Wednesday, December 01, 2010
The breakdown of the rule of law ... and the helplessness of the people of B.C.
.
Dear Mary. You thought something about the wrongful appointment of Berardino should be written. Hmmmmmm. I've encased it in a consideration of the breakdown of the rule of law ... and the helplessness of the people of B.C. You might want it for a column.
A Second Year Philosophy Seminar Question: “Is it reasonable - for political, moral, and economic causes to murder a “legitimate” leader in our time?”
By Robin Mathews
December 1, 2010
In the past – four hundred years ago or so – the question was much asked, the subject much debated. It was a time of more rudimentary development of laws to protect the population from the depredations of power.
The question arises in British Columbia for philosophical debate, now, because of the increasingly apparent violation of trust engaged in by B.C. premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal cabinet – in order to pauperize British Columbians, to alienate their public wealth secretly, to flatter and enrich cabinet friends with public money, to practice every kind of deception, to victimize the weakest members of the population, and to debase democratic processes so as to make them inoperative.
The answer to the seminar question – to lay governmental minds at rest, at least temporarily – is that No, it is not reasonable. First, the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in ‘democratic’ societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions, and so drastic measures are not necessary.
Secondly, in Canada capital punishment has been outlawed. If a person, a group of people, or a majority of the population decided to murder Gordon Campbell (for instance), the reason adduced would doubtless be that it is an action undertaken ‘for the people’.
But since we live in a country which has outlawed capital punishment, for anyone to engage in what is called “tyrannicide” would be contrary to law – and the murderers would be said to be working against the interests of the people. The condition of possessing a law against capital punishment educates and restrains those who would undertake political assassination.
In countries like the United States assassination of leaders has been frequently engaged in – sometimes by mentally deranged people … but not always. In a country in which capital punishment has not been outlawed (the USA) the likelihood of people “taking the law into their own hands” is considerable. Because - if the state murders, it is argued, why shouldn’t the citizen as well?
In the past - four hundred years ago or so - the question was much asked, the subject much debated. The argument was straightforward: “Every ruler, however legitimate, belongs to this category [the category of tyrant] if the main principle of his government is selfishness, and if he habitually sacrifices the interests of his people to his lusts or to his pride. Such rulers are the worst of evils, the enemies of the human race.” [W.E.H. Lecky, (reporting in) History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, 1865, p. 166, Vol.Two].
Arguing from natural justice and not from the spinnings and weavings of law-makers, one writer (1599) held that, “If some ferocious beast had been let loose upon the land, and was devastating all around him, who would hesitate to applaud the man who at the risk of his life had ventured to slay it?”
The author concludes that it is “a salutary thought for princes to dwell upon, that if they oppress their people and make themselves intolerable by their vices, to slay them is not only without guilt but is an act of highest merit”.
The author [of four hundred years ago] was troubled about methods, though, and spends a chapter on the matter. He concludes that to slay a tyrant with a dagger is meritorious, but to mingle poison with his food is another matter. Logic, he decides, supports both methods, but he concludes that poison “is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right.” [p. 171]. [That is, it somehow offends the general sense of decency.] We now reject capital punishment in Canada for the same reason, because “it is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right”.
Times change; the ‘common sentiment of mankind’ changes; but the evil of politicians, apparently, does not change.
If we, now, seem far from the behaviour of the population four hundred years ago – perhaps that isn’t so. In a thoughtful column written for Opinion 250 on November 29, Peter Ewart argues that the present inept political structure in B.C. “gives the Premier huge power … approaching that of a monarch”. And Ewart goes on to refer to “the tyrannical behaviour of modern political leaders”.
They operate tyrannically under “The New Lawlessness” which has erased the rule of law, and has brought into threat the financial security of whole nations. In collaboration with “princes”, financial criminals have decimated the confidence of populations, have drained public treasuries, have assured the growing poverty of ordinary people – while those same financial criminals and their government supporters have grown increasingly rich. Natural justice cries out against such a gigantic wrong.
But since parliaments are ‘bought’, courts subverted, and police forces turned into “palace armies” – the population has nowhere to turn. Such a condition can only point to economic disaster and growing social unrest.
Take note. The person who warns that public violence will occur if (a) government doesn’t reform, and (b) if routes to remedy for wrongs done to the public are closed IS NOT advocating violence. The contrary. He or she is flashing warning signs to prevent violence.
It is not at all surprising, alas, that in the last few days “British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer … received threats of violence “ [Globe and Mail, Nov 30, S3] for being perceived as faking his rejection of an anti-HST recall application, and being seen as a corrupt lackey by many, serving the ends of a corrupt B.C. cabinet … frustrating the rule of law.
There is little question in B.C. today that the rule of law is seriously fractured. The so-called modern advances in human compassion are asked of the larger population – but not of leaders who have chosen the role of “tyrant”.
We know, moreover, the assassination of leaders unpopular with imperial powers is quite “modern”, has been very common in the last hundred years and in our own day. A major activity of such powers is to erase the rule of law. The advance of human kind has NOT been seen in their behaviour. Murder of leaders (who are not tyrants) is a popular activity with them – especially the U.S., outside its own borders. In 1961, just for instance, the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered with the assistance of the U.S. CIA – introducing a brutal (U.S.-supported) despot who began the long, long hell of the Congo world.
The freely elected Salvadore Allende of Chile was overthrown and died (some say by suicide) in a U.S. sponsored coup in 1973 – spiralling Chile into a murderous dictatorship (supported by the U.S.) of 17 years, and a “pretend” democratic government since.
