Martin v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1950 CanLII 242 (BC CA)



British Columbia Court of Appeal, Sloan C.J.B.C., O’Halloran, Robertson, Sidney Smith and Bird JJ.A. April 26, 1950./p

174 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

John S. Burton, for appellant.
Alfred Bull, K.C., for respondent.

SLOAN C.J.B.C.:— The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia exercising the authority vested in them by the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1936; c. 149 [now R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180] considered at length the application of the appellant Martin for call to the Bar and admission as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of this Province, and refused his application [[1949] 1 D.T, R,105]. The reasons of the Benchers actuating this decision were reduced to writing, and after a review of the evidence adduced and references to relevant decisions it is stated that the application be refused because the applicant

” (a) is not a fit person to be called to the Bar or admitted \as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and,

” (b) has not satisfied them that he is a person of good re-jute within the meaning and intent of the Legal Professions Act.” [p. 114]

Consequent upon this ruling of the Benchers the Legal Professions Act was amended to permit an appeal therefrom to this Court. Section 41A as enacted by 1949, c. 35, s. 2, reads in relevant part as follows:  “Any person whom the Benchers have refused to call to the Bar or to admit as a solicitor may appeal

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 175

from such refusal to the Court of Appeal … On the appeal the Court of Appeal may, in whole or in part, either reverse or confirm the decision of the Benchers or refer the matter to the Benchers for further inquiry.”

As I read this section it seems to me to clothe the Court with an appellate jurisdiction no different than that exercised in an ordinary type of appeal from an administrative body.  There is nothing in the section which calls upon this Court to exercise any original as opposed to appellate jurisdiction.  We are not required to rehear the application de novo but we are, as I view the matter, acting in our usual and ordinary capacity as a Court of review.

That being so, then we must consider whether the discretion vested in the Benchers was properly exercised according to law.

It must be borne in mind that the Benchers are essentially an administrative and not a judicial body.  In the exercise of their administrative functions they have, within the Legal Professions Act, a wide discretion, and that discretion extends to determination of the qualifications and disqualifications of those who seek the privilege of becoming a member of the Legal Profession.

In this particular case the applicant is a Communist.  The Benchers, considering the ideological values and motives and loyalties of an adherent of that alien philosophy, reached the conclusion that such a person was unacceptable for the reasons given refusing his application to become a member of the Bar of this Province.

I have given careful consideration to those reasons of the Benchers.  In my opinion they reflect the exercise of a proper discretion according to law; I may also add that I am in agreement with the reasons of the Benchers and with their conclusion.  In the result I would dismiss the appeal.

O’HALLORAN J.A.:  The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia rejected appellant’s application for call to the Bar and admission as a solicitor, on the ground he was not a person of “good repute” within the meaning of ss. 36 and 39 of the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180.  The appellant appeared personally before the Benchers.  He was represented by counsel and he answered the questions he was asked.  The Benchers explained their decision in extended written reasons —— see Re Martin, [1949] 1 D.L.R. 105.

The appellant having admitted he has been a Marxist Communist for some time, the Benchers came to the conclusion that

176 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

the Marxist philosophy of law and government, in its essence, is so inimical in theory and practice to our constitutional system and free society, that a person professing them is eo ipso, not a fit and proper person to practise law in this Province, and hence cannot be of “good repute” within the meaning of the Legal Professions Act.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Benchers —— the first of its kind —— was made possible by an amendment to the Legal Professions Act enacted in 1949.  This Court was thereby empowered to reverse or confirm the decision of the Benchers in whole or in part, or refer the matter back to them for further enquiry.  The notice of appeal is dated May 20, 1949, and was given to the May-June 1949 Sittings of the Court.  But as the result of postponements asked for by the parties, the appeal did not come on for hearing until March 7-8, 1950, when judgment was reserved.

In this Court counsel for the appellant centred his argument upon the submission that although the appellant is an avowed Marxist Communist, yet there was no evidence before the Benchers he had advocated overthrow of our system of government and free society by force or by non-constitutional methods, or that he had been engaged in activities subversive to the state.  The appellant himself contended before the Benchers that he could be a Marxist Communist and still advocate the introduction of a Communist system of government into this country without the use of force or by resort to subversive methods.  The argument on behalf of the appellant came to this, that an avowed Marxist Communist can be a good citizen of our country; that the contrary cannot be said unless he is caught planning or perpetrating some overt act against the state, such as (to give an extreme example) blowing up the Parliament Buildings.

Counsel for the respondent Law Society in answer confined his brief submission to what he described as the common-sense realities of the present day.  He said in effect that particularly since the end of the European War in 1945 the United States, Britain and Canada have had a diverse variety of experiences with Communists at home and abroad.  They have had revealing encounters with the machinations of Communist agents and doctrinaire sympathizers open and underground, and with the activities of Communists in the role of “intellectuals” and advanced libertarians, often specially trained for the purpose, posing as the defenders of personal liberties and promoters of peace and goodwill among nations.  Communists and their sympathizers have been astute to find their way into so-called

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 177

peace, youth, cultural, student, welfare and various other societies and organizations, and there skilfully indoctrinate the young, the impressionable, and the irresponsible, with theories designed to weaken and destroy the foundations of our free society.

Under the amoebic guise of promoting idealistic movements they have succeeded in obtaining support from many people happy without much thought or enquiry to give their support to anything on its face sounding as if it would benefit mankind in general.  With Soviet Russia engaged in a “cold war” with the Western nations and determined to obtain mastery of the world, these friends of Soviet Russia would weaken the Western nations to the point that Soviet Russia, with their fifth and sixth columnist assistance, could be able to capture Canada and the United States by telephone.  They would repeat here the methods of national disintegration their fellow-Communists so successfully carried out in France during the early stages of the last War after Germany and Soviet Russia had come to a mutual understanding.

Widely publicized trials in the United States, Britain and Canada, have disclosed Communist activities to a degree inconceivable and incredible to the average citizen, if the facts had not been conclusively established by the most careful and impartial judicial investigations.  Wherever there is an opportunity to create discontent and disaffection there may be found Communist agents and neo-communists actively engaged in doing whatever they hope will promote the world revolution.  A recent trial was that of Dr. Klaus Emil Julius Fuchs in England, a scientist morally blinded by Communist inoculation.  The Attorney-General in opening the case said Dr. Fuchs was a Communist and that at once was the explanation of his conduct.  Lord Chief Justice Goddard in sentencing Dr. Fuchs described Communism as a “pernicious creed”.

It is true that Dr. Fuchs pleaded guilty in a Criminal Court to an overt act of communicating to a person unknown, information directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.  But it was his Communist beliefs that led him to what he did.  And what stirred Britain was the circumstance that he had all along been known as a “Communist”, and at the same time supposedly loyal to Britain.  His defence, such as it was, reminds one of the submission of the appellant here that he could be a Communist and loyal to Canada at the same time.  Dr. Fuchs’ defence was described as “controlled schizophrenia” by which he insisted one half of his mind was Communist and the other half
12—[1950] 3D.L.R.
178 Dominion Law Retorts. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

loyal to Britain.  Lord Chief Justice Goddard is reported to have said he did not understand “such metaphysical talk”, and did not know that he ought to understand it.

But recognition of that defence to the full extent it may warrant, points up most vividly the danger of allowing a Communist to occupy any position of trust or influence.  It at once proves him untrustworthy and concedes he is subject to Russian influence.  It is of course not uncommon for “intellectuals” who seek to discard the age-old concepts of right and wrong, to build up some elaborate substitution in an effort to escape ill-judged or wrongful use of their free will.  But even if one gives full vent to the “split personality” and analogous theories, it but serves to emphasize the continuing menace which “in-tellectuals” such as Dr. Fuchs, and to a lesser degree the appellant (the latter is a thinking man thirty-two years of age) are to any democratic country in which they live.  The pull of the Kremlin is never absent.

Marxism exercises a strange power over its adherents.  The moral needs of man which Marxism forbids to be expressed in terms of human ideals, are injected instead into a mechanistic conception of politics to which they impart the force of a blind passion somewhat like that which inflamed the minds of Nazi youth during the Hitler regime.  Communism is a complete philosophy of life.  It wishes to be not only a state but a church judging the consciences of men.  No person in our day who is not blind to realities can fail to recognize the strange but menacing potentialities present and future that the Marxist philosophy engenders in even the mildest appearing of its adherents.  This was illustrated in our own Canadian “spy trials”, which disclosed that some Canadians became so indoctrinated with Communist ideology, that they convinced themselves they should secretly befriend Russia even to the extent of doing irretrievable harm to their own country.

It is true the Fuchs trial had not occurred at the time the Benchers gave their decision.  But they had ample before them concerning the nature of Communist activities in the United States, Britain and Canada to compel them to the conclusion they reached.  Governments in the United States, Britain and Canada have been forced by convincing experiences to be more than distrustful of Communists.  Labour Unions, Universities, and other public bodies have publicly sought and are still seeking to rid themselves of men and women professing Communist beliefs.  It has come to be universally accepted in the Western nations that it is dangerous to our way of life to allow a known

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 179

Communist or Communist sympathizer to remain in a position of trust or influence.  The Benchers as men of the world and trustees of an ancient and honourable profession, in my opinion, would have been recreant to their trust, if in the light of convincing public knowledge and accepted justified belief in the Western world at the present time, they had failed to act on the evidence before them, in any way other than they did.

Counsel for the appellant permitted himself some forensic latitude in declaiming upon freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of the individual, and the safeguard of minorities.  According to him we would be a “servile people” if the appellant, an avowed Communist were denied the opportunity to engage in the practice of law.  How these “freedoms” can be invoked on behalf of an avowed Communist to:  place him in a position where he could more effectively destroy them, is a paradox.  But this type of paradox is consistent with the Communist plan of infiltration which disclosures in the United States in particular have made a matter of common knowledge in our day.

For a Communist to talk about personal freedom of action, expression and thought is like the devil talking about the delights of Heaven.  There is no such thing as personal freedom in Soviet Russia, where organized practices of inhumanity, lawlessness, and depersonalization continue to shock the conscience of the civilized world.  Moreover, the existence of personal rights in the sense we know them is denied by the Communist philosophy, as their existence was denied by the Nazi doctrinaires who took their political philosophy from Hegel, who was also, in so many respects, the inspiration of Karl Marx.  Hegel it was who taught the doctrine of progress by antagonism which Karl Marx took for his own as a metaphysical support to the deterministic outlook of material revolution, and made it the mainspring of his political philosophy.

Karl Marx in his German Ideology (4 Marx, Sochineniya 65 (Moscow 1933)) had written:  “Only in the collective can the individual find the means of giving him the opportunity to develop his inclinations in all directions; in consequence, personal freedom is possible only in the collective.”

Soviet writers have developed this thesis in many volumes.  Soviet jurists deny any merit whatever in the Western idea that freedom to talk against the Government in Hyde Park or elsewhere is a test whether personal freedom exists in a society.  A. Y. Vyshinsky in his text-book on Soviet Public Law (Sovetskoe Gosudarstvennoe Pravo 485 (Moscow 1938) lays it down

180 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

authoritatively:  “In bourgeois study of public law the department concerning so-called personal rights is the most false and hypocritical department of law, the farthest from the tasks of investigation of an authentic scientific sort.”  And see Professor Hazard’s article, on the Soviet Union and a World Bill of Rights appearing in the Columbia Law Review of November, 1947.  Marxist economists regard Western guarantees of personal freedom as hollow phrases, put forward they say as propaganda on behalf of a private-enterprise system in a dying effort to prolong its existence.

Not only do Communists reject our understanding of personal freedom, but as a logical corollary they reject our conception of ethics and morality.  To them anything is right that advances the world revolution, and everything else is wrong and must be ruthlessly destroyed.  According to the Marxist scheme of things the whole structure of society is determined by the economic life of the Communist State.  In the Communist ideology, it is inconceivable for any right to be more important than the right to work to establish and maintain a Communist State.  But James T. Shotwell points out (The Idea of Human Rights 1946) in the American Declaration of Rights, Jefferson put the accent at once not upon the economic basis of well-being, but upon the moral aspect of life.

In his address to the third Congress of the Russian Communist League on October 2, 1920, Lenin said (see R. N. Carew Hunt on “The Ethics of Marxism” February 1949, “Nineteenth Century and after”):

“In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality?  In the sense that it is preached by the bourgeosie, who derived ethics from God’s commandments; or instead of deriving ethics from the commandments of God, they derived them from idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.”

We repudiate all morality derived from non-human and non-class concepts.  We say that it is a deception, a fraud in the interests of the landlords and the capitalists.  We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

“The class struggle is still continuing . . . we subordinate our communist morality to this task.

We say morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the toilers around the proletariat which is creating a new Communist society.” (My italics).

(And cf. editorial in “Saturday Evening Post” of November

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J .A.) 181

5, 1949, “Our quarrel with the Communists is moral rather than Political”).

