was doomed because of lack of unanimity for this Constitutional change, an all-night session at a First-Ministers meeting in Ottawa, in which Chretien represented Trudeau, pulled a fast one by not informing Quebec Premier Rene Levesque of this semi-secret session conducted, apparently, by Jean Chretien, Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow and Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed.
So disgusted was Premier Levesque when he found out the next morning of the deal cooked up during the night without his knowledge, that he packed his bags and immediately returned to Quebec City. That's how our so-called 1982 'Constitution' with its so-called 'Charter of Rights' was born - illegitimate and unconstitutional, and never ratified by Quebec or the Canadian people by way of a referendum!

It's generally believed that the price Trudeau paid for Alberta Premier Lougheed's acceptance of this nocturnal deal was inclusion of an 'opting out' clause, which, as it's turned out, only Quebec seems to have the intestinal fortitude to use! And what a political charade Ottawa staged when our Queen came to Ottawa to sign this so-called Trudeau 'Constitution'! The Quebec government wouldn't have anything to do with it. So Mr. Trudeau and one of his Quebec ministers signed for Quebec! But they represented only a couple of Quebec constituencies, not the province. Only the Quebec government can speak for Quebec.

And, as a matter of fact, when it comes to constitutions and their amending, changing or expanding, only the people themselves by way of referendum can speak for the country. After all, constitutions do not belong to governments, they belong to the people. Indeed, most of the problems we have at the public level in Canada today have been caused by Federal Governments meddling with and in jurisdictions which do not belong to them.

Extent of constitutional fraud

About three years ago, in response to a newspaper ad offering copies of the Canadian Constitution at $8 each, I sent $16 to Ottawa for two copies. What I received as two copies of our Constitution were two copies of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms! This is apparently being palmed off by Ottawa now as our Constitution - and, in practise, it's about the only part they seem to respect and follow! -; and, I'm told that in some of our schools the Charter is being taught as if it were the new constitution of our country! Is it any wonder our young people come out of school without a clue how our country's supposed to be governed, or what our rights and responsibilities are?

But don't despair; all is not lost. I understand that a healthy spark of light and regeneration is already alive and expanding within our land. I hope to report further in our next issue. R.G. "... the postwar period has demonstrated that a highly centralized federation is not suitable to a Canada composed of different cultures and diversified regions." -Professor John Trent, Department of Political Science, University of Ottawa, member of the Constitution Convention of the Quebec Liberal Party, in the Financial Post, March 29, 1980
"The provincial governments in Canada are just as sovereign and just as powerful when acting within their jurisdiction under the British North America Act as is the Dominion Government itself." - Brigadier W.J. Lawson, C.D., Q.C., Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces, in the booklet, The Canadian Constitution, published by the Queen's Printer (Ottawa) in 1964, being a "revised version" of a 1952 brochure originally published in a Canadian Citizenship series for our armed forces.

Background to Middle East Conflict

This revealing article is reprinted from the November issue of the highly respected New Times Survey journal, published in Melbourne, Australia. The following is part of the John Murtagh Macrossan Lecture by Sir Walter Crocker, KBE, 1984. Sir Walter is one of Australia's most distinguished diplomats, serving in the pre-war League of Nations and, with Sir Raphael Cilento,* in the fledgling post-war U.N. He was High Commissioner in India and Nepal, Canada and India, and Ambassador to Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya, the Netherlands and Belgium as well as Indonesia. He was Lieutenant-Govenor of South Australia in the 1970s.

The creation of Israel
The second subject which took up the time and the mind of the UN during its founding years was the Mandated Territory of Palestine; far and away the dominant subject. Before I go any further I would like to make it quite clear that, in the discussion which follows on the four main protagonists in the Palestine affair, namely the Zionists, the Arabs, the United States, and the United Nations, I am discussing them as they were at that specific point in time, thirty years ago. I am not discussing them as they are today. I would also emphasize that this lecture is not about my beliefs but about facts, and about facts as they related to Sir Raphael Cilento, though I will make an exception to the extent of adding that, contrary to the claims of some Arabs, as regards Israel, independently of how it came to be created, I can see no practical alternative to accepting and probably guaranteeing Israel's boundaries.

Palestine
Throughout the latter part of 1946, all of 1947, all of 1948, and the early part of 1949, Palestine was normally among the first, most often the very first, news item announced over the New York, and most other, radio stations, and in the top headlines on the first page of the newspapers. Few people living in this environment could be unaffected by it, least of all the average American, good-natured, muddled by propaganda and advertisements on everything from toothpaste to foreign affairs, the child of years of isolationism, and therefore ignorant of the outside world. Defenceless against the unceasing barrage of special pleading to which he was exposed, he felt that Palestine was the central story of the world, and of all time, and that it was now at last on the point of decision.

The dream
That precisely was what it was for the Zionists. At the seat of the UN at Lake Success, day after day, week after week, month after month, the public galleries, the lobbies, the corridors, the cafeteria, were filled with Zionists and other Jewish zealots, pushing and persistent. Not a few were fanatical, not a few were arrogant, all were increasingly self-confident. They were given over to the dream of turning Palestine into Israel. Their dedication was admirable. But, unfortunately, the fact that Arabs already were inhabiting Palestine, and had done so for centuries, had no relevance for the zealots.
The Arabs had no rights: they were to be torn up from their land to make way for the Jews. The self-centredness on this point was absolute and it was not admirable.

The miracle ...
What the Zionists later referred to as "the miracle of Lake Success" could indeed scarcely have happened except in that place and at that time. In the name of internationalism a form of extreme nationalism was carried to victory, and in the name of rights of small nations to independence, and of another George Washington-like war against British imperialism under another King George, a minority in Palestine, the Jews, took by force of arms the home of the indigenous majority, the Arabs.

Control of media
The place was New York. About three million Jews were concentrated there. Jews controlled or dominated the most influential press in New York and much of the mass media of communication in America, such as the movies, the radio stations, the advertising industry, much of the theatre, and substantial segments of finance and trade, and their community, which extended throughout the United States, was as close-knit as it was powerful.
Although there was in the United States more anti-Semitism, in all classes at all levels, from the Negroes to the universities, than in any country known to me except pre-war Germany, the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington had no equal at this time. The combination of wealth, astuteness and purpose made the Zionists very strong in the American political system; and the political fact that New York could swing presidential elections, and that the Jewish vote could swing New York, redoubled their strength.

Disabled
At the time, Europe was disabled and fragmented by the Second World War, materially and mentally. England herself, the former leader of the world, was half starved, rundown, nearly insolvent, losing, indeed determined to lose, her empire, and her populace was confused and dazzled by the new paradise of the welfare state and equality just around the corner which her politicians were promising. The French, the Italians, the Dutch, the Belgians and others were also preoccupied with their internal difficulties, including vengeance, finding and killing or punishing those they could blame for their wartime troubles. Germany was rubble and epidemics and utter defeat. Europe in 1946-48 was virtually disfranchised as far as international relations were concerned.