Closer to home, we know that Jean-Aristide Bertrand, first democratically elected president of Haiti, was deposed, kidnapped, and flown to the Central African Republic in 2004 by the cooperation of the U.S., Canada, and France. And we know the de facto power in Haiti since that time has been a UN force, assuring the wishes of those three powers and repressing the people of Haiti. Haitians, we are given to understand, consider the UN force in Haiti an “occupying force”.
Almost unknown to Canadians in this latest disaster of an election in Haiti two days ago, the political party of Jean-Aristide Bertrand was refused the right to run, and Aristide was refused the right to return to Haiti! “Well,” you say, “he’s lucky. They could have murdered him, too”.
At home, the new novel by Louis Hamelin on the War Measures Act and the 1970 FLQ Crisis argues [as Hamelin does in interview] that the famous Pierre Laporte murder by the FLQ was – at the very least – ‘permitted’ by the Canadian government which could have stopped it. But … how better to get Canadians on the side of the federal government than to have a Quebec cabinet minister murdered in cold blood by the wicked FLQ? Pierre Laporte suffered assassination, but at whose hands precisely, Hamelin cannot say.
In British Columbia – to return to the opening of this piece – the attempt to begin the lawful Recall process of targetted MLAs (as a continuation of the resistance to the deceitfully imposed HST) was refused, many insist, in a rape of democratic process in support of the corrupt Gordon Campbell Liberal government. The rule of law and decent convention, it would seem, are jokes to the present cabinet in B.C.
The whole trial of the three accused in the BC Rail Scandal criminal case, in addition, was … a farce. The Special Prosecutor was appointed - in a violation of the legislation governing the appointment process - by long-time former partners and colleagues (who one might also assume were friends). Attorney General Geoff Plant and Deputy AG Allan Seckel (the latter now the Gordon Campbell-appointed top civil servant in B.C.)
That meant the wrongly appointed Special Prosecutor could not legitimately lay the charges, conduct the case in court, or make the final “deal” (or “bribe”) to end the trial. Allegations that he was a lackey of the Gordon Campbell cabinet gained significant force in the wake of the messily `aborted trial and the “buy off” of the accused.
The Attorney General, the top court judges … and all others appealed to on the matter of the wrongful appointment either flubbed their replies or refused to reply.
They stated – by refusing to face the issue - in effect, that there is no machinery in British Columbia to right the real wrongs committed by the cabinet of the Gordon Campbell Liberals.
That is an explosive admission that cannot (unchecked) lead to anything but public unrest.
As with the BC Hydro secret destruction, the BC Ferries fiasco, the fraudulent sell-out of river energy, and the many huge, highly suspect government (development) contracts, the RCMP refuses to fulfill its mandate and investigate the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR, partly – it is alleged – because the RCMP, itself, cannot face the evidence that would be brought forth.
People in British Columbia are in a strange situation. They cannot act physically against Gordon Campbell and members of his cabinet. But they are unable to act lawfully against them either – because all the forces constitutionally constructed to protect the reasonable interests of the population have been subverted, suborned, bought, overthrown.
One reason – stated at the beginning of this piece - why Gordon Campbell, for instance, could not be legitimately murdered by a member or members of the British Columbia population is because “the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in “democratic” societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions….”
With “The New Lawlessness”, however, that is not true. It is certainly not true in British Columbia.
That situation has to accelerate the growth of seething discontent in the province. Finding a way to restore the rule of law is and will be a major challenge.
Perhaps a peaceable, democratic, just, modern-day change of government is the solution for British Columbians. But that will not be easy, since tyrants twist the rule of law out of recognition to avoid a just change of government.
British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer Craig James has (to many observers) proved that to be true … and demonstrated it to be true.
Dear Mary. You thought something about the wrongful appointment of Berardino should be written. Hmmmmmm. I've encased it in a consideration of the breakdown of the rule of law ... and the helplessness of the people of B.C. You might want it for a column.
A Second Year Philosophy Seminar Question: “Is it reasonable - for political, moral, and economic causes to murder a “legitimate” leader in our time?”
By Robin Mathews
December 1, 2010
In the past – four hundred years ago or so – the question was much asked, the subject much debated. It was a time of more rudimentary development of laws to protect the population from the depredations of power.
The question arises in British Columbia for philosophical debate, now, because of the increasingly apparent violation of trust engaged in by B.C. premier Gordon Campbell and his Liberal cabinet – in order to pauperize British Columbians, to alienate their public wealth secretly, to flatter and enrich cabinet friends with public money, to practice every kind of deception, to victimize the weakest members of the population, and to debase democratic processes so as to make them inoperative.
The answer to the seminar question – to lay governmental minds at rest, at least temporarily – is that No, it is not reasonable. First, the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in ‘democratic’ societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions, and so drastic measures are not necessary.
Secondly, in Canada capital punishment has been outlawed. If a person, a group of people, or a majority of the population decided to murder Gordon Campbell (for instance), the reason adduced would doubtless be that it is an action undertaken ‘for the people’.
But since we live in a country which has outlawed capital punishment, for anyone to engage in what is called “tyrannicide” would be contrary to law – and the murderers would be said to be working against the interests of the people. The condition of possessing a law against capital punishment educates and restrains those who would undertake political assassination.