To Communists, neo-Communists, Communist sympathizers and what have come to be described as “fellow travellers”, Soviet Russia is the apostle of peace, the inevitable instrument of a new world and model order of society, while the Western nations are warmongers, reactionaries, and capitalistic obstructionists in the path of the world revolution to create a “classless Society”.  The Communism of Marx and the Communism of Stalin are by no means identical.  But the original vision of Marx is the dynamo which supplies millions of adherents with faith in the Communist creed, and hence with the crusading instinct to serve fanatically Soviet Russia’s ambition to rule the world.

Counsel for the appellant sought comfort in certain expressions of opinion found in decisions of the United States Supreme Court particularly in Schneiderman v. U.S. (1943), 320 U.S. 118 (a 5-3 decision).  I have read also Stromberg v. California (1931), 283 U.S. 359; Herndon v. Lowry (1937), 301 U.S. 242 (a 5-4 decision); De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), 299 U.S. 353; U.S. v. Lovett (1946), 328 U.S. 303 (a 5-2 decision); and Bridges v. Wixon (1945), 326 U.S. 135 (a 5-3 decision).  In so far as any of these decisions were founded on what is described as the “clear and present danger” doctrine, it is in point to note the Court does not appear to have acted on that doctrine in Korematsu v. U.S. (1943), 320 U.S. 81 and Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), 323 U.S. 214 (a 5-3 decision).

But the facts before this Court and the known conditions existing today do not permit us to take the neutral and detached view of Communism which the majority of the United States Supreme Court, as it was constituted between 1937-1947, persuaded themselves to adopt in the Schneiderman, Bridges and other decisions.  We are compelled today to take a more informed view of Communist ideology and practice than was generally prevalent in Canada and the United States prior to 1946.  Up to that time, it was very difficult for people educated in Canada or the United States to realize the true extent of the influence of Marxist philosophy upon what was happening not alone in Europe, but right here at home on the North American continent.

If, however, we are to speak of United States decisions, I must refer to Re Summers (1945), 325 U.S. 561.  Summers, a conscientious objector to war, was refused admission to the bar of Illinois because the examiners concluded his religious

182 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

scruples “seem inconsistent with the obligations of an attorney-at-law”.  Summers was willing to take the required oath to support the state constitution, but the examiners ruled (as the Benchers did here) that he could not do so in good faith.  The United States Supreme Court upheld the ruling in a 5-4 decision.  That decision is particularly significant since the constitutional issue raised was the “free exercise of religion”.  In the case at bar, there is no such powerful supporting argument for the appellant.  For that reason I do not think that Girouard v. U.S. (1946), 328 U.S. 61 (a 5-3 decision) can be said to weaken the result in the Summers decision.

It has been pointed out that in countries which Communists control personal freedom does not exist.  I have already shown that the Communist philosophy denies the very existence of personal freedom, and acknowledges only a freedom in a collective form, viz., a freedom in the Communist State to regiment and control every aspect of the individual’s life and thought until, as Engels would have us believe, the state will have “withered away”, and the happy Communists, a great band of brothers without police and without Courts, will have reached that mythical millenium upon earth, which they have conjured up in substitution for the Christian Heaven that Karl Marx sought to abolish with a stroke of his pen.

There may still be those, however, who would invoke for an avowed Marxist Communist the cliche “I disagree entirely with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it”; or what Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in U.S. v. Schwimmer (1929), 279 U.S. 644 (a 6-3 decision) described as “the principle of free thought —— not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate”.  [pp. 654-5] In his dissent (in which Mr. Justice Brandeis joined) in Abrams v. U.S. (1919), 250 U.S. 616, Mr. Justice Holmes adopted as a formula, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”; [p. 630] this latter statement was quoted approvingly by the 5-3 majority in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61.  Not a word about the means used to get itself accepted.

I quote these sayings from a judicial pragmatist whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter once described as “so remote from the common currents of life that he did not read the newspapers”.  These statements do not recognize moral limitations; they do not recognize a distinction between propaganda as such, and reasoned statements founded upon historical experience.  They push the right of free speech to a limit that makes it only

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (O’llalloran J.A.) 183

metaphysically distinguishable from an absolute right which ignores any attendant duties.  They would make it legally impossible to decide judicially when an abuse of free speech has occurred.  They would reduce loyalty to one’s country to an impersonal metaphysical abstraction, totally beyond the ken of ordinary mortals.

These statements make no exception for emotional and inflammatory declamations which incite disaffection to the state, and create the incentive for preparations leading to conspiracies to undermine and destroy our free institutions.  Should we not hate what is wrong?  Should Canada permit people to preach disaffection which may lead to consort with the enemy and the weakening and ultimate destruction of our own country?  Such language and thinking can easily give reason to Communists to believe there is no limit to the naiveté of the people of Canada and the United States.

But the principles of constitutional democracy upon which free society is established, cannot be based upon pragmatic values, determinable by circumstance and consequentially variable.  They must be based on certain absolute values, justice, truth and reason.  That is why inalienable rights were written into the United States Constitution.  That is why we have Magna Carta.  Hence freedom of expression must have some limitations —— it cannot be used to destroy our free society, to destroy democracy itself.  Freedom of expression cannot be given to Communists to permit them to use it to destroy our constitutional liberties, by first poisoning the minds of the young, the impressionable, and the irresponsible.  Freedom of expression is not a freedom to destroy freedom.  Among many noted writers that may be referred to I mention only the French philosopher Julien Benda (See “Benda on Democracy” by E. O. Siepman —— in February 1948, “Nineteenth Century and after”), who has had ample opportunities to study not only the philosophy of Communism, but also its actual application in practice.

Likewise it must be recognized “freedom of thought” may become dangerous if it is translated into speech or writing aimed to destroy our free society.  Lord Justice Bowen once said “the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion”.  When the Benchers enquired into the appellant’s state of mind regarding his attitude toward Communism, they were enquiring into a fact.  What is “fact” lies in the conception that a thing is existing or true.  It is not limited to what is tangible or visible, or to what is only perceptible directly by the senses (J. B. Thayer, Evidence at the Common

Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

Law, 189.8, p. 191); things invisible, mere thoughts, intentions, fancies of the minds, when conceived as existing or true are conceived as facts.  All enquiries into the truth, the reality, the actuality of things, are inquiries into the facts about them.

Mr. Justice Holmes recognized in the abstract at least, that unbridled speech and expressed thought may be dangerous to free society, for he invoked what is called the “clear and present danger”, formula for that purpose in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), 249 U.S. 47, and in Debs v. U.S. (1919), 249 U.S. 211; how difficult he found it to reduce the abstractions of this verbal formula to reality is exemplified by his forceful dissent in Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, when he refused to find clear and present danger in the printing and circulation during wartime of seditious leaflets by five Russian born anarchists.  One of the leaflets was entitled “Revolutionaries unite for action”, and the other “The Hypocrisy of the United States and her allies”.  Both were couched in violent and inflammatory language.

If a danger is “clear” the limitation of “present” seems superfluous.  Many examples could be given but it is sufficient to say it seems like an attempt to place a limit upon foreseeability that is as repugnant to law as it is in the affairs of daily life.  If there is “clear danger” that a nation may be attacked, it does not postpone preparing its defences, until that danger is crystallized into the “present” when the enemy lands on its shores.  It will then be too late.  In the Abrams case Mr. Justice Holmes professed to believe that the Russian anarchists had as much right to print and circulate in the United States seditious pamphlets threatening the free institutions of the United States, as the Government itself had to publish the Constitution of the United States!

The “Olympian” was something more than a constitutional Judge.  With John Dewey, Veblen, Beard, and Robinson (see Toronto Saturday Night Editorial March 21, 1950) he was the proponent of a distinctive American philosophy, which he introduced assiduously and vigorously into his famous dissents.  He adopted an earlier anti-authoritarian philosophy to support fictions and formulae difficult to reconcile with the realities of modern life.  Many of these dissents particularly those applying that philosophy seem to have been adopted by a majority of the members of the United States Supreme Court as constituted between 1937-1947 and may perhaps explain the Court’s detached (and one might say quixotic if attempted to be applied to present day conditions in this Province) attitude towards Communism in some of the decisions to which I have referred.

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 185

One may have a deep veneration for the Supreme Court of the United States as an institution (which I have), and yet be prepared to examine carefully theories of philosophy of government and moral conduct adopted by slim majorities of the Court during disturbed periods in its existence.

It may be a compliment to his mental vigour and the force of his personality if the Holmesian philosophy in a peculiarly distilled form maintains its hold upon many in the teaching field of law (in Canada as well), when that of his co-thinkers John Dewey, Veblen, Beard, and Robinson under more searching analysis in their respective fields, is gradually succumbing to its innate weaknesses.  The Holmesian idealistic concept of freedom of thought and expression as developed and ostensibly applied by his announced followers, leads in our day not to the strengthening of the foundations of freedom, but tends on the contrary to encourage the suppressors of freedom.  On analysis it emerges as a reconstructed anti-authoritarian formula of liberty in vogue even before the nineteenth century synthesis (now itself broken down) sought to elevate science almost into the position of a religion.

When the great constitutionalist and philosopher was at the zenith of his powers (Mr. Justice Holmes retired in 1932 at the age of ninety-one after fifty years on the Bench, the last thirty of which were on the Supreme Court of the United States) the Nazi and Communist application in practical form of Hegelian and Marxist philosophic concepts had not yet become exposed in their naked consequences, and many thinkers, before that time, would have dismissed the reality of such consequences as hopelessly inconsistent with the “inevitability of orderly progress” and the “scientific advancement” of the human race.  The plain menace of the tyrant state and the conditions which beget it were not so obvious twenty-five years ago as they are today.

The Holmesian reduction of the test of truth to the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of “the market” (Abrams v. U.S., supra) cannot fail to impress itself as the thinking of the huckster and not of the philosopher.  It may be more than a coincidence that Karl Marx declared that capitalism dehumanized man by subordinating him to the impersonal mechanism of “the market”.  The circumstance that Holmes and Karl Marx should reach this basic agreement upon “the market” as the final test, gives reason to ponder the warnings of Pandit Nehru, Einstein and Mauriac, that the thinking of Soviet Russia and the United States have reached an identical low point in materialism.  If that be true, there is ultimate danger

186 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

in the Holmesian thinking as there is present danger in the Communist thinking.

By recognizing itself to be but one teaching among many (including Marxism) freedom has already been lost in more than one country.  It can preserve itself only by asserting that it is the only true teaching among many that are false.  If the Courts and the Universities fail to recognize this simple fact one need not be a prophet to predict that the life of our free society will be short-lived indeed.  The freedom I mean is not unrestrained or abstract licence contained in the anti-authoritarian formula of liberty emotionalized by Rousseau and sought to be rationalized on this continent since the turn of the century by John Dewey, Mr. Justice Holmes, and others of their school of thought.

When called before the Benchers to explain his beliefs in the tenets of Communism, the appellant declared himself to be a Marxist Communist.  The evidence shows his belief is not a temporary youthful enthusiasm, but one reached after many years of thought, study and practice, by a man of mature years.  He is not a constitutional or Christian Socialist.  To my mind he is a logical product of the philosophy of Holmes, Dewey and Beard when that philosophy receives the full impact of the thinking of Hegel and Karl Marx.  If the concept of free expression is to be pushed to the point it becomes unbridled licence, it is but a short step to the time when forces within the nation may be attracted to invoke some form of authoritarian state as the only remaining way to curb the resulting excesses.

The views expressed here are in no wise inconsistent with a firm belief in Inherent Rights of the individual which this writer has developed extra-judicially elsewhere (See 1947-8 Fall Winter and Spring Issues of “Obiter Dicta” Osgoode Hall).  Freedom is not licence.  It is something more than an abstraction.  It gives rise to inseparable duties.  There can be no such thing as a freedom to advocate a political philosophy, which of its very nature cannot fail to be directed to the destruction of our free society, and to the setting up in its stead of a dictatorship which denies the very foundations of freedom.  There is an old saying “who plays with fire will be burnt”.  Freedom like fire is a real thing with positive consequences and it is dangerous to leave its definition and appraisal to the negative fictions and formulae of idealistic libertarians.

It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that the Benchers had penalized him for his “political opinions”.  As used in the study of “political science” in the Universities, the term “po-

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 187

litical” may be wide enough to include all the politico-economic philosophies of government that have engaged mankind’s attention among others, Machiavelli and Adam Smith as well as Burke; Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Marxist-Lenin, as well as Locke and Jefferson (and see, for example, Spender on “The Government of Mankind”).  But in Canada the accepted and non-technical use of the term “political opinions” is not related to the philosophies underlying different systems of Government, but is directed to adherence to or acceptance of the policies of a political party that upholds the constitution and is not subversive in its programme and tendencies.