Hatred
Moreover, the widespread, almost worldwide, hatred for Germany in those years, the war trials at Munich and the movie and other accounts sharpening the hatred, engendered potent sympathy for the Jews. The Zionist claims and aims for turning Palestine into a Jewish state benefited greatly as a result. To oppose the Zionists became equated to anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism was equated to Hitler and Nazism. A very telling syllogism at that time.
Further still, the UN Secretariat itself was not only predominantly American in composition and outlook but the Jews in it (not all of whom were Zionists) amounted to about fifteen per cent of the staff, in some sections more, not a few being highly placed too.
Finally, as regards the time, 1948 was an election year in the United States. It was thought that the election would be close run. Both Republicans and Democrats therefore were taking no chances with any tactically significant sectional interests, least of all with the Jewish vote. Both parties made competing promises about Palestine.

Palestine: Basic Facts
The basic facts about Palestine were quite straightforward. After the defeat of Turkey in the First World War, Palestine was transferred from the Turkish empire to Britain to be administered as a mandated territory of the League of Nations. Israel had ceased to exist in the first century A.D. when, after an uprising, Roman forces marched in, destroyed the Temple, and made it Roman territory. That was nearly two thousand years ago. After the destruction of the Temple the Jews, already widely spread around the civilized world, mainly left Palestine.
During most of the time since then Palestine had been Arab-speaking and essentially Mohammedan. The area of Palestine under British mandate was a little over 10,000 square miles, which is to say less than half the size of Tasmania (smaller than Vancouver Island - Ed., CIS). Its population amounted to about 1,500,000. Two-thirds of the population was Arab, one-third was Jewish. A big part of that Jewish third, moreover, was of fairly recent immigration.
When the British took over Palestine in 1920 there were only 83,000 Jews to 650,000 Arabs, that is to say 8 Arabs to 1 Jew. Ten years later, 1930, the Jewish population had trebled.

Costly promise
This scale of immigration, protected by the British under the costly promise made during the First World War by Lloyd George and Balfour of a national home for the Jews, inconsistent with British promises to the Arabs as well as with the mandate, led to immigration of Jews and as a result to unrest and at times to violence from the Arabs. By the time the Second World War broke out the Jews had grown to half a million. But even this growth made them only a third of the population.

A flood
By 1946, the Second World War over, the Jews were being brought in illegally at the rate of 15,000 a month. In 1948 about 300,000 were reported to the UN to have arrived. More than twenty commissions or investigating groups, the familiar politician's device for passing the buck or for postponing a difficult decision, had been sent out to Palestine in the twenty-odd years since the British took over the mandate in 1920.
Six of them were of particular importance: the Palin Commission of 1920, the Hope Simpson Enquiry of 1930, the Peel Commission of 1936 (which recommended a partition between Arabs and Jews), the Woodhead Commission of 1938 (which judged the Peel proposals impracticable), and the Anglo-American Enquiry of 1945-46 which, like the UN Special Commission of 1947, favoured partitioning the country between the Arabs and Jews.

The documentation on Palestine and its successor and supplanter, Israel, already too voluminous during Cilento's UN years for citing in this lecture, now runs into tonnes. The student should begin with the Report of the UN Special Commission on Palestine, 1947, volumes 1 to IV and annexes, UN Background Paper No. 47, Carnegie Endowment International Conciliation, October 1949, and work his way backwards and forwards from there.
Three recent books by Jews, one Australian, two British, can be singled out for their relevance and value: W.D. Rubinstein, The Left, The Right and the Jews; G. Alderman, The Jewish Community in British Politics; and Dan Jacobson (the novelist), The Story of the Stories: The Chosen People.
What is particularly needed but is particularly lacking is a plain authentically factual history of Israel, especially of its foreign relations, since its creation.

Palestine into Israel
The British government, the new Labour government under Attlee, being from 1945 committed to the policy of liquidating the British empire, was in consequence engrossed throughout 1946-48 with arranging for the independence of the Indian subcontinent, and with the massacres going on there. What was going on in Palestine, of a very different scale from the hundreds of millions in the Indian subcontinent, was only one of its many headaches. As early as 1946-47 it made known to the UN that it would be relinquishing its mandate over Palestine. A special session of the General Assembly was therefore convened for April 1947.

Commission set up
This was when the UN Special Commission on Palestine was set up, consisting of eleven countries and backed by a strong UN staff under no less than an assistant secretary-general. Its majority report, produced two months later, and largely dominated by Dr. Evatt, Australia's minister for External Affairs, recommended partition but with a separate identity for Jerusalem because it was holy to Muslims and Christians as well as to Jews. The minority report, dominated by Yugoslavia, at that time dominated by USSR, recommended a federal state. The Special Commission's report was considered by the General Assembly when it met in September 1947. After two months of intensive debate and investigation the report was accepted with the addition of a proviso for an economic union.
Even the Jewish Agency accepted it. But the Arabs, manifesting as they did throughout these years as little prowess for diplomatic efficiency or coordinated action as for military efficiency, walked out. They soon regretted this folly and changed their minds. But it was too late.

Quick change
The Zionists in New York and the Jews in Palestine had between them quickly changed the situation to their advantage dramatically. To the political chaos in the United States, because of the gathering of the forces for the 1948 presidential election, and the chaos in Britain, because of its maze of post-war problems (but still with the determination to withdraw all its personnel, military and administrative, from Palestine by May 1948), there had now been added chaos in Palestine itself. Unlawful force was taking over there. Wasson, the US member of the UN Truce Commission, was assassinated by Jewish terrorists, now an organized and well-equipped force under Begin and others, well supplied with arms, some of the supply coming from systemic raiding of British stores since as far back as 1941.

Proclamation
In May, just before the last of the British had left Palestine, the Jews rushed through a unilateral proclamation of the new sovereign state of Israel. President Truman, hurriedly, without informing the UN, or even the US delegate there (who in fact at that very moment was pleading once more the US official policy for partition -- I happened to be in the Security Council at that moment), announced the United States' de facto recognition of the state of Israel. That at least would be something the Republican opposition could not now offer to the Jewish voters in the coming presidential election!