In countries like the United States assassination of leaders has been frequently engaged in – sometimes by mentally deranged people … but not always. In a country in which capital punishment has not been outlawed (the USA) the likelihood of people “taking the law into their own hands” is considerable. Because - if the state murders, it is argued, why shouldn’t the citizen as well?
In the past - four hundred years ago or so - the question was much asked, the subject much debated. The argument was straightforward: “Every ruler, however legitimate, belongs to this category [the category of tyrant] if the main principle of his government is selfishness, and if he habitually sacrifices the interests of his people to his lusts or to his pride. Such rulers are the worst of evils, the enemies of the human race.” [W.E.H. Lecky, (reporting in) History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, 1865, p. 166, Vol.Two].
Arguing from natural justice and not from the spinnings and weavings of law-makers, one writer (1599) held that, “If some ferocious beast had been let loose upon the land, and was devastating all around him, who would hesitate to applaud the man who at the risk of his life had ventured to slay it?”
The author concludes that it is “a salutary thought for princes to dwell upon, that if they oppress their people and make themselves intolerable by their vices, to slay them is not only without guilt but is an act of highest merit”.
The author [of four hundred years ago] was troubled about methods, though, and spends a chapter on the matter. He concludes that to slay a tyrant with a dagger is meritorious, but to mingle poison with his food is another matter. Logic, he decides, supports both methods, but he concludes that poison “is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right.” [p. 171]. [That is, it somehow offends the general sense of decency.] We now reject capital punishment in Canada for the same reason, because “it is prohibited by that common sentiment of mankind which is the voice of nature and the test of right”.
Times change; the ‘common sentiment of mankind’ changes; but the evil of politicians, apparently, does not change.
If we, now, seem far from the behaviour of the population four hundred years ago – perhaps that isn’t so. In a thoughtful column written for Opinion 250 on November 29, Peter Ewart argues that the present inept political structure in B.C. “gives the Premier huge power … approaching that of a monarch”. And Ewart goes on to refer to “the tyrannical behaviour of modern political leaders”.
They operate tyrannically under “The New Lawlessness” which has erased the rule of law, and has brought into threat the financial security of whole nations. In collaboration with “princes”, financial criminals have decimated the confidence of populations, have drained public treasuries, have assured the growing poverty of ordinary people – while those same financial criminals and their government supporters have grown increasingly rich. Natural justice cries out against such a gigantic wrong.
But since parliaments are ‘bought’, courts subverted, and police forces turned into “palace armies” – the population has nowhere to turn. Such a condition can only point to economic disaster and growing social unrest.
Take note. The person who warns that public violence will occur if (a) government doesn’t reform, and (b) if routes to remedy for wrongs done to the public are closed IS NOT advocating violence. The contrary. He or she is flashing warning signs to prevent violence.
It is not at all surprising, alas, that in the last few days “British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer … received threats of violence “ [Globe and Mail, Nov 30, S3] for being perceived as faking his rejection of an anti-HST recall application, and being seen as a corrupt lackey by many, serving the ends of a corrupt B.C. cabinet … frustrating the rule of law.
There is little question in B.C. today that the rule of law is seriously fractured. The so-called modern advances in human compassion are asked of the larger population – but not of leaders who have chosen the role of “tyrant”.
We know, moreover, the assassination of leaders unpopular with imperial powers is quite “modern”, has been very common in the last hundred years and in our own day. A major activity of such powers is to erase the rule of law. The advance of human kind has NOT been seen in their behaviour. Murder of leaders (who are not tyrants) is a popular activity with them – especially the U.S., outside its own borders. In 1961, just for instance, the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba was murdered with the assistance of the U.S. CIA – introducing a brutal (U.S.-supported) despot who began the long, long hell of the Congo world.
The freely elected Salvadore Allende of Chile was overthrown and died (some say by suicide) in a U.S. sponsored coup in 1973 – spiralling Chile into a murderous dictatorship (supported by the U.S.) of 17 years, and a “pretend” democratic government since.
Closer to home, we know that Jean-Aristide Bertrand, first democratically elected president of Haiti, was deposed, kidnapped, and flown to the Central African Republic in 2004 by the cooperation of the U.S., Canada, and France. And we know the de facto power in Haiti since that time has been a UN force, assuring the wishes of those three powers and repressing the people of Haiti. Haitians, we are given to understand, consider the UN force in Haiti an “occupying force”.
Almost unknown to Canadians in this latest disaster of an election in Haiti two days ago, the political party of Jean-Aristide Bertrand was refused the right to run, and Aristide was refused the right to return to Haiti! “Well,” you say, “he’s lucky. They could have murdered him, too”.
At home, the new novel by Louis Hamelin on the War Measures Act and the 1970 FLQ Crisis argues [as Hamelin does in interview] that the famous Pierre Laporte murder by the FLQ was – at the very least – ‘permitted’ by the Canadian government which could have stopped it. But … how better to get Canadians on the side of the federal government than to have a Quebec cabinet minister murdered in cold blood by the wicked FLQ? Pierre Laporte suffered assassination, but at whose hands precisely, Hamelin cannot say.
In British Columbia – to return to the opening of this piece – the attempt to begin the lawful Recall process of targetted MLAs (as a continuation of the resistance to the deceitfully imposed HST) was refused, many insist, in a rape of democratic process in support of the corrupt Gordon Campbell Liberal government. The rule of law and decent convention, it would seem, are jokes to the present cabinet in B.C.
