|
 "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke |
|
|
| . |
. | . |
. | . |
Canada Calling |
The FTAA -- Blueprint for DisasterBy 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, 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. 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: 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." 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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! 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 "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" 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. 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: 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 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
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: Consider: International terrorism, for the first
time, is in retreat. 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: 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: 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. A Few Words of Comment (to our readers) On Target Section Hail Switzerland! 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. 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" "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.' "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 "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. "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. Canadian sanctions against Zimbabwe? "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. ... " " 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 "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. PM admits Canada becoming helpless! "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' "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. ... 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: 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. THE BATTLE FOR CANADA FOUNDATION STONES OF CANADIAN UNITY 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 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. Servant or Master? 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." 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..." 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 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..." 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. 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. 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." 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?" 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. 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: "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. 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: 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 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; 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: "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." 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 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 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 Palestine |