Military conflict
The neighbouring Arab states, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq, responded to the unilateral proclamation by sending in troops. They were repulsed on all fronts. The Zionists amazed the world by the military strength they had built up, largely clandestinely. In order to bring the fighting to an end the UN appointed a mediator. He was Count Bernadotte, a member of the Swedish royal family, a clever and dedicated man. Between June and September in this fateful year of 1948 he negotiated three truces. But he too was assassinated by Jewish terrorists before he could get to the General Assembly with his report. According to Cilento, the report presented in his name was tampered with. Among the collection in the Fryer Library is a moving tape recording on Bernadotte's assassination made by Sir Raphael; he had been with Bernadotte a few hours before the latter's death. No proper amends were made for the assassination -- nor for Wasson's --and it was soon forgotten.
Both President Truman, the Democrat candidate, and Dewey, the Republican candidate, with their eyes firmly on the Jewish vote, joined the Zionists in denouncing the truces. This was tantamount to saying that the Zionists had the right to drive out the Arabs, the indigenous majority, from Palestine.

U.N. membership
By the first half of 1949, a special session of the General Assembly, ignoring previous UN decisions, accepted Israel as a member, by thirty-seven votes to twelve. Only forty-nine states voted. Nothing was decided about Bernadotte's death, nor about the million or so Arabs driven out, nor about Jerusalem and the holy places, nor about the frontiers of the new state of Israel. Before the end of 1949, the UN, that is to say the taxpayers of the world, took on the responsibility of feeding the refugees. Today, thirty-five years later, the taxpayers of the world, nearly all of them unaware of it, are still paying for the displaced Arabs and their offspring. The total sum so paid out in the last thirty-five years would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, a fact never mentioned in the press. During the height of the euphoria in New York Trygve Lie, the secretary-general, announced that the creation of Israel was a great victory for the UN and showed what it could do. It did indeed show what the UN could do.

Zionist victory
The creation of Israel was decisively a great victory for the Zionists. For collective security, for peace, for the raison d'être of the UN, it was another matter. To those of us on the spot and inside the UN, the Zionist victory was due to a series of circumstances including, above all, the world's wish to make amends to the Jews for what they had suffered during the Hitler years, even though at the expense, and against the rights, of the Palestine Arabs. The Arabs in fact were little mentioned and still less bothered about in the mass media. In that sense Hitler was the creator of Israel -- and the creator of the miseries which the creation of Israel inflicted on the Palestine Arabs.
The crucial factor in the ethos of 1946-49 was hatred for Germany and the terrible destruction Germany had brought about, and revulsion from any conceivable manifestation of the anti-Semitism associated with Germany.

Promised land
But the instrument of the creation had been the Jews themselves. Behind the Jews was the fact for which all historically-minded people were bound to have at least some sympathy, namely that although the Jews in the main had left Palestine two thousand years ago, Jewish hearts had never left it. Their longing for the land, sanctified by their tradition and their scriptures, that stuff of our Old Testament, some of the mightiest literature of the human race, survived their centuries of minority life. But Palestine had been home to the Arab minority for many centuries, and a Holy Land to both Christians and Muslims as well as to the Jews.

**

The Zionists and pro-Zionists brought to the situation the qualities for grasping their unique opportunity -- a remarkable capacity to organize and to fight in the field which was matched by their diplomatic and propaganda cleverness at Lake Success and in Washington. The success was symbolized by the ruthless, able Rabbi Silver, for whom nothing seemed to matter in the world but Jews and their interests. The Palestine Arabs counted for nothing at all.
Among the terrorists was Begin, in recent years an unhelpful prime minister of Israel, strangely the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for what in the citation were described as his services to peace in the Middle East.

No peace ...
There has, of course, been no peace in the Middle East since 1948. Lebanon or the West Bank were not mentioned in the Begin citation. In 1948-49 mention was muted throughout, if not suppressed, of atrocities like the assassination of Count Bernadotte, or Lord Moyne the British cabinet minister, and of the American diplomat Wasson, the hanging of the eleven British sergeants, the blowing up of the King David Hotel, the use of letter bombs and other cruel devices, one of which severely injured the secretary of the British consul-general in New York.
At Lake Success the UN had to deal with threats of violence received by certain delegates -- I recall among others the delegates from Pakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, Haiti and Liberia -- for not voting as the Zionists wanted.

'Anti-Semitism'
Inside the Secretariat, charges of anti-Semitism were made against officials: five such charges were dealt with secretly in 1948-49, one of those charged being an English Jew who had not satisfied the Zionists. The kind of publicity put out by the UN's Public Relations Department under Assistant secretary-General Cohen did not err on the side of the Arabs. It was said by Zionists again and again in those days at Lake Success that the Israelis, having got Palestine, would revolutionize the Middle East, bringing about a transformation which would benefit Arabs. That beneficial transformation never took place.
Cilento, after his firsthand observations in the Middle East, was convinced that instead the creation of Israel, and the manner of its creation, had made wounds which could heal only if a spirit of exceptional generosity and constructiveness were forthcoming, but that in practice that spirit would not be forthcoming from the Israelis.
Attitudes like those of the profoundly spiritual Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt received no backing; on the contrary, reviling.

Cilento feared that without something of that kind of spirit the Palestinian Arabs were condemned to degradation if not genocide.

Enemies
Among the ironies of the situation in 1946-48 was that Zionists ranked the British with the Arabs as the enemy simply because the British stood by the minimum obligations of the mandate, namely that the Arabs had rights as well as the Jews. The British had long given complete equality to Jews in Britain and throughout the British empire, had welcomed and benefited from their brains, had enabled them to enrich themselves, had carried voluntary assimilation far and, through their very controversial policy of the Jewish national home, had given them a foothold in Palestine. It was the British, moreover, who had stopped Hitler and Nazism by standing alone for two years, as a result losing very much of their accumulated wealth and in the end their place in the world.
Zionist venom against the British was unrelieved by any gratitude, and was puzzling and wounding to the British.
The increasing, and very effective, propaganda in the American press represented the Zionist takeover of Palestine and the driving out of the Arab majority as another type of American War of Independence against the British imperialists. There was for a time an orchestrated clamour even to boycott British goods.

Bled white
Britain, though bled white by her war effort, was denied Marshall Aid -- a story in itself. There were Jews in America, not a few in New York itself, who did not like the Zionist methods or values, but they were a minority, apparently small and normally silent. In 1947 the American press carried this advertisement, often in big letters conspicuously placed, of an appeal by the playwright Ben Hecht: "Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high or rob a British bank or let go with your bombs and guns at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts."
(End of the New Times Survey extract from the Sir Walter Crocker Lecture)

COMMENT (By R.G.): The foregoing extract from Sir Walter's Lecture stamps him not only as a very knowledgeable and erudite international official, but also as a very objective observer of the very roots of today's Middle East problems. And even this extract in itself constitutes an excellent summary of a little understood, and largely suppressed, aspect of twentieth-century history -- indeed, a very important aspect, an understanding of which is essential to a balanced assessment of today's international problems.
From the information and facts chronicled by Sir Walter respecting the invasion and seizure of Palestine by the Zionists in the mid-20th century, it's obvious that it was accomplished by one of the most outrageous combinations of international political/diplomatic corruption and betrayal in history, together with almost unprecedented brutality and slaughter of the victimized indigenous Palestinian people. And this sad state of oppression, violence, suffering and bloodshed has not only plagued Palestine this past half-century, but today is rapidly escalating. And, quite obviously, in the minds of the Palestinians and indeed the Islamic world, the main architects and instigators of this tragic state of affairs are not only the Zionist invaders and occupiers, but the U.S. government which through international political manipulation and financial and military support of the Zionist seizure and occupation has been largely responsible for creating and sustaining this Middle East mess.
Which brings us to President Bush and his World War III against international terrorism.