The whole trial of the three accused in the BC Rail Scandal criminal case, in addition, was … a farce. The Special Prosecutor was appointed - in a violation of the legislation governing the appointment process - by long-time former partners and colleagues (who one might also assume were friends). Attorney General Geoff Plant and Deputy AG Allan Seckel (the latter now the Gordon Campbell-appointed top civil servant in B.C.)
That meant the wrongly appointed Special Prosecutor could not legitimately lay the charges, conduct the case in court, or make the final “deal” (or “bribe”) to end the trial. Allegations that he was a lackey of the Gordon Campbell cabinet gained significant force in the wake of the messily `aborted trial and the “buy off” of the accused.
The Attorney General, the top court judges … and all others appealed to on the matter of the wrongful appointment either flubbed their replies or refused to reply.
They stated – by refusing to face the issue - in effect, that there is no machinery in British Columbia to right the real wrongs committed by the cabinet of the Gordon Campbell Liberals.
That is an explosive admission that cannot (unchecked) lead to anything but public unrest.
As with the BC Hydro secret destruction, the BC Ferries fiasco, the fraudulent sell-out of river energy, and the many huge, highly suspect government (development) contracts, the RCMP refuses to fulfill its mandate and investigate the corrupt transfer of BC Rail to the CNR, partly – it is alleged – because the RCMP, itself, cannot face the evidence that would be brought forth.
People in British Columbia are in a strange situation. They cannot act physically against Gordon Campbell and members of his cabinet. But they are unable to act lawfully against them either – because all the forces constitutionally constructed to protect the reasonable interests of the population have been subverted, suborned, bought, overthrown.
One reason – stated at the beginning of this piece - why Gordon Campbell, for instance, could not be legitimately murdered by a member or members of the British Columbia population is because “the human community (in theory) has advanced to the condition where immoral and illegal actions by political leaders in “democratic” societies are checked by modern laws and constitutions….”
With “The New Lawlessness”, however, that is not true. It is certainly not true in British Columbia.
That situation has to accelerate the growth of seething discontent in the province. Finding a way to restore the rule of law is and will be a major challenge.
Perhaps a peaceable, democratic, just, modern-day change of government is the solution for British Columbians. But that will not be easy, since tyrants twist the rule of law out of recognition to avoid a just change of government.
British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer Craig James has (to many observers) proved that to be true … and demonstrated it to be true.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From BC Mary, in tears ... Robin Mathews knew of my concerns, and I thank him for bringing these basic facts into focus, clearly reminding us of how to look at the desperate status of a beloved province.
Many of us know that BC is in deep trouble. Proof of it was in the chop-off ending to the most important trial in BC history. And in the secret (even from Campbell's own Cabinet) dismantling of government ministries to form the "One-stop shop" known as the new Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. We know it.
Trouble is, we know, too, that the news media have turned their backs. So people have felt boxed in. Nowhere to turn for help.
Thank you, Robin Mathews.
Now let the seminar continue ... what to do, what to do?
If, for example, a successful legal challenge against William Berardino's appointment to the Basi-Virk BC Rail trial would render it a mistrial ... then ... wouldn't it be tossed? Have we the courage for a fresh start?
Or: is it quicker, wiser, better to push hard right now for the Public Inquiry? And to reverse Gordo's legislation requiring that the findings be given to nobody except the BC Cabinet. Let the seminar continue.
Many of us know that BC is in deep trouble. Proof of it was in the chop-off ending to the most important trial in BC history. And in the secret (even from Campbell's own Cabinet) dismantling of government ministries to form the "One-stop shop" known as the new Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. We know it.
Trouble is, we know, too, that the news media have turned their backs. So people have felt boxed in. Nowhere to turn for help.
Thank you, Robin Mathews.
Now let the seminar continue ... what to do, what to do?
If, for example, a successful legal challenge against William Berardino's appointment to the Basi-Virk BC Rail trial would render it a mistrial ... then ... wouldn't it be tossed? Have we the courage for a fresh start?
Or: is it quicker, wiser, better to push hard right now for the Public Inquiry? And to reverse Gordo's legislation requiring that the findings be given to nobody except the BC Cabinet. Let the seminar continue.
Thanks again, and again, Robin Mathews for getting the discussion started.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Repeat:
Take note. The person who warns that public violence will occur if (a) government doesn’t reform, and (b) if routes to remedy for wrongs done to the public are closed, IS NOT advocating violence. The contrary. He or she is flashing warning signs to prevent violence.
Skookum1 comments:
Part of that inquiry should be federal government meddling in the shuffling of judges, and potential political orders given to the RCMP to investigate or not investigate, and who to ignore etc.
Who chose to nominate Justice Mackenzie, who mandated Patrick Dohm to march into Justice Bennett's courtroom (or, for that matter, to take a felt pen to public evidence, and to determine what "privilege" meant, all by himself). Was Harper's office involved in this, and what kind of communications were there between Victoria and Ottawa over the selection/appointment of the stormtrooper who came in to take over the reins of what had been a very investigation of preliminary evidence by a, as now seen in retrospect, fair-minded and extremely publicly-minded judge?
Who allowed an unprecedented publication ban requested by neither Crown nor Defence? Who allowed the continued service of an illegally-appointed Special Prosecutor - someone whose personal political connections can not have NOT played a role in his determination of the warrants and the "selection" of who to "go after" - I mean, c'mon, it happened on the same day as his appointment, it's not like he thought of it once on the job....