For example, if a well-known lawyer member of the Liberal party or of the Progressive-Conservative party should publicly declare his belief in Marxist Communism, the Benchers of the Law Society might well find it their duty (after a proper hearing, of course) to disbar him from practice.  Such action by the Benchers would not be directed toward his “political opinions” but toward beliefs of his inimical to his country and repugnant to the ancient and honourable profession of law, even if his pernicious beliefs might be included in the expression “Political Science” as it is understood in the Universities.  It is clear from the reasons for their decision the Benchers were not concerned with the appellant’s “political opinions” as such, but on the contrary were deeply concerned with opinions and beliefs he stated he held, which in our day, under the conditions we know, cannot be regarded otherwise than inimical to the state and subversive of our free society.

It is now coming to be well known by those who have given something more than passing thought to these subjects that the adherents of Communism and Nazism have quite a different conception than that of the Anglo-American countries in regard to “freedom”, “democracy” and many other common terms we use so frequently as if they had only one meaning.  To a Communist the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the ultima Thule of democracy.  This difference in viewpoint is due in large part to the political philosophy of Hegel (who was influenced by Hobbes) in respect to rights of the individual.  The subject is treated fully by Spender in “Government of Mankind” and by other writers who have given it more than casual study.

Those who accept common-law theory and practice confess to a belief in inherent rights of the individual diametrically opposed to the Hegelian and Marxist concepts of the state.  The political philosophies underlying Communism have no meeting point whatever with the true political philosophies of the Anglo-

188 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

American democracies.  One dividing point appears clearly on the subject of inherent individual rights as adopted by Locke (who wrote the political philosophy of the Constitutional Revolution of 1688) and later with some variations, by Jefferson, when contrasted with the denial of these inherent rights by Hegel, Marx, Lenin and others upon whose political philosophy any type of totalitarian state is based.  Hegel is the source of modern Fascist and Communist perversions.

It was said also on behalf of the appellant that it was rather late in the day to deny him the right to practice law after he had been allowed to complete his three-year law course at the University and pass his examinations successfully.  Counsel for the Law Society replied that the objection had not come to the Benchers’ knowledge in time to act before they did, but even if it had, and whatever powers the Benchers may have in disciplining students-at-law and articled clerks under the Legal Professions Act, there is an inescapable statutory duty upon the Benchers to act at the time when call to the bar and admission as a solicitor is sought.  Many examples might be given to illustrate the wisdom of the course prescribed in the Legal Professions Act in this respect.  The study of law even if one does not practice law is extremely useful in a wide variety of occupations.

Inherent in the last objection was more than a faint suggestion that a law student who completes his course and passes University law examinations, should be admitted to practise law as of right.  This is denied by the requirements of ss. 36 and 39 that the applicant must be of “good repute”.  Moreover apart from those sections, the law is a profession; it is not a business or trade.  Nor can the Law Society be compared to a Trade Union; nor can lawyers as members of the Law Society be likened to members of a Trade Union.  A man can become reasonably proficient in hundreds of unskilled or semi-skilled manual or clerical occupations with comparatively little training.  That was demonstrated during the last war.  A young man may begin as an unskilled labourer and in a year or two learn a great deal, in the meantime in this Province earning a dollar and more per hour.

But in law the picture is quite different.  In addition to a minimum of two years College, he must take three years at law school and an additional one year’s experience in a legal office; a minimum of six years of study and training before he is eligible to practice.  Then he faces the big problem of establishing himself in practice. Ordinarily he would be lucky if he is

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 189

able to marry within ten years of the time he started studying law.  It is doubtful (unless he is particularly successful) he will get back (in the sense of maintaining it as capital) the money spent on his education.  Quite different indeed if he were earning one dollar or more an hour during that lengthy period.

Moreover, the law student’s training is not manual training, but is training of the mind, not only in law, but if he wishes to be something more than a mere legal mechanic, he must study logic, history, in particular constitutional history, political science and economics, a certain amount of philosophy and acquire a reasonable familiarity with English literature, and know something at least of the literature of other countries.  The job of the lawyer is basically to advise people upon all manner of things arising out of the complexities of life and the frailties of human nature.  As such he cannot fail in time to acquire an influence upon others, impossible to reduce to purely material terms.  It is not too much to say that the training and experience a lawyer undergoes fits him for leadership to a greater or less degree.  Obviously such men should not be partial to political philosophies and movements that conflict with the interests of their own country.

By reason of these things, all countries throughout the ages have given the lawyer a correspondingly high place in society —— particularly so in the case of the lawyer who pleads in the higher Courts.  The object of law training is to attract young men of high character, and to train them in a manner that they will be trustworthy, honourable and competent in the performance of their legal duties, and will use such influence as they may have to maintain and improve but not to destroy our Canadian constitutional democracy.  They are to be the defenders and not the destroyers of liberty.  They are expected to be sufficiently well-informed and experienced to distinguish between liberty and licence.

It is true these objectives are not always attained.  It sometimes happens that men of unmoral and amoral outlook or unstable character, or of little integrity, or whose object is to use the law solely to make money, find their way into the profession of law.  But they are the type of men who bring the profession into disrepute.  To prevent these undesirables entering into the practice of law and to keep up the standard of legal practitioners the Benchers are elected by the lawyers under statutory authority to act for the protection of the public.  If every person had the right to practice law upon passing the University law examinations, there would be no protection for

190 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

the public.  It is the duty of the Benchers to protect the public by refusing admission to the practice of law, not only the type of person who will prey upon the public for his own selfish ends, but also the type of person who professes a political philosophy alien to our free society, and who in a time of “cold war” is little else than a fifth columnist (designedly or not) to assist an unfriendly country to destroy the rights and privileges a free people have established in Canada.

I respectfully agree with Lord Chief Justice Goddard of England in the Fuchs case that Communism is a “pernicious creed”.  Furthermore by reason of what has been said I am of opinion (see the decisions of the United States Supreme Court previously discussed) that Communism is a “clear danger” to our Canadian free society; what has happened during the past five years alone shows that “clear danger” is not remote, and also that it is foreseeably greater in the future.

I dismiss the appeal on the broad ground (although narrower grounds may be found) that a Marxist Communist cannot be a loyal Canadian citizen; at best his loyalty must be divided between Canada and the Communist leadership outside Canada which is engaged ideologically through him (whether he knows it or not) and others of like indoctrination in promoting disruptively in Canada and other countries what Lenin called “the class struggle of the proletariat” for the world revolution.

I would dismiss the appeal.

ROBERTSON J.A.: —— In my opinion the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia reached the right conclusion [[1949] 1 D.L.R. 105], and I have little to add to what has been said by them.  Martin had been a Communist since 1943 and since that date a member of the Labour Progressive Party which is a Communist organization formed in 1942 after the Communist Party of Canada had been declared illegal and outlawed, amongst others, two well-known Communists, Buck and McEwan, the same crowd that immediately prior to 1942 ran the Communist Party of Canada.  Buck and McEwen were convicted in 1931 of being members of an unlawful association, of acting as officers of an unlawful association, and being parties to a seditious conspiracy:  see R. v. Buck, [1932] 3 D.L.R. 97, 57 Can. C.C. 290.  Martin admitted that the Labour Progressive Party was a successor of the “old Communist Party”, but he said he would not say there was “an unbroken thread of development”.  The old Communist Party was clearly a party of violence.  See reasons for judgment of Mulock C.J.O. in R. v. Buck.  He was a candidate for the Labour Progressive Party at the

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Robertson J.A.) 191

provincial election held “two or three years ago”.  He was asked “so the L.P.P. in Canada occupies the same position as the Communist Party does in the U.S.?” to which he replied “1 would say generally, yes”.

It is fair then to see what the position of the Communist Party in the United States has been in recent years.  The Committee on Un-American Activities, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., “prepared and released” in 1948 some pamphlets, two of which are called (1) “Communism and Government”, and (2) “Communism and Education”.  These are to be found in the Provincial Library at Victoria, B.C.

At No. 43 of the first-mentioned pamphlet it is stated:

“The Communists have always made it basic in their thoughts that VIOLENCE is inevitable in their struggle for the world.  And in all their captures, from Russia in 1917 down to China in 1948, they have USED violence as their weapon.”

And at No. 70 the question put by the Committee with its answer, is as follows:

“Well, what’s the REAL Communist program for capturing our government?

“It starts with spying and infiltration of the sort now going on.  Then confusion and chaos caused by sudden paralysis of our communications, transportation, money system and law enforcement.

“Finally, direct seizure of power.

“Communists have spent the last fifteen years hiding their key men in our Army, Navy, diplomatic corps, treasury, and other control points of Government.”

In the second pamphlet above mentioned, No. 1 Communism is defined as “A conspiracy to conquer and rule the world by any means, legal or illegal, in peace or in war”.

It is stated in “American Communism” by Oneal and Werner, published in 1947 (a book in the Provincial Library at Victoria, B.C.), at p. 315:  “The Communist Party in each nation is a political party.  It is an agency of the Russian dictatorship pledged to carry out the aims and policies of Moscow in the expectation that eventually a Communist dictatorship will be established in each nation and the `world revolution’ become a reality.  The Communist in France, in China, in the United States and in all other countries does not regard the nation in which he lives as his.  Russia is his `fatherland’ and Communist literature in all countries refers to Russia as the ‘fatherland’, or the `worker’s fatherland,’ or the `socialist fatherland’.  It is not a matter of Russia first and his own nation

192 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

second; it is Russia only.  There is no second choice unless the servitude he plans is extended to the nation where he lives and even then Russia is the mother country with the responsibility of guiding or punishing its new offspring.  Need it surprise one, therefore, that the children dutifully respond to the commands of the parent no matter how ridiculous such a response may be?”

At p. 340:  “J. Edgar Hoover stirred the delegates to the national convention in San Francisco in October by stating that Communism had made its deepest inroad into our national life in the previous five years.  It is probable that the Canadian investigation of Soviet spies had revealed the network extending into private organizations and institutions as well as the government itself.  Hoover expressed confidence in the Legion’s ability to expose Communism which is `built and supported by dishonor, deceit and tyranny and a deliberate policy of falsehood’.

These quotations are in accord with the findings of the Report of the Royal Commission (Canada) issued on June 27, 1946, in which the following paragraph, referred to by the Benchers in their report, appears:  “The indoctrination courses in the study groups are apparently calculated not only to inculcate a high degree of `loyalty to the Party’ and `obedience to the Party’, but to instil in the mind of the adherent the view that loyalty and obedience to the leadership of this organization takes precedence over his loyalty to Canada, entitles him to disregard his oaths of allegiance and secrecy, and this destroys his integrity as a citizen”. [l[1949] 1 D.L.R. at p. 111]

Everyone knows that many Trade Unions are expelling Communists from their organizations.  I think that neither the Government of Canada, nor that of the United States, nor that of England knowingly would employ a Communist.

Experience gained from the prosecution and conviction of such men as Fuchs and May in England and Boyer in Canada, all of whom had taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty, leads to the belief that Communists’ protestations of loyalty are not to be accepted, and that they consider their first obligation to the Communist Party.  Under these circumstances it is not to be expected that an avowed Communist is to be believed who denies that he personally adheres to all the principles of that Party, one of which is stated in the Communist manifesto, viz., that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions; coupled with a warning to the ruling classes to tremble at a Communist revolution.

The appeal must be dismissed.

SIDNEY SMITH J.A. :—It seems to me there are two funda-

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (Sidney Smith J.A.) 193

mental misconceptions in appellant’s submission that should be briefly mentioned at once.

The first is that the hearing before this Court was on the merits, a “trial de novo”.  I think that is clearly a mistaken view of the amendment to the Legal Professions Act giving us jurisdiction.  The amendment simply states that there shall be an appeal to this Court, and nothing more.  Had it been the intention of the Legislature that we should embark on new proceedings, nothing would have been easier than to say so.  The appeal is from a decision of the Benchers, and in my opinion the Benchers are an administrative body.  That being so, the usual and well-known principles governing appeals from such bodies apply here; and so we can only interfere with their finding if their procedure was wrong, or if they acted in bad faith or against all reason or the public interest, or if they formed their opinion upon grounds never brought to appellant’s notice.

The second misconception is the assumption by appellant, and apparently also by some of the Benchers, that they could only refuse to admit him on the ground of ill “repute”.  That, too, I think is a mistaken view.  Ill repute completely disqualifies; but good repute is only the beginning of the matter.  The truth is that there is nothing in the whole of the Legal Professions Act that entitles any person to be admitted to the Society (and in this I include call to the Bar).  There are various sections stating that the Benchers may admit an applicant who complies with such and such conditions; but no section says that they must admit anyone.  The whole is left to their discretion.  And we must take the Act and the amendment as we find them.  We cannot add to or detract from them.  I may perhaps venture to repeat what I said the other day in a case before this Court, Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, [1950] 3 D.L.R. 236 at p. 241, viz.:  “But it is a trite observation that cannot be too often repeated, that Judges do not make the law; they merely interpret it and apply it to the facts on hand.”