Why is Washington anti-Christian?
Well, it's said that money is the cause of all evil. While that's questionable, the love of money does seem to be associated with the problems -- indeed, the corruption and betrayal -- of people in both private and public life. And Washington, the site of the American Government and Congress, is understandably the focus of some of the most powerful Big Money lobbies in the world today. As a matter of fact, for years some of Washington's critics have termed successive regimes "the finest money can buy." For example, we recently received by e-mail an article by Uri Avenim, a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament). Following, are excerpts:
"Will the Americans pay the huge amounts of money Israel is demanding to help alleviate the economic holocaust it has brought upon itself? There is no doubt that the U.S. will pay. Why? Because politically they have no choice. "Take, for example, the story of Clarence Long, member of the U.S. Congress and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Sub-Committee and also of sections of the Aid Committee in the U.S. Congress. He is the 'man in charge' of paying the allocations granted to Israel.
"This man is well-known to hundreds of thousands of Israelis who watched him on their TV screens when Ely Millikh Ram, the Israeli TV correspondent, interviewed him regarding Israel's economic problems.
Like other U.S. diplomats, Long expressed the view that Israel must take 'steps and measures' -- most important of which are austerity measures and raising of interest rates. Listening to him, I came to the conclusion that the man did not know what he was saying, nor was he saying what he really felt. But the coup de grace came when, concluding his interview, Long hinted -- not very subtly -- that Israel would get all it had asked for, as a result of the careful and very positive spirit in which the US had considered its demands. This will come as a surprise to no one.
"In order to comprehend fully the meaning of what he said, we have to add one very small thing to what Long did not say in his TV interview: that he, Clarence Long, has received, this year alone, the total of $97,500 from Israel to support his election campaign, which means that the above named is no more than a paid agent employed by Israel. Israel has not paid the amount directly to him; it has been transferred to him, in the manner of all such transactions, by the so-called 'Political Action Committees,' which play a very important role these days in the Israeli foreign affairs system.

"WHERE did I get my information? I have not hired spies or detectives, there was no need for that as there is, in the U.S., a law which makes it compulsory duty for all candidates for public office to submit detailed and public statements showing all the donations they receive. Such a law does not exist in Israel.
The New York Times has published a detailed press investigation on the methods used by pro-Israeli lobbies to influence presidential elections in the US. The study revealed that pro-Israeli institutions have allocated $4.25-million to be spent buying the minds and votes of Senate and Congress members.

"It is the usual practice to spend such sums according to a very precise and carefully calculated procedure, so that every single dollar spent in this respect is guaranteed maximum return. The sum of $576,000 was handed to the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which backed, without any reservation, every single act by the Israeli government. It has also been paid to new candidates, usually running against committee members who have not submitted to the instructions of the Israeli embassy in Washington.
Other pro-Israeli sums have been spent in 29 of the 33 Senate constituencies scheduled to have had elections this past year, as well as in 154 Congress constituencies of the total 435. The largest sum spent in this direction was paid to Paul Simon, a new figurehead who got away with $147,870 from Israel's supporters in the US because he had decided to run in the election against Charles Percy, the former chairman of the Congress Committee who has been consistently critical of the Israeli government and was courageous enough to say that the Palestinians also have their own legitimate rights.

"Another sum of $140,063 was paid to one Carl Levin, not because he is a good Jew, as his name indicates, but because he is a member of the Congress Military Committee.
"Also, conservative Senator Jesse Helms provoked Israel's wrath because he discussed the Palestine issue while he was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. This motivated the pro-Israeli lobby to pay $130,350 to his rival James Hart.
"On one occasion while on a visit to the US and during the outbreak of war in Lebanon, I was advised to hold a meeting with Senator Roddy Posvic to relate to him what happened and what was said during my meeting with Yasser Arafat in Beirut. Small wonder, for Senator Posvic is vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on the Middle East. The Senator's behaviour and attitude were a surprise to me, but I have since come to know the reasons for his indifferent attitude: from the pro-Israel lobby in the US he had already received $95,100 to help him get re-elected.

"WHAT are these mysterious pro-Israeli circles that buy and sell members of the Senate and Congress in the US? "The best-known is 'The National Political Action Group,' known as the 'Israeli lobby.' "Side by side with this openly publicised group, there are many secret bodies active in the field under pseudonyms like 'The San Francisco People's Committee for a Better rul,' the 'Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs,' 'Desert Conference,' and 'The Political Conference of Disciplined Citizens.'

"In order to conceal the truth, none of these pro-Israeli groups identify themselves by any names that might point to Israel, Jews or Zionists, in a clear attempt to avoid antagonizing non-Jews. Nor do they stir the issue of anti-Semitism, because non-Jews may realize that a small gang of Jews is trading in the American people's votes. ...

"After the Israeli lobby in the US grants a Congress member $100,000 such a member will never dream of backing a motion which contravenes the interests of the government of Israel. When Prime Minister Shimon Peres arrives in the US he will expect, of course, to receive a warm welcome. He will meet members of the Congress and the Senate, who will urge him to take austerity measures, to reduce bank interest rates, reduce spending and to impose new taxation. But Peres, on the other hand, can laugh up his sleeve, having received a secret report from the Israeli embassy in Washington specifying, in great detail, the sums already paid to every one of those Congress and Senate members who met him, to satisfy the wishes of the Israeli government.

Israel will no doubt receive the most generous increase in aid from the US in its history. In fact, the US grant to Israel has already exceeded any US grant ever given to any other country anywhere in the world. A simple calculation shows that every single American family pays Israel well over $40 annually, and that every Israeli family receives $2500 every year (from the US) ...

"The paying of donations to US administration officials is considered one of the most vital sections of Israeli expenditure. Once having paid these tributes to US officials, Israel is thus guaranteed, in return, huge sums of money in the form of US grants. For the $4.25-million Israel has paid to prime the US Congress, Israel will receive a US grant totalling $2.6-billion. Therefore, Israel will have struck the bargain of the century, receiving an interest of 60,000 percent …

" Now do we begin to better understand the meaning of "The finest government money can buy?" Now do we begin to understand a little more clearly the significance of the IAP News item in our November issue, quoting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as he assured his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of US support for any Israeli action in these words: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel; we, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

Now do we begin to understand why the Islamic world these past years has been growing more and more concerned, and its younger generation more and more frustrated and hateful, as it watched the US government -- corrupted and manipulated by Jewish money -- financing and arming with high-tech weaponry the occupying Zionist power in its kindred neighbour, Palestine? In other words, are we at least beginning to realize that US policy in the Middle East and Islamic world has been actually creating the conditions that have bred the distrust and hatred leading up to the unconscionable September 11th attack on New York and Washington?