How to found and mandate the constitutional committee of citizens to restructure the nature of the public inheritance of power from the Crown? Well, in colonial BC the Yale Convention, the result of which called for union with Canada, was entirely ad hoc; it had no official power but had powerful effect. As noted before, an overhaul of British Columbia's constitution, the way British Columbia is run and how its government is selected, and what the constitutional limits on power for elected officials should be (including severe punishments for transgressions) - and more - should all be on the agenda.
But where to hold it, how to pay for it, how to make sure it just doesn't get ignored, and/or filled with hacks and flacks and disinformationists and moles.....a harder proposition, same as with the founding of any new party, or a sudden boom in any currently registered one.
Any such reform means taking on Ottawa, maybe the other nine provinces, too - because it would be a constitutional change, and theoretically require approval by the 7 out of 10/50+1 rule, even though it's a provincial constitution and not the 1982 federal one. Maybe not; but rest assured there will be national media efforts, and influence from other first ministers and their regimes, against any full reform of British Columbia, because it would schedule their own political eventuality, and they won't like it one bit....
Take note. The person who warns that public violence will occur if (a) government doesn’t reform, and (b) if routes to remedy for wrongs done to the public are closed, IS NOT advocating violence. The contrary. He or she is flashing warning signs to prevent violence.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Skookum1 comments:
Part of that inquiry should be federal government meddling in the shuffling of judges, and potential political orders given to the RCMP to investigate or not investigate, and who to ignore etc.
Who chose to nominate Justice Mackenzie, who mandated Patrick Dohm to march into Justice Bennett's courtroom (or, for that matter, to take a felt pen to public evidence, and to determine what "privilege" meant, all by himself). Was Harper's office involved in this, and what kind of communications were there between Victoria and Ottawa over the selection/appointment of the stormtrooper who came in to take over the reins of what had been a very investigation of preliminary evidence by a, as now seen in retrospect, fair-minded and extremely publicly-minded judge?
Who allowed an unprecedented publication ban requested by neither Crown nor Defence? Who allowed the continued service of an illegally-appointed Special Prosecutor - someone whose personal political connections can not have NOT played a role in his determination of the warrants and the "selection" of who to "go after" - I mean, c'mon, it happened on the same day as his appointment, it's not like he thought of it once on the job....
How to found and mandate the constitutional committee of citizens to restructure the nature of the public inheritance of power from the Crown? Well, in colonial BC the Yale Convention, the result of which called for union with Canada, was entirely ad hoc; it had no official power but had powerful effect. As noted before, an overhaul of British Columbia's constitution, the way British Columbia is run and how its government is selected, and what the constitutional limits on power for elected officials should be (including severe punishments for transgressions) - and more - should all be on the agenda.
But where to hold it, how to pay for it, how to make sure it just doesn't get ignored, and/or filled with hacks and flacks and disinformationists and moles.....a harder proposition, same as with the founding of any new party, or a sudden boom in any currently registered one.
Any such reform means taking on Ottawa, maybe the other nine provinces, too - because it would be a constitutional change, and theoretically require approval by the 7 out of 10/50+1 rule, even though it's a provincial constitution and not the 1982 federal one. Maybe not; but rest assured there will be national media efforts, and influence from other first ministers and their regimes, against any full reform of British Columbia, because it would schedule their own political eventuality, and they won't like it one bit....
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
North Van's Grumps has left a new comment:
Is it too late to point out another one of those coincidences that happened in the Basi, Virk and Basi trial.....
The Defense lawyer for Bobby Virk made a big deal out of one of the facts that BC Rail Directors attended several hockey games, Vancouver Canucks hockey games, paid for by CIBC World Markets, and then the Directors sat down and decided on an untendered $6 million contract...... which was subsequently verified by the Executive Council of Gordon Campbell.
"The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) is considered to be the Province’s principal banker for interest rate reference purposes. As the need to determine the prime rate of the Province’s banker arises under various enactments and instruments across government, the historical record of CIBC’s prime lending rate can be referenced below. The rates are listed from 1974 and will be updated on a periodic basis. Please refer to CIBC's Web site for the most recent rate."
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/histrates.shtml
The really interesting thing about this page is this:
"View the Historical Effective Prime Rate table." http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf
Another coincidence.... the 9% that is on the indemnity.... from the data above, on April 14, 2004, the interest rate was 3.75%!!!!!
Is it too late to point out another one of those coincidences that happened in the Basi, Virk and Basi trial.....
The Defense lawyer for Bobby Virk made a big deal out of one of the facts that BC Rail Directors attended several hockey games, Vancouver Canucks hockey games, paid for by CIBC World Markets, and then the Directors sat down and decided on an untendered $6 million contract...... which was subsequently verified by the Executive Council of Gordon Campbell.
"The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) is considered to be the Province’s principal banker for interest rate reference purposes. As the need to determine the prime rate of the Province’s banker arises under various enactments and instruments across government, the historical record of CIBC’s prime lending rate can be referenced below. The rates are listed from 1974 and will be updated on a periodic basis. Please refer to CIBC's Web site for the most recent rate."
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/histrates.shtml
The really interesting thing about this page is this:
"View the Historical Effective Prime Rate table." http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf
Another coincidence.... the 9% that is on the indemnity.... from the data above, on April 14, 2004, the interest rate was 3.75%!!!!!