Referring again to the Legal Professions Act, it is quite true that various qualifications cut down the Benchers’ discretion by requiring them to exclude persons who do not comply with them.  But compliance imposes no obligations on the Benchers.  As indicated by Hunter C.J.B.C. in Re Hagel and Law Society of B.C. (1922), 31 B.C.R. 75, admission to the Society is a privilege that no one can claim as of right.  That in itself is an indication that the Benchers are an administrative and not a judicial body.  The fact that they are left free to decide what considerations shall govern them, points in the same direction.

13—[1950] 3 D.L.R.

194 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

I apply the language of my brother Robertson in describing the Public Utility Commission’s functions in Veterans’ Sightseeing & Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com’n, [1946] 2 D.L.R. 188 at p. 203, 59 C.R.T.C. 63 at p. 80, 62 B.C.R. 131 at p. 153:  “The Board as an administrative body exercises its discretion as a matter of policy and expediency.  It does not decide between the legal rights of the parties; neither of the parties here had any except the right to apply under the respective Acts.”

Similarly in Re Brown & Brock & Rentals Administrator, [1945], 3 D.L.R. 324, O.R. 554 (affirmed ibid.) Roach J.A. said of a Rental Board (p. 334 D.L.R., p. 564 O.R.):  “The power of the Board is not in any way circumscribed.  No limitations are imposed on the exercise of that power, and no standards by which it is to be guided are set up.  It has a free hand.  It is a law unto itself.  It may determine its own policy and expediency is its only guide.  That is an administrative power, not a judicial power.”

In Gen’l Medical Council v. Spackman, [1943] A.C. 627, the House of Lords seem to have been satisfied that the governing body of the medical profession is an administrative body.  Viscount Simon L.C. at p. 634, described the Council as “not a judicial body in the ordinary sense”.  And at p. 639 Lord Wright said of it:  “It has not merely to ascertain the facts, but also to decide what standard to apply and whether to hold that the particular conduct is infamous, not in the abstract but ‘in any professional respect’.”

At p. 640 he said:  “The council is not a court of law”; and at pp. 641-2 he applied to the Council decisions that were in terms decisions on administrative powers.

The reasons for saying that the Benchers are an administrative and not a judicial tribunal are even stronger.  The Act relating to expulsion of physicians only allows this for “infamous conduct” in a professional sense, which applies a standard of a sort, though with a subjective element.  Here the Benchers are given no standard whatever to apply; so they can only base their decisions on what they consider prudent and expedient.

There was much evidence given below, some of it rather difficult to follow; but I think it quite sufficient to enable an administrative tribunal (and perhaps a judicial tribunal too) to conclude that the appellant belonged to a Communist organization, and that it is one of the tenets of the Communist movement that they be prepared to overthrow existing Governments by force if necessary.

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Sidney Smith J.A.) 195

The appellant cited against this the case of Schneiderman v. U.S. (1942), 320 U.S. 118, where in proceedings to revoke the Naturalization Certificate of a Communist the Court held that it was not proved that the Communists advocated the overthrow of Governments by force.  That, however, was a judicial proceeding in a judicial tribunal to deprive a person of a vested right; and in any case the decision turned entirely on the question of onus.  It has no bearing on the right of an administrative tribunal to conclude that it is imprudent and inexpedient to grant a privilege to a Communist.

The appellant made much of the repeal of s. 98 of the Cr. Code in 1936 [by c. 29, s. 1], the implication being that this made it legal to advocate the overthrow of the Government by force.  In my view, the repeal did nothing of the sort; it merely removed the specific penalties provided by the section, and what was unlawful at common law remained unlawful.  In my view an organization that aims at the overthrow of the Government by force is unlawful at common law.  Even if it were not, still, membership in that is something that the Benchers are entitled to treat as making an applicant an undesirable member of their Society.

In connection with this point it was argued for the appellant that no man can be penalized for “mere opinions” without any overt act, and that the Benchers could not exclude a man because of his “politics”.  I quite agree with the latter point, so long as the man belongs to a company whose objects are wholly lawful.  But advocating the overthrow of the Government by force is not a matter of politics at all; it is in the nature of conspiracy.  If a man joins a body that is in effect conspiring against the Government he goes beyond mere opinion; his very joining is an overt act.

Assuming that the evidence here would be inadequate to establish conspiracy in a Court of law, I am of opinion that the Benchers do not require such evidence; they are entitled to exercise their evidence upon probabilities; and there is quite enough evidence on which an administrative body could reasonably hold that the Communist movement probably advocates the overthrow of government by force.  The Benchers need go no further to justify their acts.

I agree with the views of the Benchers.  But that is not necessary for my decision.  It is obviously the intention of the Legislature that the Legal Profession itself through its Benchers shall decide who shall join their ranks.  We have the right to override them if they act dishonestly against all reason or

196 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

against the public interest.  Appellant’s counsel admitted below that he did not challenge their bona fides.  And I find that I cannot say that their refusal to admit the appellant is either against all reason or against the public interest.  Therefore I see no ground for interfering with their decision.

The appeal must be dismissed.

BIRD J.A. : —— W. J. Gordon Martin appeals to this Court from the decision of the Benchers of the Law Society, refusing his petition for call to the Bar and admission as a solicitor of the Supreme Court.

On July 30th and 31st, September 25th and October 23rd, 1945, the Benchers held formal hearings for the purpose of considering the petition, and particularly with a view to determining whether the powers conferred upon them by the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180, s. 36, should be exercised to call and admit the applicant, pursuant to his petition.

Upon that investigation Martin, who was represented by counsel throughout, called witnesses as to his character and repute, and testified on his own behalf.  The evidence disclosed that Martin while a student at the University of British Colum-bia, Faculty of Law, was favourably regarded by his fellow students, although he then was considered or known to those witnesses to be a Communist.  Martin then stated that he was prepared to take the barristers’ oath and the oath of allegiance, and would abide by them.  He then stated that he had been a member of the Labour Progressive Party since 1943; that Party being described in its constitution as “the Party of Canadian Communists” —— “dedicated to the struggle for socialism, the fundamental extension of democracy through the establishment of common ownership of the means of production; a government of the working class in alliance with the working farmers; the abolition of classes and of exploitation, through the development of society to communism”.  He said he was a Marxian socialist, was known as a Communist; sometimes referred to himself as such.  He had never been ashamed of the term as applied to himself and did not consider that being known as a Communist had adversely affected his reputation.

He then declared that he would not follow the Marxian doctrines to the extent of using force if necessary to overthrow constituted authority, that he always felt free to disagree with the application of such doctrines and in lieu to advocate social change by means of education and social organization.  He said “I never had and do not expect, and hope I will not see anything necessary in Canada in any other respect”; further,

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Bird J.A.) 197

that if the Labour Progressive Party should advocate anything subversive he would fight the policy or would leave the Party.

At the conclusion of the hearing held on September 25, 1948, the Benchers refused the petition, upon the ground that Mr. Martin had failed to satisfy them of his good repute.

On October 23, 1948, the investigation was reopened upon the application of Martin’s counsel, to permit of the presentation of further evidence and argument, upon the conclusion of which decision was reserved.

On October 30, 1948, the Benchers again refused the petition, and then delivered extended reasons upon which their decision was founded [[1949] 1 D.L.R. 105].

If I may say so, with deference, the Benchers have made a careful and thorough investigation of the petition to the end that the discretionary power conferred upon them by the statute should be honestly exercised, with due regard to the public interest and the responsibility imposed upon them, that is to say, that they have exercised the discretion conferred upon them as an administrative body upon proper legal principles:  Pure Spring Co. v. Minister of Nat’l Revenue, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 501 at pp. 515-6, [1946] Ex. C.R. 471 at p. 487.

Subsequently after Martin’s application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia by way of manadamus to the Law Society had been dismissed upon the ground that mandamus did not lie since the Court found that the Benchers had lawfully exercised their discretionary powers —— Re Martin, [1949] 2 D.L.R. 559 —— the Legal Professions Act, upon request by the Law Society was amended by the Legislature, whereby an appeal to this Court in the present proceeding was made possible.

On this appeal counsel for the appellant argued that Martin had established the right to be called and admitted since he had complied with the academic and service requirements prescribed by the Legal Professions Act and had introduced evidence of his good character and repute.  In my opinion support for this submission cannot be found in the language of the Act, whereby authority to call and admit is given the Benchers.  Section 36 (3) and (5) read in part as follows:

“36. The Benchers … .
” (3) … may call to the Bar …
” (a) Any person …. of …. good repute &c.
” (5) …. may admit as solicitors of the Supreme Court: —
” (a) Any person being of …. good repute …. and who has conformed to the rules of the Law Society.”

These statutory provisions give power to call and admit such
Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

persons as are found by the Benchers to have the prescribed qualifications.  The onus is upon the appellant to satisfy them.  As was said by Hunter C.J.B.C. in Re Hagel & Law Society of B.C. (1922), 31 B.C.R. 75, “it is expressly enacted that the Benchers may call to the Bar … persons who comply with certain conditions, including proof of good character and reputation … There is no right of admission, but only a privilege on compliance with certain conditions to the satisfaction of the Benchers and the privilege becomes a right only after admission”.

The Benchers have found that the applicant “(a) is not a fit person to be called to the Bar or admitted as a solicitor … (b) has not satisfied them that he is a person of good repute within the meaning and intent of the Legal Professions Act” [[1949] 1 D.L.R. at p. 114].  The reasons given I think make it clear that these conclusions were based upon the fact that Gordon Martin then was a Communist.  Counsel for the Law Society so declared on the hearing of this appeal.

Notwithstanding Martin’s assertion that his personal philosophy did not extend to the advocacy of anything subversive or to the commission of subversive acts, the Benchers considered that adherence to that philosophy extending over a period of years since 1946 was sufficient to disqualify him in terms of the Act.

However, counsel submits that in the absence of evidence of subversive conduct by Martin mere membership in a Communist party, i.e., the Labour Progressive Party and adherence to Communist philosophies do not warrant the conclusion that he is not a person of good character and repute, or that he cannot conscientiously take the barrister’s oath.

This submission I think must be considered in the light of developments which have occurred since the cessation of hostilities in 1945.  The revelations made in the Report of the Royal Commission on Communist Espionage in 1946 which discloses the debauching by Communist influences of Canadian public servants occupying positions of public trust, despite oaths of allegiance and office which they had taken, I am satisfied have created in the public mind an utter distrust of that philosophy as well as of its adherents.  That distrust has been accentuated by the disclosure of similar activities in Great Britain, i.e., the Fuchs case and also the Alger Hiss and other like proceedings in the United States.

Communism and all that pertains to that philosophy I think is now recognized as having a connotation equivalent to Fifth

Column.  It is common knowledge that Governments on this continent, public and private organizations, more particularly among Trades and Labour Unions, alive to the danger of Communist infiltration and influence are now alert to the menace, and are actively moving towards its elimination.

In these circumstances I consider that the decision of the Benchers was right and that the findings made by them disclose a lawful and proper exercise of the discretion and public responsibility imposed upon them under the Legal Professions Act.

                                              Appeal dismissed.

Canada’s Tax-Exempt Foundations:  A Look at the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, the Praxis Research Institute and the roots of the federal NDP

Download Article!
Some people know something about the American tax-exempt foundations promoting absorption of the USA by the Soviet Union, because the issue was raised by the 1952 American Reece Committee. 1  Its chief investigator, Norman Dodd, learned that foundations were operating under a presidential directive from the White House to “use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union”. 2

Dodd also found that the Rhodes Scholarships, annual endowed fellowships awarded in the British Commonwealth and United States to study at Oxford University in England, were materially involved in promoting world government, Marxism, Communism and Socialism. 3

The Soviet Union, from the conquest of 1917 onward, slaughtered tens of millions of innocents (read “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” by Kevin Macdonald); Chinese communist leader Mao Tsetung is credited with a death toll of 40-100 million Chinese.  Your first concern then is mass murder on apocalyptic scales.  Your second worry is slavery, survivors being conscripted into the state-planned economy, dissent not allowed.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, a high-ranking KGB officer who defected to the United States in December 1961, warned against the global merger, the “re-education camps” and the “bloodbaths” “of which the west currently has no conception”. 4

James Shaver Woodsworth

James Shaver Woodsworth (1874 – 1942).  Founder of the Socialist CCF

Canada, too, has tax-free foundations.  At least two have been involved in the long-planned overthrow of Canada for Communism.  Given the Reece discoveries, it is only logical that similar institutions with similar goals exist in Canada.  Obviously, the Soviet Union (which is currently underground, having staged its own “collapse” to better merge with the West on the way to a “World October Revolution”:  Anatoliy Golitsyn) cannot annex the USA without annexing Canada.  The involvement of the Trudeau regime in staging the Soviet collapse can also be inferred from this article:  “How a three-hour conversation at a Liberal cabinet minister’s home triggered the collapse of the Soviet Union” by Allan Levine, special to The National Post, March 17, 2013.