Much more to this story
It would seem that there is much more to this 'war on terrorism' that has not yet been publicly revealed, or even admitted. But, bits and pieces of truth are finding their way out. For instance: It's now revealed that a huge basin of oil in the Caspian Sea area is involved, with a pipeline through Afghanistan sought.
Former US President, George Bush Sr., was apparently visiting with Osama bin Laden in Saudi Arabia as late as last July, and reports indicate that an attack on Afghanistan was being planned as early as last summer.
It now seems that when the Sept. 11 terrorist attack came, US and UK military forces were poised to respond! And some reports indicate that certain intelligence forces knew the attack was coming -- another 'Pearl Harbour'!

Many evangelical Christians bring religion into this 'war.' Yet, while Christ taught love, compassion, peace, justice, conciliation, forgiveness, etc., some of Mr. Bush's most noisy supporters for escalating the 'war' and violence and destruction seem to be American evangelicals. Makes one wonder if they can tell Christianity from anti-Christianity. More to come ... stay tuned.

Our retreat from freedom
The Australian weekly On Target report of Dec. 7th included an item by Jeremy Lee captioned "The Retreat From Truth and Freedom." Here are excerpts:
"Under the guise of fighting terrorism there is now a massive attack on traditional freedoms in western nations. President Bush's declaration of a state of emergency is being thrown in the teeth of Benjamin Franklin's warning that those prepared to trade freedom for security will end up with neither. Since September 11th the President has taken unto himself the right to determine which prosecutions will be conducted by civil courts and which by military tribunals.
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, commented on November 11th: 'What we've seen since September 11th, if you add up everything that Ashcroft, Gonzales and their coterie of Federalist Society lawyers have done here, is a coup d'etat against the United States constituion…'
"Many civil liberties have been suspended, including open and fair trials, limited detention before trial, provision of representation, etc. There is even a debate going on about the legitimacy of torture as a weapon of war.
"The American attack on civil liberties has its counterpart in the 'Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill' currently before the British Parliament."
Mr. Lee goes on to quote author Ashley Mote who has pointed out that this British bill will empower the government to sweep away English common Law, the very bedrock of the British heritage of freedom.
We're beginning to wonder whether this retreat from our ancient freedoms is really meant to help the 'war on terrorism,' or to condition us for the next move towards One-World Government?

Draft Proposal for a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution 2000 A.D.
- Part 8 -

In the first seven parts of this series, we have reproduced and discussed extracts from most of the main sections of this Draft Proposal of a Revised and Updated Canadian Constitution put forward by the Canadian Constitution Committee, noting significant changes from our present BNA Act 'Constitution.'

And in Part six of this series, we reproduced "The Second Schedule - 'Initiative Referendum'" -- which is a section not found in our present Constitution.
In this last part of the series, the details of its Initiative Referendum proposal are spelled out as "The Sixth Schedule: Referenda Criteria."

Following is this section, in full:
Initiative, in this context, shall be defined as the Literal Will of the People presented to Government, in Text, Legal Form, or Resolution.
Referendum/Referenda, in this context, shall be defined as the Process of referring a legislative proposal to the electorate for Acceptance or Rejection.

1. a) The sponsorship of any Initiative of the People presented to any Order of Government, shall require the Signatures of 5% (five percent) of the Electors of the Relative Jurisdiction; and that Initiative must be accepted by the Order of Government and put forward to that Electorate no later than 60 (sixty) days from the receipt of the Text of that Initiative.
b) The sponsorship of an Initiative to amend or strike any part of the Constitution of Canada, shall require (eight percent) of the Canadian Electorate, and 8% (eight percent) in each of Eight Provinces.

2. Any Successful Referendum shall require the Support of 51% (fifty-one percent) of the ballots cast.

3. Any Emergency Order, Act or Bill of any Order of Government, that includes restrictions respecting the duration of its implementation, shall not have effect beyond its specified limits without first acquiring the assent of the respective Electorate by way of Referendum.

4. Any Law, Action, Order-in-Council or Legislation that is successfully Repealed by Referendum, shall not terminate the respective Government.

5. Any successful Initiative by the Electorate, ratified through Referendum, shall take Immediate Effect upon ratification unless otherwise provided by that Measure.

6. No Referendum presented by any Order of Government shall include more than One Agenda or Subject.

7. No successful Initiative of the people may be amended or struck by any Order of Government for Three Years from its ratification; and thereafter, any amendment or striking shall require 75% (seventy-five percent) of both Houses of Parliament or of the Provincial Legislature or legislative body relative to the jurisdiction of the Initiative.

8. When two or more Initiatives on the same Subject are simultaneously put forward by Government for Referendum, but have differing agenda, they shall both be presented at once to the Electorate; and the one receiving the greatest Electoral Support shall prevail.

9. Any Government-sponsored Referendum that is defeated by the Vote of the Electorate, shall not be initiated or brought forward for Five (five) Years.

10. All Initiatives involving a Federal Jurisdiction shall be first presented to the Office of the Governor-General for the purpose of ascertaining Constitutional Legitimacy; then either returned to the Initiator for clarification, or forwarded to the House of Commons and the Senate. Initiatives involving other Jurisdictions should likewise be first presented to the Lieutenant-Governor respecting Provincial Jurisdiction, or to the chief legal officer respecting any other Jurisdiction, as the case may be, to ascertain the Constitutional Legitimacy of the Initiative concerned before it is put to the Electorate.

11. All Referenda to be presented to the Electorate shall first be introduced to and checked by the Governor-General or appropriate Lieutenant-Governor or chief legal advisor of the respective Order of Government, for verification of Constitutional Legitimacy.

Recall

Recall, in this context, is defined as the process the Electorate may use to remove an Elected or Publicly-Paid Government Official from office.

1. a) A Petition of Recall at the Federal level, shall be presented to the Office of the Speaker of the Parliamentary House of which the person concerned is a Member; or, in the case of a publicly-paid official, to the Minister of the Department in which he is a Member.
b) The same procedure shall also apply at the Provincial level; and at the levels of all other orders of government the Petition of Recall shall be presented to the Clerk of the Council.

2. A Petition of Recall shall require the valid signature of 10% (ten percent) of Registered Voters at the last election of that electoral constituency.

3. A By-election shall be held within 60 (sixty) days to replace any elected Member of respective order of government removed from office by successful petition of the electorate.