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
BC Mary recommends this YouTube ... to find it, Google, with quotation marks: "Questions arise of BC Rail Plea". It's an interesting discussion with Basi and Virk and others as to who authorized the $6 million pay-out. The Campbell Gang has difficulty explaining things ...
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Comments:
<< Home
These thoughts have crossed my mind Robin, only I lacked the courage to speak them. Do world leaders realise thier lives are in danger? Yes. That is why they don't post itinerary, don't interact with unscripted crowds or unaccredited media. That is why security pricetags have slipped into the billions and always include new police powers and toys. (Tasers, sound cannon, new Interceptors...)
Mary, I think a public inquiry is the way forward. I see little point in giving the courts a second chance at this. It's sooo expensive, considering the results we have seen to date.
Followed by a constitutional committee of citizens to regain our soveriegnty.
Mary, I think a public inquiry is the way forward. I see little point in giving the courts a second chance at this. It's sooo expensive, considering the results we have seen to date.
Followed by a constitutional committee of citizens to regain our soveriegnty.
Part of that inquiry should be federal government meddling in the shuffling of judges, and potential political orders given to the RCMP to investigate or not investigate, and who to ignore etc.
Who chose to nominate Justice Mackenzie, who mandated Patrick Dohm to march into Justice Bennett's courtroom (or, for that matter, to take a felt pen to public evidence, and to determine what "privilege" meant, all by himself). Was Harper's office involved in this, and what kind of communications were there between Victoria and Ottawa over the selection/appointment of the stormtrooper who came in to take over the reins of what had been a very investigation of preliminary evidence by a, as now seen in retrospect, fair-minded and extremely publicly-minded judge?
Who allowed an unprecedented publication ban requested by neither Crown nor Defence? Who allowed the continued service of an illegally-appointed Special Prosecutor - someone whose personal political connections can not have NOT played a role in his determination of the warrants and the "selection" of who to "go after" - I mean, c'mon, it happened on the same day as his appointment, it's not like he thought of it once on the job....
How to found and mandate the constitutional committee of citizens to restructure the nature of the public inheritance of power from the Crown? Well, in colonial BC the Yale Convention, the result of which called for union with Canada, was entirely ad hoc; it had no official power but had powerful effect. As noted before, an overhaul of British Columbia's constitution, the way British Columbia is run and how its government is selected, and what the constitutional limits on power for elected officials should be (including severe punishments for transgressions) - and more - should all be on the agenda.
But wheer to hold it, how to pay for it, how to make sure it just doesn't get ignored, and/or filled with hacks and flacks and disinformationists and moles.....a harder proposition, same as with the founding of any new party, or a sudden boom in any currently registered one.
Any such reform means taking on Ottawa, maybe the other nine provinces, too - because it would be a constitutional change, and theoretically require approval by the 7 out of 10/50+1 rule, even though it's a provincial constitution and not the 1982 federal one. Maybe not; but rest assured there will be national media efforts, and influence from other first ministers and their regimes, against any full reform of British Columbia, because it would schedule their own political eventuality, and they won't like it one bit....
Who chose to nominate Justice Mackenzie, who mandated Patrick Dohm to march into Justice Bennett's courtroom (or, for that matter, to take a felt pen to public evidence, and to determine what "privilege" meant, all by himself). Was Harper's office involved in this, and what kind of communications were there between Victoria and Ottawa over the selection/appointment of the stormtrooper who came in to take over the reins of what had been a very investigation of preliminary evidence by a, as now seen in retrospect, fair-minded and extremely publicly-minded judge?
Who allowed an unprecedented publication ban requested by neither Crown nor Defence? Who allowed the continued service of an illegally-appointed Special Prosecutor - someone whose personal political connections can not have NOT played a role in his determination of the warrants and the "selection" of who to "go after" - I mean, c'mon, it happened on the same day as his appointment, it's not like he thought of it once on the job....
How to found and mandate the constitutional committee of citizens to restructure the nature of the public inheritance of power from the Crown? Well, in colonial BC the Yale Convention, the result of which called for union with Canada, was entirely ad hoc; it had no official power but had powerful effect. As noted before, an overhaul of British Columbia's constitution, the way British Columbia is run and how its government is selected, and what the constitutional limits on power for elected officials should be (including severe punishments for transgressions) - and more - should all be on the agenda.
But wheer to hold it, how to pay for it, how to make sure it just doesn't get ignored, and/or filled with hacks and flacks and disinformationists and moles.....a harder proposition, same as with the founding of any new party, or a sudden boom in any currently registered one.
Any such reform means taking on Ottawa, maybe the other nine provinces, too - because it would be a constitutional change, and theoretically require approval by the 7 out of 10/50+1 rule, even though it's a provincial constitution and not the 1982 federal one. Maybe not; but rest assured there will be national media efforts, and influence from other first ministers and their regimes, against any full reform of British Columbia, because it would schedule their own political eventuality, and they won't like it one bit....
I KNOW a Public Inquiry is the way forward, provided its not another Kangeroo Court. Can somebody, anyone, tell me how to ensure it happens? Heck, I'd even vote NDP if I thought it would ensure a MEANINGFUL Public Inquiry. What distresses me is the number of posters that deride it as 'old news'. It is, as someone more significant than I said, the biggest news ever to hit the BC leislature. Let the facts so show!
# posted by 
: December 1, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
: December 1, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.