It is long past due that Canadians look for the influence of tax-exempt foundations in our own country.  Foundations with political objectives, including unconstitutional objectives, are perfectly capable of being financed locally, and by handouts from the big U.S. foundations of the “radical rich” who want a world government.

One of Canada’s left-wing foundations is the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, the subject of this article.  Another is Donner Canadian Foundation, on which information is being developed.  However, it is currently known that the U.S.-based Donner co-financed a “Committee on the Constitution” of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA) from 1976-1979, essentially a legalistic front for the overthrow of Canada by a leftist coup d’état  in 1982 disguised as a “constitutional amendment”.  Allan Gotlieb, North American Chairman of Rockefeller’s globalist Trilateral Commission, is involved in Donner Canadian; for how long and in what capacity, and whether he was there at the time of the CBA committee, is not yet fully known.  Donner came under the wing of the Fraser Institute, a US-based think-tank in 1998.  The links of William H. Donner, the American “philanthropist” behind Donner Canadian include Richard B. Mellon and Andrew W. Mellon, a good potential lead.  In any case, it is doubtful whether “philanthropy” includes financially backing sedition and a coup d’état  in someone else’s country.

In the search to discover the origins of the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, a dinner speech was found on a library shelf on Saturday afternoon, the 7th of October 2017 around 3:00 PM.  The printed speech had long ago lost its original cover and was rebound in cardboard covers and canvas tape.  The original cover being missing, the photo by Karsh, credited in the text, was not a part of the item on the shelf.  Photos of James Shaver Woodsworth have thus been found online to complete the article.

The speech, by Frank H. Underhill, a Rhodes Scholar, is entitled “James Shaver Woodsworth, An Address delivered at the Dinner to inaugurate the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation,”.  It was delivered at the King Edward Hotel in Toronto on Saturday, October 7th, 1944.  (Download the scan & the html of the speech).

The beautifully written biographical sketch of the life of the founder of the CCF, predecessor of the NDP, reveals that J. S. Woodsworth wanted “an international republic”.  In other words, a world government.  (Adrien Arcand, in the same era, would have called it a “Universal Republic”, which he opposed.)  James Shaver Woodsworth was born in Canada in 1874, was educated here and spent a year at Oxford in 1899.  Although the Rhodes endowment did not yet exist, Woodsworth returned to Canada inoculated with missionary zeal for both world government and socialism.

In 1932, he founded and became the first leader of the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a “democratic socialist” party that later became the New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP) with an influential seat at the Socialist International (SI). 5

Adrien Arcand, writing at page 43 of “Fascism or Socialism?” (Fascisme ou Socialisme ?) in 1933, a public address to launch his political party, under the bold header, ‘There is no Christian Socialism’ (“Il n’y a pas de “socialisme chrétien”“), points out:

“Contrairement à ce que certains illusionnés prétendent, il n’y a ni ne peut y avoir de socialisme chrétien.  Ce mythe a été confondu par la plus haute autorité chrétienne, celle du Vatican, lorsque Pie X a condamné les erreurs du “Sillon”.  D’ailleurs, les grands doctrinaires du socialisme, entre autres Proudhon, Millerand, Jaurès, ont affirmé que toute prétention à un socialisme chrétien est aussi illusoire qu’idiote.”

“Contrary to what some illusionists claim, there is not nor can there be Christian socialism.  This myth was confounded by the highest Christian authority, that of the Vatican … Moreover, the great doctrinarians of socialism, among others Proudhon, Millerand, Jaurès, have affirmed that any claim to Christian socialism is as illusory as it is idiotic.”

The “illusionists” must be the CCF’ers, for Arcand was probably addressing himself to Woodsworth who founded the CCF the previous year.  At page 10 of his political manifesto in 1934, Exposé of Principles and Program of the National Christian Social Party (Exposé des principes et du programme du Parti National Social Chrétien) (note the word “social”, as in Christian social principles; not “socialist”), Arcand points directly to the Woodsworth group:

“… les esprits que leurs instincts naturels portent vers la gauche, ils ont formé le parti socialiste canadien, appelé Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, qui revendique un règlenent de la question sociale dans le sens internationaliste et anti-chrétien, par le matérialisme et le refoulement des traditions.”

“… spirits whose natural instincts tend to the left, they have formed the Canadian socialist party called the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation, which is calling for a settlement of the social question in the internationalist and anti-Christian sense, through materialism and the stifling of traditions.”

That is the CCF party, forerunner of the NDP.

In any case, the quote first above helps to qualify, in my view, what ex-Methodist minister, James Shaver Woodsworth really was doing with his “socialist” CCF, i.e., he was founding a new synthetic religion of materialism; one that continues its missionary work today in the Messianic person of recent NDP leadership winner, Jagmeet Singh, aka (Jimmy Dhaliwal).

The Radical Roots of the NDP

The 1970 Praxis Conference proceedings, entitled Industrial Democracy, are copyrighted by Our Generation Press — Black Rose Books.  The copyright acknowledges first publication by the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation and Praxis:  Research Institute for Social Change.  The name, “Praxis Research Institute for Social Change” appears to reflect some of the objects for which the Woodsworth Foundation was incorporated in 1944:  “as a corporation establishing an educational institution to teach and provide courses and research in the social sciences, economics, philosophy and kindred subjects.”

At the founding of the Woodsworth Foundation, it was “hoped that rentals for the use of space in Woodsworth House by organizations fulfilling its purposes will make it self-sustaining”; yet in 1969, Praxis Research Institute is found in premises belonging to the University of Toronto, at ­373 Huron Street.

Huron also lodges other groups whose membership overlaps that of Praxis.  The tactic is probably the same observed by Robert Rumilly in his 1956 exposé of the leftist penetration in Quebec by a core of individuals who spread themselves through a number of institutions.  Said Rumilly in The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada  (L’Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français) at page 87:

“À l’opé­ra, pour pro­duire un ef­fet de masse, le met­teur en scène fait dé­fi­ler plu­sieurs fois les mêmes fi­gu­rants. … ce­la pro­dui­ra plus d’ef­fet que si l’équipe … dis­pos­ait d’un seul groupe­ment.”

“At the opera, to produce a crowd scene, the director has the same cast parade by the audience several times. … a big­ger effect will be produced than if the team … had just one group”.

The night of 18 December 1970, the Huron Street headquarters of Praxis burned down.

Toronto journalist Peter Worthington (of the Telegram) was pilloried by The Varsity Toronto (see i.e., its unsigned piece of Wednesday, January 13, 1971, entitled “U of T Silent, While Activist Groups Burn”.  (Available online in Anticommunist Archive.)  Worthington had published comments critical of the far-left Praxis; and the left-wing community now views Worthington’s remarks as the “cause” of the fire.

Woodsworth Foundation Teams Up
With Terrorist-Anarchists 

One reason I look askance at Our Generation Press (publisher in 1970 of the Praxis conference papers) is that its founder, Dimitrios Roussopoulos, is said to have been a colleague of Bernadine Dorn.  Dorn was a communist terrorist who manufactured nail bombs to massacre Americans.  On its Roussopoulos page, Wikipedia says:

Roussopoulos organised in August 1968 the first international meeting of the new left in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia with delegates from several countries, including Frank Wolff from the German SDS and Bernadine Dorne from the U.S.

Roussopoulos also, according to Wikipedia, founded Black Rose Books in 1969, and published “most of the political works of Noam Chomsky” which he thus introduced into Canada.

At page 180 of Politics and Suicide:  The Philosophy of Political Self-Destruction by Nicholas Michelsen, footnote 9 quotes a Black Rose book calling for the complete “destruction” of France:

“To save France, the whole country must be turned into a desert.  All houses blown up.  All cities burnt to the ground, everything the bourgeoisie holds dear, capital, industry, commerce, in short, the whole land must be turned into one vast cemetery”. — M. Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, ed. S. Dolgoff (Montreal:  Black Rose Books, 1980)

Executive Intelligence Review, a Lyndon Larouche publication, has linked the Praxis Research Institute to “Rockefeller policy” for Canada, specifically his policy for (extinguishing) Canadian sovereignty.  In its July 12, 1977 issue, Vol. IV, No. 28 (ISSN 0146-9614), in an article entitled “Praxis — The Institute for Policy Studies’ Canadian Extension“, EIR said:

Praxis Corporation was consolidated in 1968 out of “new left”-oriented Fabian circles at Toronto University and York University in Toronto, Ontario.  Praxis’s founding directorship brought together individuals of influence within government, national party, media, academic and professional layers as well as within established “left radical” networks.

Praxis Corporation’s own 1969 brochure emphasized the importance of Praxis ties to two U.S. institutions:  the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) headed by Marcus Raskin, and the Cambridge Institute overseen by linguistician-brainwasher Noam Chomsky of MIT.  Both these U.S. institutions have been exposed in this and other newspapers for their coordinating role in international terrorism.

The Praxis ties to IPS and Chomsky were established through the auspices of several of its founding members:  Gerry Hunnius, former IPS Fellow and ongoing “con­sultant” to the Cambridge Institute; Jeffrey Jowell — Cambridge Institute Center for Urban Studies Fellow, 1967-68.  In addition, Hunnius, as associate editor of the “Our Generation” Canadian branch of Chomsky’s anarchist-terrorist Black Rose, maintained close ties with several other IPS Fellows including John Case, New England Free Press founder, and David Garson, head of the IPS Labor Information Committee.  Praxis maintained additional international ties through its relationship to the Chomsky-run Yugoslavian “dissident” movement of the same name.  Andre Gorz, Yugoslav Praxis magazine international editorial staff member, co-chaired a 1970 Praxis Canadian forum on Mussolini-style “workers’ control” with Hunnius.  Reciprocally, Hunnius and fellow Praxis founder Abraham Rotstein jointly attended a similar conference in Yugoslavia in the early 1970s.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his bride Margaret, holidayed in Communist Yugoslavia in 1970.  As for Fabians, a Fabian is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a socialist on the way to world government who pretends to be a lamb.  He is heading for Communism by the low road, slow and easy does it.

Gerry Hunnius was a colleague of Pierre Elliott Trudeau who in turn, was a colleague and supporter of the CCF-NDP.  Secret meetings are alleged to have been held between Trudeau and Hunnius in Montreal in the early 1960s.  This, of course, is the era when the FLQ terrorists were being trained in Cuba. 6

In the segment of his 1971 CANADA How the Communists Took control called “The Poor War Revolution”, Alan Stang describes the Praxis Research Institute as an

“‘agit-prop’ outfit (agitation and propaganda), egging people on to Marxist revolution”.

In the same article, Stang highlights a typical Praxis initiative:

“For instance, in March, 1970, Praxis had run another conference, on “industrial democracy,” at which Gerry Hunnius, who runs Praxis, said workers should “control the means and processes of production.”  What that means, said Hunnius, is this:  “It should be obvious that a fully operational system of workers’ self-management cannot operate within a Capitalist system ….”  [Emphasis added.]

Stang then underscores:

“In October, 1970, Praxis had run still another Conference — this one on “Workers’ Control and Community Control” — at which a demand was made to destroy Capitalism by revolution.  Capitalism would be replaced by “radical Socialism.”  Confrontation is obsolete, the conferees were told.  What they should do now is “infiltrate,” and, like “microbes,” destroy Canada from within.”

Praxis made the headlines of The Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) on Thursday, January 27th, 1977:  “Did Radicals Aim To Overthrow Government?”

The WFP reported that a “1971 letter by Jean-Pierre Goyer, then solicitor-general”, had been “accompanied by a list of 21 names, mostly public servants”.  “The letter”, continued the WFP:

“said the New Left, a 1960 movement, had devised an extra-parliamentary opposition program to ‘mold the underclass into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the present socio-political system.’”

What the WFP failed to report is that Goyer and Trudeau themselves were both Communists who had already penetrated the system and were in the course of “overthrowing” it from within.  The exposure of Praxis by Goyer was possibly internecine competition of the kind we later see between the Parti Québécois and the NDP over a PQ seat at the Socialist International.  Or else there was fear by Goyer that the Trudeau gang would be exposed, if inadvertently, by Praxis, whom Trudeau was in fact financing through handsome grants from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at least as of 1968.

In the January-February 1971 issue (Volume III Number 5) of Straight Talk!, the journal of the now-defunct Edmund Burke Society (EBS), the observation was made in “Praxis Exposed!  Your Money, Their Revolution”:

“The backbone of the Praxis budget is a $68,000.00 grant from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in Ottawa.”

The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is a federal government agency.  In other words, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau was financially subsidizing the forward thrust of radical Yugoslav-style Communism in Canada with taxpayers’ dollars.  But, Trudeau himself, around the same time, had sat on a “secret committee at Power” Corporation of Canada, which produced the Communist PQ with its 1972 manifesto for Yugoslav-style Communism (Visit and download a free copy of their 1972 manifesto in the sidebar); the very thing promoted by Praxis, and by their associate, the NDP.  A 1974 Montreal Gazette article by Luana Parker, who interviewed mostly NDP’ers, suggests the possibility that the American Ford Foundation (one of the pro-Soviet big three under inquiry by the Reece Committee) is linked to Canadian experiments via Praxis.  We thus now have links from two of the big three, including Rockefeller networks.  The article, entitled “The great debate:  How much worker control?”, in The Report-Business and Finance for Tuesday, 24 December 1974, quite specifically associates “industrial democracy” with the Parti Québécois, but fails to admit that this is Communism.