4. A Vote of Recall held in any Jurisdiction shall require 60% (sixty percent) of the ballots cast in support of the recall to remove any Elected Official.

5. The Government of Canada shall be responsible for publicizing Petitions of Recall when the Petition involves a Federal Government Member. And likewise, all other Orders of Government shall be responsible for publicizing Petitions of Recall involving Elected Members in their respective Jurisdictions.

(End of the Sixth Schedule)

This winds up our 8-part series on the Canadian Constitutional Committee's Revised and Updated Proposal for a properly functioning 21st century Canadian Constitution. You will have noted that this Proposal follows the principles and intent of our present BNA Act Constitution, merely updating, confirming and strengthening it, by empowering the Canadian electorate to insist that all governments respect and observe the "supreme law of Canada" and constitutionally mandated jurisdictions, thereby bringing more accountability into our democratic system.

It is the intention of this Service, in the near future to publish a summary of the most significant changes and additions reflected in this Revised and Updated Proposal.

Trading liberty for security
The November issue of Dialogue magazine, under the above caption, published the following article by Jim McKee of Woodville, Ontario.

The Liberal government's Anti-Terrorist Bill C-36, has been approved (first reading) by Parliament and the Senate, and is now being studied by a Parliamentary committee. This law will give the government, and its agencies, "police state" powers. Mr. Chretien didn't allow his MPs a free vote on this antidemocratic bill -- and will not agree to revoke it when the terrorist war is over. Some changes in our justice system, and police investigative procedures, may be necessary in times of war. But Bill C-36 goes too far. It will suspend a lot of our civil liberties, and will give the government and its agencies dictatorial powers. We have reluctantly accepted some of these frightening powers in the past.

Trudeau, for example, invoked the War Measures Act at the height of the FLQ uprising. It, also, suspended a lot of our civil liberties -- but we accepted it knowing it would be revoked when the crisis had passed. But Mr. Chretien is adamant. He will not agree to restore our democratic rights when the terrorist war is over. Under this oppressive law the authorities can legally:

Monitor our telephone and e-mail conversations without due process.
Judges will be authorized to order the deletion of material from any Internet site in Canada that is deemed to be "hateful." For example: to suggest that there should be a freeze on all immigrants from Muslim countries until after the war could be considered "hateful."
You can be arrested and detained without a warrant, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe the measures are necessary to prevent an act of terrorism.
You lose your right to "remain silent," and can be convicted on secret evidence.

Enormous scope and influence
The scope and influence of this proposed law is enormous. It will amend all of the following acts: The Criminal Code of Canada, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Immigration Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, Access to Information Act, Canada Post Corporation Act, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Privacy Act, Seized Property Management Act, Canadian Security Intelligence Act, United Nations Act, and the Identification of Criminals Act.

Should we meekly allow our federal government to retain these powers long after the war is over? And should we allow one day of terror, executed by nine suicide bombers, to scare us into relinquishing the civil liberties that have been won through blood, sweat and tears, since the time of the Magna Carta?
Benjamin Franklin answered this question for us many years ago, He said: "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."

... The Internet is the Target
Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, is not only an outstanding and knowledgeable authority on the question of freedom of speech and association, but also its leading protagonist in Canada today. In a recent issue of the Free Speech Monitor newsletter, he wrote on the vital importance of a free Internet for the exchange of information in this day of political correctness in our traditional media of news and information. And he reported on Bill C-36, under the above caption, as follows:
" ... it's no surprise that Bill-36 will gag the Internet.
"The government proposes to let a judge, on the basis of a sworn information, order the deletion of material from any Internet site in Canada that, 'on the balance of probabilities,' constitutes 'hate propaganda' -- that is, willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group (colour, race, religion or ethnic origin).
A hearing would be held within a 'reasonable' period of time where the person who posted the material could advance arguments as to why the material was not 'hate propaganda.
' "If the judge ruled against the writer, the order would be permanent. If he ruled the material was not hate propaganda, it could not be restored 'until the time for final appeal has expired.' This is carte blanche for censorship of websites that criticize the government's failed immigration policy."

Material can be ordered removed from websites.
There is no definition of a 'reasonable' time within which a hearing must be held. The judge can order the permanent removal of offensive opinion on mere probability that it constitutes 'hate' against privileged groups, not that it does so 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Timely material can be ordered gagged and might not be restored to a website until many months or years later, after all appeals have been exhausted. "Ironically, this is not a war on terrorism, but a war on free speech."

If anything, the government's attack on the Internet becomes even more insidious as it has amended Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13.1 makes it a discriminatory practice to publish anything that is 'likely to expose to hatred or contempt' members of a long list of privileged groups (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted). Under Section 13.1, truth is no defence, nor does intention matter.

"The censorship lobby, which has long had its sights fixed on the Internet, is ecstatic."

COMMENT: It might be noted that this whole government attack on the Internet is nothing more than an attack on freedom of speech and communication of all except politically correct opinion. And in every respect its provisions are the very denial and negation of English common law, which is the basis of Canadian law. A wise Canadian recently warned:
"In this time of emotional stress, it is especially important to remember that informed dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. Suppression is the hallmark of tyranny."

The excessive portions of Bill C-36 make no contribution whatsoever to the battle against terrorism or Canadian security, and should be deleted, and a sunset clause added. And the whole attack on freedom of the Internet not only makes no contribution to Canadian security and the war against terrorism, but is in reality itself an attack on Canadians' fundamental freedoms and the institutionalizing of bureaucratic terrorism, using the present crisis as the excuse for inflicting such a Draconian measure on our own people. This whole Internet measure should be completely and immediately scrapped.
Calling it like it is When a spade's a spade

THE NEWS, the weekly newspaper of Nanton, Alberta, in its Oct. 31st issue, under the above heading and subhead, published the following "letter to the editor" by Neil E. Wilson, a local businessman who happens to be chairman of The Canadian Constitution Committee.
"Editor, News: "I have before me a deck of cards. Let's see, one cut, turn up the first card, ah, the deuce of hearts. I deal. The next card, the seven of hearts. A good day for hearts, the symbol of love, compassion, devotion and sincerity -- a reminder of what our real contribution should be to one another. "Next, the two-eyed Jack of diamonds, the wealthy prince with sword in hand, a reminder that the owners of gold make the rules and enforce them. Next, the nine of clubs. "Clubs suggest crude bludgeoning but effective rule. It is strange why bunches of people who gather together regularly are called clubs. I notice that the club looks much like a shamrock, a secular symbol of luck. After all is confiscated to protect ourselves, yes we would be lucky to have a club. "Next, ah, the Ace of spades. Dark, foreboding, considered the top card.