Very troubling times are ahead for British Columbia. The Recall Campaign fiasco and Craig James feeling a little out of sorts for being told a few home truths - shows just how strongly a lot of people in British Columbia, view the "apparent BC Liberal government interference". Whether or not this is the case - public sentiment says "enough is enough" and Campbell has moore than caused enough damage to this province.
If there is further unrest - our one and only "Pinocchio Gordon "the liar" Campbell can take all of the blame.
Excellent piece by Dr. Mathews and a good as explanation of what is happening, that you will find anywhere.
How many more Fusterclucks will the "Campbell Circus" perform before a new leader is chosen ????
Thank you
If there is further unrest - our one and only "Pinocchio Gordon "the liar" Campbell can take all of the blame.
Excellent piece by Dr. Mathews and a good as explanation of what is happening, that you will find anywhere.
How many more Fusterclucks will the "Campbell Circus" perform before a new leader is chosen ????
Thank you
# posted by : December 1, 2010 at 3:34 p.m.
: December 1, 2010 at 3:34 p.m.
Dammed right, Campbell's corrupt sale of the BCR, needs a public inquiry. That was the most dishonorable, corrupt trial, the people of BC, have ever had to watch. The corrupt trial, was held in a corrupt court, presided over, by a corrupt judge. Brain dead witnesses and all, were accepted. Then we have, De Jongs miscarriage of justice to top it all off. He belongs in prison with Campbell, that is the height of corruption. The election lie, the BCR wasn't for sale. Campbell was the corrupt, s.o.b. that sold it. This is why, the BC citizens wanted enough quick recalls done, so we could get rid of this, evil, rotten Liberal government. They are a terrible blight on the province. BC is the most corrupt province in Canada, thanks to them. There is not one Liberal minister or mla worth the powder to blow them to hell. They all sold their souls to the devil Campbell, they are tainted for life. Craig James had to be escorted by the Speaker of the House, he did Campbell's dirty work for him. Does James think if push comes to shove, Campbell won't cut his throat, the same as he did to Basi and Virk. He is a very stupid person, to allow Campbell to use him, as Campbell does to all the others. Campbell never, never does his own dirty work, he gets some one like James, Basi, Virk and De Jong to do it for him, and they are so dammed stupid, they do it. All of the BC Liberal governing officials careers, are gone, for supporting a monster, like Campbell. That, we will never forget.
# posted by : December 1, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
: December 1, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
Surely to goodness there is a reader out there who has the wherewithall, (perhaps in the judiciary, academia,a police agency, First Nations, the national media or an insider in government) and the courage to step up and bring these Lieberal government outrages to the attention of all of Canada and start the machinery that will stop the carnage.
To her great credit BC Mary has done the hard, down and dirty digging to keep this BC Rail theft from being washed away, along with so many other brave souls (you know who you are) who have spoken out long and loud for our rivers and our salmon and our environment and all the myriad evil deeds of this despicable government, but now it is time for all the people to physically come together in a rally or a march that will bring the focus of the nation on the plight of democracy in BC.
Is there someone out there who can organize such an event and bring us all together in one place to make a stand against these despicable politicians? Civil disobedience is justified for this is a fight we must not lose.
To her great credit BC Mary has done the hard, down and dirty digging to keep this BC Rail theft from being washed away, along with so many other brave souls (you know who you are) who have spoken out long and loud for our rivers and our salmon and our environment and all the myriad evil deeds of this despicable government, but now it is time for all the people to physically come together in a rally or a march that will bring the focus of the nation on the plight of democracy in BC.
Is there someone out there who can organize such an event and bring us all together in one place to make a stand against these despicable politicians? Civil disobedience is justified for this is a fight we must not lose.
Is it too late to point out another one of those coincidences that happened in the Basi, Virk and Basi trial.....
The Defense lawyer for Bobby Virk made a big deal out of one of the facts that BC Rail Directors attended several hockey games, Vancouver Canucks hockey games, paid for by CIBC World Markets, and then the Directors sat down and decided on an untendered $6 million contract...... which was subsequently verified by the Executive Council of Gordon Campbell.
"The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) is considered to be the Province’s principal banker for interest rate reference purposes. As the need to determine the prime rate of the Province’s banker arises under various enactments and instruments across government, the historical record of CIBC’s prime lending rate can be referenced below. The rates are listed from 1974 and will be updated on a periodic basis. Please refer to CIBC's Web site for the most recent rate."
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/histrates.shtml
The really interesting thing about this page is this:
"View the Historical Effective Prime Rate table." http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf
Another coincidence.... the 9% that is on the indemnity.... from the data above, on April 14, 2004, the interest rate was 3.75%!!!!!
The Defense lawyer for Bobby Virk made a big deal out of one of the facts that BC Rail Directors attended several hockey games, Vancouver Canucks hockey games, paid for by CIBC World Markets, and then the Directors sat down and decided on an untendered $6 million contract...... which was subsequently verified by the Executive Council of Gordon Campbell.
"The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) is considered to be the Province’s principal banker for interest rate reference purposes. As the need to determine the prime rate of the Province’s banker arises under various enactments and instruments across government, the historical record of CIBC’s prime lending rate can be referenced below. The rates are listed from 1974 and will be updated on a periodic basis. Please refer to CIBC's Web site for the most recent rate."
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/histrates.shtml
The really interesting thing about this page is this:
"View the Historical Effective Prime Rate table." http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/bcm/ref/cibcHistoricalPrime.pdf
Another coincidence.... the 9% that is on the indemnity.... from the data above, on April 14, 2004, the interest rate was 3.75%!!!!!