Indeed, the PQ under René Lévesque tried to join the Socialist International circa 1982. 7  (I say circa, because I am not convinced of the dates reported to author Poulin by PQ insiders, who, I think, may have been covering up for an earlier autocratic demand by Lévesque to SI without party knowledge).  By that time, the SI had long since adopted its twin formal mandate of a world government and industrial democracy, i.e., Yugoslav-style Communism, at their 1962 Congress in Oslo, Norway.  Which further underscores the fact that the PQ manifesto of 1972 is all about industrial democracy, Yugoslav-style Communism.

The “Fabian Effect” becomes clear.  Trudeau, in reality a Communist and an NDP’er, while penetrated into the federal Liberals, co-orchestrates the set-up of the Communist Parti Québécois to pursue the dismantling of Canada for the same Communist goal as the NDP:  industrial democracy.  A de facto one-party system appears, as both the federal and provincial levels combine their forces against Canada, aimed at the Fabian goal of “molding Canada closer to the heart’s desire” and so destroy Canada for their preferred international Communist regime, aka J. S. Woodsworth’s “international republic”.

Furthermore, the federal Bloc Québécois, formed when a number of MPs crossed the floor, led from behind by Lucien Bouchard, was created as a shoe-horn to wedge Quebec “out of Canada” under PQ control; the game being to facilitate “negotiations” to dismantle the whole.  The federal Bloc is therefore, necessarily, a pro-Communist party.  Its longtime leader, Gilles Duceppe (a “former” Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), is a reverent admirer of African terrorist Nelson Mandela, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

EBS noted in the same piece:

“Another familiar leftist pattern is evident in the extensive overlapping membership of Praxis, the Woodsworth Foundation, Stop Spadina, the Just Society, the Toronto Women’s Caucus, and the Metro Tenants’ Association.  However, the familiar pattern persists:  that of an exclusively upper-class membership, usually in unproductive tax-subsidized jobs, as Praxis attracts university professors, CBC employees, social workers, sociologists, as well as a very small percentage of businessmen.”


Ed Broadbent sets the course
of the “new” NDP

The 1970 conference proceedings of Praxis include a paper by M.P. for Oshawa-Whitby and future NDP leader, Edward Broadbent, participating (dubiously) under his parliamentary acronym.

In his paper, “Industrial Democracy:  Where do we go from Here?”, for Praxis, Broadbent concludes as follows:

“Together with the trade unions, the New Democratic Party should make the creation of a democratic industrial Canada its guiding ideological principle.  This is what the ‘new’ in New Democratic Party should be all about.”

In other words, the NDP was called to pursue Yugoslav-style Communism for Canada in alliance with the “radicals” of Praxis Research Institute, which the Executive Intelligence Review claims to be a Rockefeller front linked to terrorist controllers.

The Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation, which published Broadbent and others, thus becomes of interest for the political, social and religious views of the man whose name it bears, and who founded the CCF, the ideological predecessor of the current New Democratic Party of Canada (NDP).

The NDP, like the Parti Québécois (the latter owned by Power Corporation with its links into Rockefeller networks through, i.e., the Rhodes Scholarship committee for Quebec, hosted on its Montreal business premises) is pushing world government and industrial democracy, aka New-Left Communism.

Indeed, the Socialist International has declared that there is a place for “transnational corporations” as well as the new “municipalities” (international city-states) in its New World Order of world government and industrial democracy.)  At its numbered paragraph 2 of its document, “GOVERNANCE IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY – THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC APPROACH”, produced by the XXII Congress of the Socialist International at Sao Paulo from 27-29 October 2003, we read of a place for mega-business in the planned, upcoming world government:

“Globalisation is calling into question very basic elements of the political and social order we are used to.  The nation-state which for more than a century has been a central element of the political, social and economic order of more and more of the world’s societies, is losing strength and importance..  New trans-national units, like global and regional organisations or trans-national corporations, and sub-national units, like increasingly autonomous sub-regions and municipalities are taking over parts of the state’s discretionary capacities.”

By “discretionary capacities”, the SI means national sovereignty.  Anyway, this is all foolery, since nothing takes anything over, legally speaking, from the Canadian nation-state; the Constitution rules, not the SI.  Of course, the Constitution must be enforced, or else talk is cheap.

Today, the NDP is trying to shove Communism and “diversity” (anti-nationalism — perhaps Woodsworthian anti-nationalism? 8 ) into Canada by manipulating race and identity politics.  “Vote for the brown guy, prove you’re not a racist!”  Why not be straight and say, “Vote for the communist!”  (Because the racist slur is the left’s weapon to turn the homelands they are targeting into “cemeteries” of their founding peoples.)

Jagmeet Singh's “Love and Courage” campaign in 2017 for the federal NDP leadership

Jagmeet Singh’s “Love and Courage” campaign in 2017 for the federal NDP leadership.  The buddha has been added to make the point that it was a religious campaign.  Spiritual instincts were being appealed to for the political ends of the Communist NDP.  The photo of Singh above, from his leadership campaign, is not a political campaign picture; it is a religious holy picture!

Most recently, to gain support for his buzzword agenda of “equality”and “participation” (participation is a key word of industrial democracy, the New-Left’s Communism), Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh in a flashy set of brightly colored turbans, campaigned for and won the federal NDP leadership (2017).  Singh used the non-political slogan (“Love and courage”); a slogan that might as well have come from “A Prayer” written by Minister Woodsworth for the Winnipeg Labor Church in 1920 (annexed to the Underhill speech): 

“We confess that we have not yet learned to live together in love and unity.”

Indeed, Underhill asks, “What were these qualities which we think of most readily when we look back over Mr. Woodsworth’s life?” and he replies:

“First and most important of all was moral courage.”

Do we therefore see in Jagmeet Singh a leadership campaign in direct descent from the spiritualized Socialism of the preacher-founder of the CCF, J. S. Woodsworth, himself?

The Messianic overtones were unmistakable when Singh’s campaign photo was unveiled.  Posing Buddha-like, in profile in a yellow turban in a flood of light, Jagmeet Singh personified perfect political and religious enlightenment.  He was not merely a leader, but a saint.  During his leadership campaign, Singh wooed the electorate by demonstrating how to wrap a Sikh religious turban, and by discussing Sikh religious values.

Thus, the new leader of the federal NDP appears to be on the same path as J. S. Woodsworth:  a visionary whose religious values have been sublimated into Holy Socialism.  When he campaigns again, and next time for prime minister of Canada, will Jagmeet offer hairs from his greying socialist beard as holy relics to bedazzled followers?

Jack Layton often displayed a similar glassy-eyed serenity.  On the other hand, it might just have been the lobotomized gaze of the well indoctrinated.  Layton moreover had a guru, his good friend Charles Taylor (another Rhodes Scholar and race annihilator).  Page 6 of Industrial Democracy  (by Praxis) reveals Layton’s guru to be a Communist.  Said Praxis:

“While the issue may appear academic, it is real and essential.  Is workers’ participation in management an end in itself — for its psychological, economic and humanitarian benefits to workers and enterprise — or is it an integral, necessary aspect of a broad strategy toward an all-going transformation of society?  This is the approach taken by Charles Taylor in his “Socialism in the 1970’s in Canada”.  Taylor’s view is that socialist planning of the economy is a pre-condition for democratization of Canadian society, but cannot guarantee democracy unless responsibility for important decisions is placed in the hands of the people who are most affected by these decisions.  This general approach also appears to be adopted by the leadership of the Yugoslav government and Communist League, though observers outside that country are far from unanimous on the subject.

That should make it clear that the word democracy has a very different meaning for the Communist NDP than it has for you or I.  In fact, these Fabians happily manipulate our inevitable misunderstanding of terms like participation and democracy to our disadvantage, and their benefit.  We will say “yes”, thinking they mean one thing; the NDP will accept the yes knowing that for them it means something else entirely that we would reject if we understood it.  The semantic divide can be summed up by Alice’s observation in Wonderland that the Mad “Hatter’s remark seemed to her to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English”.

We know Charles Taylor today especially in Quebec for his hard-peddling of multiculturalism (a step toward eliminating “barriers” of race by eliminating race).  The still surviving founders of New France (French Canada) have not incorrectly identified Taylor’s objective as our genocide.  Multiculturalism destroys the institutions of the founders by handing them to mass-immigrated others for a contrary purpose.  Loss of institutions equals loss of self-government, loss of the means to preserve one’s own culture, and ultimately, as the ethnic owners of the country sink into the great immigrated hodge-podge, racial death.

All the roots of the NDP are clear to see in the life of J. S. Woodsworth as told to inaugurate a foundation in his name.  We are not looking at ordinary politics; but at Communism fueled with all the religious fervor of a converted proselytizer in the full throes of a mystical revelation.

Behind the NDP smiley face and the spiritual froth of its Messianic and guru-courting leaders, with their sunny turbans and orange waves, lurks real potential for organized terror.  This is clear because the real seekers of world government are not the NDP, but those behind them, to some degree identified by Larouche’s EIR.  It is clear from the background above on Praxis and its anarchist-terrorist associates.  Probably, such violence today would only emerge if the political (Messianic) objectives of the NDP (and for that matter, those of the PQ and the federal Bloc and other sundry related far-left movements here) were squelched.

To view that prospect in reverse, in 1970, Pierre Elliott Trudeau ordered assassinated one François Mario Bachand 9, a talented left-wing organizer on the FLQ’s periphery.  Trudeau’s “secret committee” party, his Yugoslav-style Communist PQ, had just taken 7 seats in the Quebec legislature (under void oaths, it must be noted).  A risk of terrorist violence would accompany Bachand’s return from France to Canada, upsetting Pierre’s and Power Corp’s new Communist apple-cart. 10  As long as the dismantling of Canada could be viewed through the black ice of a political settlement, terrorism was unwelcome.  And so, the risk of terror was ordered eliminated.

However, it was never established whether the two bullets to the back of the neck that Bachand took in Paris were from Trudeau or some other messenger.  In any event, criminal intent to murder this Canadian citizen abroad in cold blood and without trial was never officially laid at the feet of our so-called prime minister; although as Bracton advised, “The king is below no man but God and the law”.

Who was J. S. Woodsworth?

J. S. Woodsworth in 1921

J. S. Woodsworth in 1921

James Shaver Woodsworth (1874 – 1942) was a Methodist evangelical preacher who rejected the doctrines of Methodism.  Also, for him, the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament were incompatible with war.  Woodsworth tried to resign his post as a minister for lack of conviction; only to be forced to resign by his co-religionists when he opposed conscription.  He opposed war again in 1939, and gave up his seat in Parliament.  At the same time, in Quebec, the devout Catholic and political leader, Adrien Arcand, who also opposed war, was interned as a security risk in a Canadian concentration camp.  The treatment afforded a war-opposing socialist apparently differed substantially from the treatment afforded to a war-opposing nationalist Catholic.

As Woodsworth, the man, withdraws from his own vocation as a Methodist minister, changing course for the manual labor of the docks, and then again for Parliament, we see organized Socialism in Canada go forth as a personal surrogate for religion.

Illustrating the Underhill speech is a cartoon of Woodsworth waving a cross with the acronym C.C.F. on it, while brandishing a sword.  The joke perfectly identifies the Socialism of the CCF-NDP as religious in character.

Ominously, in the selected writings of Woodsworth at the end of the Underhill inaugural speech to launch the new Foundation, we find the seeds of mass world genocide.

Woodsworth too easily depicts the peoples of the world as “divided into alien groups”.  This implies a call for destruction of all nations, all races, and all peoples, viewed by Woodsworth as “barriers” to his dreamed-of Utopia, his “international republic”.

William Z. Foster, in his 1932 book, Toward Soviet America, explains the Communist goal of racial amalgamation:

“Geographic isolation of the early human stock into widely separated groups brought about its differentiation into individual races; contact between these various races, bred of modern industrialization, is just as irresistibly breaking down these racial differences and bringing about racial amalgamation.  The revolution will only hasten this process of integration, already proceeding throughout the world with increasing tempo.”  (See page 306.)

In his chapter segment, “Marxism and the Problem of a World State”, Soviet Professor Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin quotes Lenin in reference to the same goal of eliminating nations and races in the course of trade blocs being formed (new associations):

“The purpose of socialism,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “is not only to eliminate the splintering of mankind into petty states and any isolation of nations; is not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their amalgamation.”