THE SPADE!
One more ... joker! Neither heart, diamond, club, or spade, but changes suit as the occasion arises. Reminds me of our prime minister and his cards around a table of politically correct media types who refuse to recognize or chastise one who cheats the game, afraid of taking a stand in opposition to unacceptable behaviour because it might be construed as recognizing one's true suit, so to speak. Instead he promotes a society of politically correct pantywaists who do not have the wherewithal to stand up and call a spade, 'a spade.'
Everytime the PM shuffles his deck, have you noticed that it sounds like he's short a few cards? "Canadians had better start calling the game and establishing the rules it is to be played under. We had better ratify a constitution that will provide for an honest game and a fair deal."

COMMENT (by R.G.): Now we begin to understand why our somewhat smug and self-opinionated Central Canadian 'liberals' are a bit reluctant to get involved (in cards, or politics!) with those Redneck cowpunchers from the Alberta Foothills.

FBI, CIA want agents in T.O.

The Toronto Sun, Dec. 17, reports: "The FBI and CIA are trying to beef up their presence in Canada to probe terrorist activity that could pose a second threat to the U.S., American officials say. "The FBI, which already has more than 40 officers in Toronto probing the Sept. 11 terror attacks, is pushing for a full-time field office here to monitor al-Quaida and other terrorist groups. …Canadian police sources said U.S. officials are also furious that undocumented refugee claimants are being released nightly, while some 6,000 failed refugees have disappeared since their cases were rejected this year. …"

Some very sound advice
There has just come to our attention, a copy of a rather down-to-earth, common-sense "communiqué" addressed to a wide segment of Canadian leaders. Below, is the document in full, which speaks for itself. --

Editor The Montgomery Tavern Society Box 88512, Swansea P.O., 34 Southport Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6S 4Z8 A
Communiqué to the Prime Minister of Canada, all Ministers, Senators, MPs, MPPs, Media, Opinion Leaders and Citizens of Canada: Canada's Fight against Terrorism

The safety of Canadian citizens during this fight against terrorism is paramount, however the fundamental freedoms of Canadians must not be sacrificed. Therefore, our Society, representing individuals and organizations totaling some 87,000 members issue this communiqué.

I. Safety of Canadian Citizens
Over the last thirty-five years, new layers of immigration law, procedures and enforcement have been piled one upon the other until the whole has become a totally dysfunctional morass subject to much abuse. A worldwide industry of immigration lawyers, immigration specialists and people smugglers has developed into a bloated, unsavoury, profit-making business which does not act in the interest of Canadians. Canada is a soft target for false refugee claimants as demonstrated by our excessive acceptance rate (52% in Canada in comparison with 15% in other refugee-accepting countries). Most refugees arrive without documents and it is therefore impossible to ascertain the veracity of their claim. Criminal and terrorist groups also take advantage of our lax system. Our appeal procedures are endless. Even when denied entry, most refugee claimants are released from custody and disappear into the general population. Therefore, for these reasons we must stop what we are doing and entirely revamp and rationalize our laws and procedures. We strongly urge a moratorium on all refugee acceptances and all new applicants for landed immigrant status, from all countries, until these new procedures are in place. We recommend that a debate and free vote of all Members of Parliament be required to extend the moratorium after three years should that be necessary. All Canadians must be represented in such a vital vote.

II. Protection of Fundamental Freedoms -- Proposed Anti-Terrorism Law -- Bill C36
The many intrusions of Bill C36 into the privacy rights of Canadians and the overriding of the normal legal protections our citizens expect are unsupportable in time of peace. We agree that a temporary sacrifice of some of these protections may be necessary in the fight against international terrorism. The key word is "temporary." It is our recommendation that a Sunset Clause be included in Bill C36 to the effect that the entire Anti-Terrorism Law be repealed at the end of a three-year period from the date upon which the Law takes force. We recommend that should the Law require an extension beyond the three-year period of the Sunset clause, a debate on the issue and a free vote of all Members of Parliament be required.

III. The Internet anti-hate and propaganda section in Bill C36 will stifle free speech and expose Canadians and the media to police harassment and financial penalties through tribunal judgements. As one of our members stated so well, "In this time of emotional stress, it is especially important to remember that informed dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. Suppression of dissent is the hallmark of tyranny."
We believe that an important factor in winning the fight against terrorism is the gathering of intelligence. This section of Bill C36 will drive communications underground and suppress dissent. Sufficient laws are already in effect in the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act to curb pernicious hatred. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the Internet Hate and Propaganda sections of Bill C36 be removed in their entirety. Communiqué Number 1, December 2, 2001
(End of The Montgomery Tavern Society's communiqué)

COMMENT (by R.G.): We note from the reverse side of the Communiqué, that The Montgomery Tavern Society defines itself as follows: "The Society takes its name from the rebellion of 1837 in Upper Canada, led by William Lyon Mackenzie. The farming- and working-class people at that time felt the House of Assembly which was under the control of the Family Compact, a group of interrelated powerful business, church and government officials, was not addressing their concerns. After some ten years of being frustrated in their attempts to reform the political system, these men decided armed revolt was their only recourse. "They met at a place called the Montgomery Tavern on Yonge Street north of Toronto in order to begin their armed march on the House of Assembly in the City of Toronto. They failed in their attempt and many were incarcerated, exiled or executed; however, their concerns were recognized and eventually corrected by the governing authorities."

Our organization honours their efforts to correct injustice by adopting the name of their meeting place for our organization of politically active leaders. They were the first reform movement of Upper Canada." My information is that this organization includes a number of business and professional people -- lawyers, doctors, journalists, etc. --, reform- and conservative-oriented political activists, and a number of rural members. Indeed, a rather creative, constructive and responsible cross section of central Ontario.

Foreign students pull welfare scam
The Toronto Sun, Nov. 8, under the above-caption, published a revealing report by its national politics columnist, Greg Weston. Following, are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - Today's tour of the Department of Immigration, Insanity Division, takes us to the United States border where overseas students attending American universities have been graduating to Canadian refugee and welfare fraud, apparently with flying colours."
Confidential intelligence reports say it is becoming increasingly popular for foreigners at the U.S. colleges to take a little side trip to the nearest Canadian border point to claim refugee status and -- yes -- welfare.

No, you didn't misread anything: Foreign students at American universities are getting Canadian welfare under the guise of being refugees. At the border they profess to have no identification -- among other things, that ensures the refugee determination process will drag on for years -- and they certainly don't mention they are already living comfortably on campus in the care of Uncle Sam.
Armed with their new refugee-claim papers, they then proceed to the nearest Canadian city to sign up for social assistance. Before you can say scam, they are laughing all the way to the bank -- and back to class in the U.S. -- with a guaranteed supply of monthly provincial welfare cheques.

Investigators tell us the scam is so well organized foreign students are even provided with a Canadian address where the welfare cheques are sent, cashed, and the money then forwarded electronically to U.S. bank accounts.
In one recent incident at the Niagara Falls border crossing, Sudanese students apparently drove all the way from the University of Tennessee in hopes the refugee welfare scam would help keep them in beer and books back in their U.S. dorm.
An internal advisory to immigration officers indicates that particular attempt was thwarted only by an alert motorist.