You probably want to know the source for the information above, eh ...... http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/fin/407.pdf
Elections BC
Prime Interest Rates
Elections BC
Prime Interest Rates
My MLA told me today that, if I thought there should be a Public Inquiry into the BC Rail case, I should write to the Attorney General, Mike De Jong.
# posted by : December 2, 2010 at 6:44 p.m.
: December 2, 2010 at 6:44 p.m.
.
Hugh,
{Sigh} ... well, I guess we'd better write to the Attorney-General then ...
as apparently
a Public Inquiry into the botched BC Rail Trial is an idea which hasn't yet occurred to them.
Or ... hahaha ... has it?
.
Hugh,
{Sigh} ... well, I guess we'd better write to the Attorney-General then ...
as apparently
a Public Inquiry into the botched BC Rail Trial is an idea which hasn't yet occurred to them.
Or ... hahaha ... has it?
.
Well Hugh, I have a message for your MLA.
Speaking of the AG, in his video declaring his candidacy he vowed that as premier he would have a different government where others would have input and "not All decisions would be made in the premier's office."
Doesn't this last quote sound like confirmation that the 'decision' to pay off Basi & virk and shut down the dog and pony show came directly from Campbell. (which everyone knew already)
Speaking of the AG, in his video declaring his candidacy he vowed that as premier he would have a different government where others would have input and "not All decisions would be made in the premier's office."
Doesn't this last quote sound like confirmation that the 'decision' to pay off Basi & virk and shut down the dog and pony show came directly from Campbell. (which everyone knew already)
# posted by : December 2, 2010 at 9:14 p.m.
: December 2, 2010 at 9:14 p.m.
The HST initiative was such a hit with disgruntled British Columbian, one would think that a similar initiative could be done to FORCE the government into holding an Inquiry into the termination of the trial for Basi, Virk, and Basi.
Think about this, just how much of taxpayers monies could be "saved" if two of the government Deputy Ministers, one from the Attorney General's Office and the other from the Ministry of Finance, sat down and reviewed EVERY case that is before the courts of British Columbia and decided to pay off the bad guys in exchange for a plea of guilty written up by the Prosecutor ..... because that's exactly what they did.
Before any trial begins the Judge should decide just how much of taxpayers' money will be permitted to be spent on a trial and not leave the dirty work up to two guys working for the government.
Think about this, just how much of taxpayers monies could be "saved" if two of the government Deputy Ministers, one from the Attorney General's Office and the other from the Ministry of Finance, sat down and reviewed EVERY case that is before the courts of British Columbia and decided to pay off the bad guys in exchange for a plea of guilty written up by the Prosecutor ..... because that's exactly what they did.
Before any trial begins the Judge should decide just how much of taxpayers' money will be permitted to be spent on a trial and not leave the dirty work up to two guys working for the government.
We live in a 19th century style colonial democracy, where the most advanced media was the telegraph; the fastest transportation mode was the train. Average travel time to the legislature 48 hours (night boat and over night in a train. The Premier had to have supreme power to deal with problems, etc., that just could not wait for caucus meetings when the legislature was adjourned.
Today, we have instant media, via the INTERNET, phone, etc. The fastest mode of travel, jet aircraft. Average journey time to the legislature 3 hours.
Yet the premier retains his 19th century supreme power and as Campbell has shown, wielded it to the benefit of his political friends.
In essence our so called democracy is a vestige of 19th century democracy, based on supreme power held by one man.
The result is that BC is ruled by despots, elected in 'show-case' elections, which makes any hint of real democracy a travesty in this province.
Enter Gordon Campbell and BC Rail. As he is the Premier with supreme power, he wielded his power to benefit his cronies and as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The plain fact, that under our so called democracy, political corruption is part and parcel of our form of law and order, thus the courts will not deal with political corruption.
In fact one could say, our legal system & political corruption go hand in hand in BC. It is how things were done, giving the legal precedent on how things will be done in the future.
To change our political system, will require more than voting for another party, rather it must be changed by a popular uprising of the public and as far as I can say, the public are mere sheep, being lead to the slaughter by BC politicians.
If one wants true democracy in BC, one must fight for it and even shed a little blood and to date I just do not see this happening.
Post a Comment
Today, we have instant media, via the INTERNET, phone, etc. The fastest mode of travel, jet aircraft. Average journey time to the legislature 3 hours.
Yet the premier retains his 19th century supreme power and as Campbell has shown, wielded it to the benefit of his political friends.
In essence our so called democracy is a vestige of 19th century democracy, based on supreme power held by one man.
The result is that BC is ruled by despots, elected in 'show-case' elections, which makes any hint of real democracy a travesty in this province.
Enter Gordon Campbell and BC Rail. As he is the Premier with supreme power, he wielded his power to benefit his cronies and as we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The plain fact, that under our so called democracy, political corruption is part and parcel of our form of law and order, thus the courts will not deal with political corruption.
In fact one could say, our legal system & political corruption go hand in hand in BC. It is how things were done, giving the legal precedent on how things will be done in the future.
To change our political system, will require more than voting for another party, rather it must be changed by a popular uprising of the public and as far as I can say, the public are mere sheep, being lead to the slaughter by BC politicians.
If one wants true democracy in BC, one must fight for it and even shed a little blood and to date I just do not see this happening.
# posted by : December 3, 2010 at 7:00 a.m.
: December 3, 2010 at 7:00 a.m. << Home