Interestingly, CCF’er Frank Scott, a Rhodes Scholar (another Oxford man), like Woodsworth, has church roots.  Francis Reginald Scott was the son of an Anglican minister, Archdeacon Fredrick George Scott.  Frank Scott’s work, speaking chiefly of his poetry, now seems to me to embody a sublimation of religion into Socialism.  Here is a true meeting of opposites, where materialism displaces the spiritual “as” the new spirituality in an earthly paradise of conscripted labor and ration coupons.

In a document I cannot now trace, Frank Scott made a statement much like this:  “The human race is more important than any one race”.  The question of what he meant may perhaps be linked to the views of Woodsworth that races and nations are “alien groups” and “barriers” to the future Utopia envisioned by these men.

One wonders where these religious Socialists would presume to derive their authority to sentence entire races of human beings as unworthy to exist.  And since both were religious men, we would presume they would have been gentle in their merciful acts of the genocide of all peoples for the greater good of “humanity” as they prefer to envision it.

It will be interesting to know the fate of the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation.  Was it successful in its drive for sponsorship?  Did it purchase its building?  Who were its founders and directors?  What were its main sources of revenue, who were its benefactors and its beneficiaries?  Did Woodsworth Foundation give money to Praxis?  Is Woodsworth active today under that name, or in another form?

Woodsworth founded the CCF in 1932; he died in 1942; The CCF was with the SI at least as of 1951 for its Frankfurt Congress.

What would Mr. Woodsworth think of the Socialist International, its other member parties, and the general collapse of full-blown socialism wherever it has been tried; most recently in Venezuela where none other than Moscow agent Lech Walesa has been living while documents have emerged exposing him (as Golitsyn warned) as a red traitor working for the Kremlin?  (And here, I interject:  red agent Walesa enjoyed the company and advice of Communist PQ leader Jacques Parizeau.  See Parizeau’s biography here under Dramatis Personae.)

What would Woodsworth think of the CCF and the NDP rubbing elbows in the SI with the terrorists of the world, with elite cronies of the mass murderers of Moscow and their fellow dictators, all of whom preach that the ends justify the means, although little is seen in their orthodoxy of the alleged utopian ends, and quite a bit more of the bloody and repressive means.

What would Mr. Woodsworth think of the foundation named for him, which by the 1970s would be linked with the aims of those Bolshevik financiers the Rockefellers; and through Praxis Research Institute with “terrorist controllers” tied to the name of Chomsky?



The origins of the CCF as the political formulation of a highly religious former Methodist preacher who spent a year at Oxford (where he may have converted to globalism), are important to our understanding of the NDP and its aims today.

Until now, the one firm link between the NDP and its goal of a world government has been its full-party membership status and its influential seat in the Socialist International (SI).  However, this Underhill speech on J. S. Woodsworth reveals that Woodsworth himself, at the time he founded the CCF (in 1932), desired a world government.  That desire is wholly incompatible with the existence of Canada, its founding peoples and our lawful Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867.

In fact, Mr. Woodsworth and his friends apparently viewed the Constitution as yet another “barrier” to their own hopes and program, 11 which may help to explain at least in part the coup d’état  on Canada in 1982 largely wielded by the NDP and our Communist-penetrated Trudeau Liberals.  According to Frank Underhill:

“Steadily he kept pressing the question of the B.N.A. Act and of the obstacles which it presents to any advanced social-reform policy.  And just as steadily the Liberal government kept making the B.N.A. Act an excuse for doing nothing.  It was only at last in 1935 that Mr. Woodsworth succeeded in getting a special committee appointed to examine our constitutional difficulties, and the report of that committee is one step in the sequence of events that led to the Rowell-Sirois Commission.”

The real “difficulty” is that the gurus and political missionaries have no use for the Constitution.  It is therefore never developed and never used; or when used, it is abused.  Those who think they know better have no patience for the wisdom of others; nor for the will of others, nor for their self-determination; nor for law, nor allegiance.  For them, the Holy Rule of Socialism conquers all.  (This, by the way, is the difference between the Rule of Law (caps) and the “rule of man”; the difference between the rule of the Constitution versus human caprice and the arbitrary.)

The founders of Canada chose the B.N.A. Act — their Constitution, through their elected representatives — in a conscious view to preserve themselves, their cultures and their heritage for their children, for generations; indeed, “for all time to come”.

Which illustrates the basic perversion of idealistic religious Socialists, who merely decide that contrary to the wishes of these specific peoples to exist, they should be eliminated; and their Constitution that preserves them, swept away.

It is now my impression, from reading Underhill on Woodsworth, and from knowing the origins of poet Frank Scott, also of Oxford and who advocated world government, that the NDP is not a political party at all, but a pseudo religious movement masquerading as a party.  And given that a Sikh and his spiritual values can be attached to it, even as its leader, it can hardly be “Christian” socialism.

In the language of psychoanalysis, for example, transference is the process whereby emotions are displaced from one person to another.  It would appear in the case of the CCF-NDP that emotions unfulfilled by religion had been transferred onto material socialism, onto anti-spiritual  Marxism and Communism.  Any religious impulse, Christian in kind or otherwise, i.e. Sikhism, for example, could be the subject of a pathological transfer to the Communist object.

A famous poem by Scott ends with the line:  “The future of man is my heaven”.  That line is from “Creed”, published in 1964 in Signature.  The complete poem of four lines reads:

The world is my country
The human race is my race
The spirit of man is my God
The future of man is my heaven.

These words can only be the spiritualization of materialism.  The Catholic Arcand might call it an “error”.  As he said in The Universal Republic  (La République Universelle) (1950) at page 19:

“Cette folie de république universelle, qui semble toute nouvelle à certaines gens, a déjà été dénoncée depuis longtemps par l’Église.”

“This folly of a Universal Republic, which seems quite new to some people, has already and long ago been denounced by the Church.”

Arcand specifies, quoting French Cardinal Andrieux in 1924 (Universal Republic, 1950, page 19):

“Après que peuples et nations auront été déchristianisés, il sera facile, en l’absence de tout lien religieux et social, de les réduire en poussière afin de les réunir de nouveau ; puis, quand ils auront été libérés de l’ignorante idée préconçue d’une terre natale, les incorporer dans une “république universelle” dont la capitale sera Jérusalem et dont le Grand Architecte, Satan, tiendra les rênes du pouvoir, sous le manteau de pourpre de quelques fils d’Israël”.

“Once peoples and nations have been dechristianized, it will be easy, in the absence of any religious and social bond, to reduce them to dust in order to unite them anew; then, when they will have been liberated from the ignorant preconceived idea of a homeland, to incorporate them in a “Universal Republic” whose capital will be Jerusalem and whose Grand Architect, Satan, will hold the reins of power, under the purple mantle of a few sons of Israel”.

Arcand then cites Pope Benedict XV, writing in “Bonum Sane” (translation):

“De cette république, fondée sur les principes de l’absolue égalité des hommes et la communauté des biens, seraient bannies les distinctions nationales, l’autorité du père sur ses enfants n’y serait pas reconnue, ni celle de Dieu sur la société humaine.  Si ces idées sont mises en pratique, il s’ensuivra inévitablement un règne de terreur inouï.”

“From this Republic, founded on the principles of the absolute equality of men and community of goods, will be banished all national distinctions, the authority of the father over his children will not be recognized, nor that of God over human society.  If these ideas are put into practice, an unprecedented reign of terror will inevitably follow.”

Anatoliy Golitsyn might agree.

At his web site, “Montreal Poetry:  A Micropedia”, Dr. Robert G. May, of Queen’s University Department of English says:

“The poem speaks to Scott’s faith, which shaped his political actions.”

I say, no.  Scott’s political actions were his faith. Scott’s “world is my country” is not a valid Christian spiritual objective.

Relying on Sandra Djwa, Scott’s biographer, May says:

“The poem expresses Christian socialism and represented an emergence from the “radical Christian socialism of the twenties”.

Again, I say, no.  Christianity and Socialism are opposites.  As Arcand observed, quoted above, “[A]ny claim to Christian socialism is as illusory as it is idiotic”.

Scott’s poem is therefore not inspired by his faith, it represents something else, the spiritualization of the material, a new Marxist, even Zionist religion.

Calling socialism Christian is a front; as it was in France for the crowd around the pro-Soviet review Esprit, on which Trudeau and his leftist ring based their own magazine, Cité Libre (the title referring obviously to the intended future city-state in a Marxist world-state).  Christian socialism is the Fabian wolf in priest’s clothing.  Or in the case of the CCF-NDP, in Methodist and Anglican Ministers’ clothing.  (And now, in Sikh religious turbans.)

As well, there was no “emergence” out of nineteen-twenties’ radicalism.  Scott’s poem “Creed” embodies the alchemical transformation, the long and still desired establishment of the radical as mainstream.

Scott’s poem has nothing to do with his Anglican faith, and everything to do with his Marxist faith.  “Creed” announces the (Gramscian) inversion of principles; the deification of material man; the Luciferian descent (or fall) of heaven into material Earth; the exaltation of history (or at least its future Marxian end) as the new “heaven”; and the genocide of all races once merged producing a mythical transhuman superman:  “The future of man is my heaven”.

Quoting Djwa, May says the subject of Scott’s poetry:

“is man in the generic sense and human relationships”.

No, again.  The subject is man in the material sense as a hoped-for mixed breed, non-differentiated into races, nations and peoples.  Or, as Woodsworth calls it in his 1920 socialist prayer for the Winnipeg Labor Church, a new humanity not

“divided into alien groups separated from one another by barriers of language, race and nationality; by barriers of class and creed and custom.”

Scott’s poem entails the new universal creed of the CCF, and of its heir, the NDP.  Their creed is the creed called for later by Antonio Gramsci:  the Marxisation of religion to conquer the west for Communism.  Said Gramcsi, quoted in Golitsyn’s The Perestroika Deception:

“Thus religion must be destroyed, and the worship of God (above Man) replaced by the worship of Man — to ‘help Man establish his home on earth’.”

Scott’s poem’s appearing in 1964 cannot be historical accident.  The same inversion of principles occurs with a complete change in theology of the Catholic Church under Pope John II.  The outcome of the Vatican Council II (1962-1965) is an apparent Marxist takeover of the Church from within.  The VII abandoned the universal Latin liturgy, adopted multiple languages, desacralized the host, sacrificed its own history and existence to ecumenism and made other “reforms”.  It seems to have made a double leap directly into Luther’s protestantism and from there into Gramsci’s deification of the material. 12

The Fédération Québécoise de Souche (FQS), in its 2014 article entitled (translation:)  “The Second Vatican Council:  A Quiet Revolution in the Church” reports:

Selon Jérome Bourbon de l’hebdomadaire Rivarol, le concile introduisit une nouvelle manière de se situer par rapport à Dieu.  Prétendant que l’homme avait changé, les Pères conciliaires en déduisirent qu’il fallait aussi modifier le rapport de l’homme à Dieu, en passant du théocentrisme à l’anthropocentrisme.  Inversion radicale des fins :  la religion n’étant plus au service de Dieu, mais au service de l’humanité.  « L’homme est la seule créature de Dieu créée pour elle-même » et « l’homme est le centre et le sommet de toutes choses ».  Telle est la doctrine instaurée par la constitution Gaudium et Spes conclue par le concile.

According to Jerome Bourbon of the Rivarol  weekly, the [Second Vatican] Council introduced a new manner of being situated with respect to God.  Claiming that man had changed, the Fathers of the Council deduced from this that the relationship of man with God also had to be changed, passing from theocentrism to anthropocentrism.  A radical inversion of objects:  religion being no longer in the service of God, but in the service of humanity.  “Man is the only creature of God created for itself” and “man is the center and the summit of all things”.  Such is the doctrine instituted by the constitution Gaudium et Spes concluded by the Council.

The FQS continues:

Paul VI, dans son ahurissant discours de clôture du Vatican II, alla jusqu’à dire :  « La religion du Dieu qui s’est fait homme s’est rencontrée avec la religion — car c’en est une — de l’homme qui se fait Dieu.  […] Nous aussi, nous plus que quiconque, nous avons le culte de l’homme. »  [Emphases added.]

Paul VI, in his confusing closing speech to Vatican II, went as far as saying:  “The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God.  […] we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.”

The FQS concludes:

Si l’homme devait maintenant être considéré comme la fin et le sommet de tout, il fallait évidemment repenser toute la théologie catholique.  L’Église conciliaire se définit comme un moyen, une institution (parmi beaucoup d’autres), un signe au service de l’homme.  C’est la fameuse théorie de l’Église sacrement.

Jean Paul II pourra ainsi dire que « l’Église a révélé l’homme à lui-même », ou encore que « l’homme est le chemin de l’Église ».  Si tel est le cas, on comprend que la liturgie ait alors pour objectif de célébrer l’humanité, sujet du rite sacré et du sacerdoce.  D’où les autels retournés vers l’assemblée des fidèles dont le prêtre n’est que l’animateur, la nouvelle messe n’étant pas hiérarchique, mais démocratique.