Niagara Falls (Customs and Immigration) has returned to the USA two Sudanese (students) found hiding behind a sunglass(es) display case in the duty-free store at the Queenston Bridge. A search was initiated after a traveller reported that a car with a U.S. licence plate had dropped off two travellers in the middle of the bridge. The car was searched by Customs, with two Sudanese passports found. The driver of the car, a Sudanese legal resident of the U.S., indicated that he had dropped off the two men so they could walk to the Canadian border to enter undocumented (refugee) claims, and that he would meet them later somewhere down the road.

The two men, who were students in the USA, admitted it was common knowledge among foreign students in Tennessee that it is possible to supplement incomes by entering (refugee and welfare) claims in Canada, while also returning to their studies in the USA.
Immigration sources tell us the incident is anything but isolated.

The word is definitely out that Canada is an easy mark,' says one immigration official. Pakistani refugee claimants, for instance, accounted for the second largest number of claims of all nationalities last year. Another classified intelligence report says the vast majority of would-be Pakistani 'refugees' are arriving from the U.S., and a full 89% of them in the past year have had no documentation. This situation 'makes investigations relating to their alleged identity and background more difficult.

This trend, while allowing a choice of identity, also suggests that many may be using their genuine documentation, while under (refugee) consideration in Canada, to continue with their lives in their real identities elsewhere. Some Pakistani students in the USA have also indicated that it is common that public funds from refugee and welfare claims in Canada will support their continuing studies in the USA.... If nothing else, the great American college scam could help to explain some of the thousands of Canadian refugee claims that are simply abandoned each year without notice or explanation.
"Maybe they graduated."

COMMENT: For years this Service has been warning that our immigration system was a farce, that its 'open-door' approach is not only terribly costly, but is also so inefficient that it's made our country a haven for the freeloaders, criminals and terrorists of the world. Sadly, it's taken a war and a rebuke by Uncle Sam to awaken Ottawa from its slumber.

FROM MONTH TO MONTH

Modern 'Art' and 'Culture'?
The National Post, Dec. 5, carried a report captioned "Banff Centre pays Mexican to masturbate."
A few excerpts: "CALGARY - The Banff Centre, one of the country's most prestigious cultural institutions, has provided about $1,300 in financial assistance for a Mexican performance artist to ejaculate into glass vials as part of an international artist exchange agreement. "Israel Mora, 33, masturbates privately into seven glass vials that he says represent seven members of his family. The vials are then placed in a cooler, which Mr. Mora currently has strung up between two trees at the Banff Centre. Mr. Mora has also been wheeling the cooler around the streets of Banff on a small cart. "Mr. Mora is at the centre on a $4,000, seven-week residency. The government of Mexico is covering two-thirds of the cost and the Banff Centre, which receives about 22% of its $42-million budget from government funding, is covering the rest. "His project, titled Level 7, 'aims to examine the concepts of privacy and intimacy within contemporary society,' according to an announcement bill the Banff Centre. 'Mora will explore the boundaries of what constitutes a private experience. …'
"Connie MacDonald, communications director for the Banff Centre, said she has no complaints about Mr. Mora's project. " 'A lot of people have this concept that art is beautiful and it hangs on the wall. What we focus on is trying to help people understand what contemporary art is. By definition it explores current issues in society and creating dialogue often on topics around poverty and death and sexuality.'
"Mr. Mora teaches theory and practice in the department of Visual Arts at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico."

The National Post, eight days later published another report, captioned
"Banff Centre Boss apologizes for semen 'art.'" Here are excerpts:
"CALGARY - The president of the Banff Centre has apologized in writing to the people of Banff for bringing in a Mexican artist who masturbated into glass vials and called it art. "... 'We wish to apologize to anyone whom this controversial project may have offended,' she said. ... "Billed as Canada's leading professional development centre for the arts, the centre was designated a national training institution in 1999 by Sheila Copps, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. While this outrageous and offensive display of 'culture' and 'art,' is rather typical of the record of Ms. Copps and the way her department blows our tax-dollars, it's almost too vulgar and crass to even warrant comment. However, it does reveal and demonstrate a certain sad truth about the quality of leadership in the public domain in Canada today. For instance:
It tells us that Connie MacDonald, communications director for the Banff Centre for the 'arts,' was either fabricating when she claimed to have received no complaints, or she was demonstrating how divorced she is from the standards and feelings of the average Canadian citizen and taxpayer. No wonder the president of the Centre had to bail her out and apologize to the public.
The fact that masturbating and prancing around the streets of Banff with jars of semen is held up by the Centre's communications director as an example of modern 'art' or 'culture,' worth paying a Mexican to come to Canada to perform, speaks to the degenerate condition of 'modern art' in Canada today, to say nothing about the condition of those who are promoting it.
And one short observation: It's fortunate for the Mexican he finished his act before the winter set in -- it would be a bit frosty performing his 'art' and stringing it up in the trees and pushing it in his cart through the ice and snow at minus-30!

Grants paid to inmates, deceased A report in the National Post, Dec. 4, under the above caption, reported, in part: "OTTAWA - Nearly half of a $1.4-billion home-heating relief plan for low-income Canadians went to dead people, non-residents and others who did not need the money, the Auditor-General said yesterday.
"The program's poor design combined with government mismanagement left 90,000 poor Canadians without any financial aid for fuel bills, Sheila Fraser said. "Only about $250-million to $350-million of the $1.4-billion was paid to low- and modest-income households that faced soaring heating costs, Ms. Fraser said. She noted that the government sent cheques to at least 4,000 non-residents, 7,500 dead people and several hundred prisoners. "
'While it is difficult to calculate how many prisoners received the relief-for-heating expenses, based on available data the department estimates that about 1,600 prisoners could have received cheques,' Ms. Fraser writes in her annual report, released yesterday. ...
"Paul Martin, the Minister of Finance, bypassed Parliament to institute the plan, relying instead on special Cabinet orders authorizing the Liberal government to make the payments. "

'The initiative was poorly targeted,' (Ms. Fraser) writes. 'The government wanted to help low- and modest-income households but more than 40% of the households that received relief did not need assistance or were not low- or modest-income households. " 'In addition,' she notes, 'more than one cheque could have gone to over 10% of households. Moreover, at least 90,000 Canadians who needed immediate help did not receive the relief for heating expenses ...' "

What the report did not mention, was that this poorly managed scheme without parliamentary scrutiny was rushed through by the government at the last minute, just days before calling the federal election! This seems a typical example of 'the little guy from Shawinigan's' style of 'democracy.' A wily old political fox, knowing that the election would be over before the mismanagement and politics of the ploy became evident.