If man were to now be regarded as the end and the summit of all, obviously the entirety of Catholic theology had to be rethought.  The conciliar Church is defined as a means, an institution (among many others), a sign in the service of man.  It is the famous theory of the sacramental Church.

John Paul II will be able to thus say that “the Church revealed man to himself”, or that “man is the way of the Church”.  If such is the case, it is understood that the liturgy has then as its objective to celebrate humanity, the subject of the sacred rite and of the priesthood.  Thus the altar is turned towards the assembly of the faithful whose priest is merely the master of ceremonies, the new Mass being not hierarchical, but democratic.

In “Creed”, Scott was obviously referring to the materialist future of mankind, a heaven on earth achieved through the socialism of the CCF and the NDP.  That Socialism today is focused on religious  “love and courage”, unattainable (mythical) “equality” (which has nothing to do with equal distribution), “participation” and “industrial democracy”.

As Leo Roback noted at page 13 of the 1970 Praxis conference proceedings:

‘“Workers’ Self-Management’ was not only seen as a functional system for harnessing initiative and self-interest toward rapid industrial development, but became a powerful ideological weapon … In other words, the new system was a means of showing that the Yugoslav Communist Party was the ‘true heir’ of Marx.  In contrast to the Soviet Union, where the Party-State bureaucracy interposed itself between the workers and the means of production, the Yugoslav working-class (in an all-inclusive sense) would be ‘reunited with the means of production’ …”

That is really what the NDP and Jagmeet Singh are preaching.

In his 1950 pamphlet, The Universal Repulic (La République Universelle), Adrien Arcand said:

“En faisant de la raison humaine l’Absolu suprême dont découlent tout commandement, toute loi et toute initiative, le libéralisme a posé le même geste que Lucifer. Et la politique en a subi la même chute terrifiante, chute qui n’est pas encore rendu à son terme mais qui s’accentue chaque jour davantage vers des ténèbres plus épaisses et un chaos plus profond, dont le communisme donne une première image.”

“By making human reason the supreme Absolute from which every command, law and initiative flows, liberalism has imitated Lucifer.  And politics has suffered the same terrifying downfall, a fall that has not yet come to its end, but accelerates day by day toward deeper darkness and more profound chaos, of which Communism is a first glimpse.”

Arcand finishes:

“Dans des termes plus compréhensibles au profane, c’est ce que le Pape Pie XI expliquait de façon plus courte et plus claire lorsque, dans sa lettre encyclique “Quadragesirno Anno”, il disait :  “Le socialisme a le libéralisme pour père et le communisme pour héritier”.  Maintenant, en cette ère de politique absolue, les impératifs de la politique sont acceptés par tous sans discussion ni esprit critique, ce qui explique que le libéralisme, le socialisme ou le communisme ont pénétré partout et gangrené tous les milieux.”

“In words more intelligible to the layman, this is what Pope Pius XI explained more briefly and clearly in his encyclical letter “Quadragesimo Anno”, when he said:  “Socialism has liberalism for its father and communism for heir”.  Now, in this era of absolute politics, the imperatives of politics are accepted by all without discussion or critical thinking, which explains why liberalism, socialism or communism have penetrated everywhere and gangrened all environments.”

Not long ago, Rémi Tremblay and Jean-Claude Rolinat published “Le Canada français, De Jacques Cartier au genocide tranquille“, (“French Canada, From Jacques Cartier to the Quiet Genocide”).  The title is an obvious play on the label given to the mythical event of the “Quiet Revolution” in Quebec during the Communist-infested Jean-Lesage liberal takeover of 1960-1965.  There is ironically an introduction to the book by Richard Le Hir, a “minister” with the Communist PQ that has always worked to destroy French Canada.

However, as CCF’er and NDP’er Frank Scott said:

“The human race is more important than any one race.”

In other words, your grief, your agony in disappearing, is the price the Socialists are willing to pay for the imaginary advent of an earthly paradise cleansed of nations and peoples.

But, finally, the apotheosis is a dream; the deification of man an illusion, a loathsome ruse.  Hell on Earth is the climax of liberalism; a plummet into the Abyss, into Communism, slavery, dictatorship, civilization’s end; and death.


Enjoy the Underhill speech, it’s really well written; and so are the Woodsworth extracts at the end.

James Shaver Woodsworth:
Untypical Canadian



1  The full name of the Reece Committee was the “United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations”.  It began to sit in April of 1952 to investigate the great tax-free foundations, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.  The minute books of the foundation for the period 1908-1910 showed that world government was the goal, and that war was the means elected to achieve it.

2  Norman Dodd, director of research for the Reece Committee, was interviewed in 1980 by Dr. Stan Monteith for Radio Liberty.  Monteith was the first person to film Norman Dodd.  In 2009, Dr. Monteith updated that film with additional commentary and made it public.  It can be found online, incluidng at YouTube nder the title:  “Norman Dodd Reveals ‘The Secret Agenda of the Tax Free Foundations’ in 1980 – Radio Liberty Interview (US-Soviet merger)”>

3  Ibid:  Dodd tells Stan Monteith about Rhodes Scholarships and Foundations.

4  See a) The Perestroika Deception; and b) New Lies For Old.  The full quote, from page 209 of the former is:  “The pragmatic basis for a revised US response to ‘perestroika’ is the need to protect and preserve the American system from ‘restructuring’ preparatory to ‘convergence’ with the ‘reformed’ Soviet system, and to save the American people from the blood baths and re-education camps which such ‘convergence’ will eventually bring about, of which the West currently has no conception.”

5  The Wikipedia page on Woodsworth claims that today, “the New Democratic Party has largely abandoned Woodsworth’s vision of a socialist Canada.”  Nothing could be more incorrect.  The NDP assumed the seat of the CCF at the Socialist International, whose mandate is a world government and industrial democracy.  Industrial democracy is Communism as developed in the former Yugoslavia (SFRY) after 1950 under Marshal Tito.  In 1970, in a conference paper for Praxis Research Institute (co-sponsored by the Ontario Woodsworth Memorial Foundation), MP for Oshawa-Whitby, Ed Broadbent, future leader of the NDP, underscored the mission of the NDP to bring Yugoslav-style Communism to Canada.  He has been quoted to this effect in the post above.

6  The Communist FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) under the wing of Fidel Castro, received sympathy from Canadian Socialists, trade-unionists, folk-singers and so-called Liberals.  FLQ mailbox bombs blew the arms off postmen, whether French or English speaking; and their Montreal trade center attack at Victoria Square seems to have been a very tiny preview of 9/11, the latter obviously done with certain new and as-yet unidentified technologies.  (I continue to be astonished that Richard Gage and his Architects & Engineers have not yet managed to join forces with physicist and engineer, Dr. Judy Wood, PhD, a materials scientist and former assistant professor of mechanical engineering.)

7  Philippe Poulin.  « La tentative d’adhésion du Parti québécois à l’internationale socialiste », in the Bulletin d’histoire politique, vol. 6, number 3, Spring 1998, pp. 84-106; my translation of Poulin is available online, search for it at

8  All depends on where Woodsworth got it; whom did he encounter in his year at Oxford in the 1890’s?  The secret society of Cecil Rhodes was formed officially in 1891; but there appears to be a difference in ideology between Rhodes and Woodsworth.  Woodsworth seems to want a merger of all races (an official Communist-Zionist policy, excluding the Jews, of course).  Rhodes, in contrast, prefers that the world be populated far and wide by Englishmen; I doubt that he meant multicultural Englishmen.

9  Bachand was co-responsible in 1969 for organizing with Red Stan Gray, the anti-English communist front called Opération McGill Français.

10  Power Corporation of Canada is apparently the hidden transnational-corporate sponsor of the dissolution of Canada for Communism.  CEO Paul Desmarais, Sr. had a long chase through the parties in his effort to find one — or someone within one — willing to run a referendum to dismantle Canada.

When Daniel Johnson took the helm of the old Union Nationale of Maurice Duplessis, and seemed about to run one, Johnson dropped dead.  At this point, the “secret committee at Power” was compelled to fill the gap by setting up its own “separatist” party (the Parti Québécois).  René Lévesque (a refugee from the Jean Lesage liberal party which tried but failed to produce a functioning Communist plan in 1961 — [See the PQ’s 1972 manifesto in the sidebar, pages 101-103] was told to organize the new party of Power.

Another controlee of Power, Pierre Marc Johnson, a son of Daniel Johnson, would later sign the 2005 “Building A North American Community” plan to merge North America, co-authored by the CFR and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.  The latter is a spinoff from Paul Desmarais’ Business Council on National Issues (BCNI).  Since a monarchy cannot be merged with a republic (in fact, Canada was founded as a monarchy to prevent annexation), one or both of Canada and America would have to be dismantled.  A referendum in Quebec becomes indispensable to take Canada apart.  If Canada cannot be toppled, the North American region cannot be finished.  The globalists, therefore, would always have been interested in Mr. Woodsworth and his opposition to the “barrier” of the B.N.A. Act.

Power also sat on the NACC, the North American Competitiveness Council, after 911, a kind of proto-parliament of the big corporations, who dictated changes to the laws of Canada, USA and Mexico to ease the North American merger.

Power Corporation of Canada is at the core of the Quebec Communist problem.  Power also has a penchant for hiring men and women on the RCMP’s list of suspected Communist subversives; Sylvia Ostry for one; Pierre Trudeau for another.  Power Corporation is also linked to Rockefeller networks through the Rhodes Scholarships, and forms the annual committee to dole them out for Quebec.  An excellent project for someone in each of the other provinces would be to find out whole doles them out there.

11  Apparently, so did Nikita Khrushchev, who raised the question of whether the British parliamentary Westminster system (Canada’s model) was (legally) able to go over to Communism.  I can answer that:  No, it isn’t.

12  Arcand would probably not agree with that statement, if only to save face.  In Chapter VIII of À Bas La Haine !  (Down With Hate!) at page 57, Arcand quotes Saul Hayes, Q.C., of the Canadian Jewish Congress, commenting on Vatican II *:

“Dans de telles conditions, la civilisation occidentale et chrétienne ne peut plus dominer le monde et le catholicisme doit faire face à de nouvelles forces tels (sic) que le communisme et l’athéisme”.

“In such conditions, Western and Christian civilization can no longer dominate the world and Catholicism must confront new forces like Communism and atheism”.

The statement seems to me to imply that the Jews had overthrown the Church at Vatican II, but Arcand refuses to give Hayes ground, retorting:  “Is that an observation, a cry of triumph, or a hoped-for outcome?” (“Est-ce une constatation, un cri de triomphe, ou un espoir de réalisation ?”)

Arcand would never have admitted that the Jews who had long targeted the Catholic Church had finally overthrown it.  Indeed, at Vatican Council II, the circle around the Pope was formed largely of converted Jews, most likely Marranos.  Adrien Arcand confirms the presence of Jews at Vatican II.  In À Bas La Haine ! (Down With Hate!) (1965), at chapter II, page 19, Arcand states:

Les Juifs n’ont pas plus affaire dans ce concile, eux qui réprouvent le baptême, que des baptisés peuvent avoir affaire dans la franc-maçonnerie exclusivement juive des B’nai B’rith (Enfants de l’Alliance).  Mais il faut que les Juifs y soient, qu’ils y exercent leur influence, qu’on parle d’eux, voire que l’on défigure le Nouveau Testament (qu’ils repoussent) afin de leur faire plaisir.

The Jews have no more business in this Council — they, who repudiate Baptism — than the baptised can have any business in the exclusively Jewish Freemasonry of the B’nai B’rith (Children of the Covenant).  But the Jews must be there, to exert their influence, to be the subject of discussion, yea, even so that the New Testament — which they repudiate — shall be disfigured in order to please them.

And by then, the Church had inexplicably formed an agreement with the Soviet KGB to stop criticizing Communism!  This was the Metz Accord.  The FQS, in its “Quiet Revolution in the Church” (2014) describes it this way (translation):

“C’est Jean Madiran qui, dès 1963, a révélé l’accord entre Rome et Moscou pour faire taire toute critique du communisme en échange de la participation de représentants de l’Église orthodoxe russe (inféodée au Parti communiste) au concile Vatican II.”

“It was Jean Madiran who, as of 1963, revealed the agreement between Rome and Moscow to silence all criticism of Communism in exchange for the participation of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (pledged to the Communist party) at the Second Vatican Council.”

FQS continues (translation):

“A.Socci, journaliste célèbre en Italie, publia le 11 octobre 2006 un article sur le sujet dans le quotidien italien Libre.  Qui plus est, profitant de la publication de nombreux documents d’archives relatifs au concile Vatican II, il replaça dans son contexte « le pacte scélérat entre le KGB et le bon pape Jean ».  J. Madiran avait également publié dans Itinéraires, dès février 1963 (no. 70), la révélation de l’accord conclu à Metz, effectué par l’hebdomadaire central du Parti communiste français (France Nouvelle, du 16 janvier 1963), puis confirmé par La Croix, du 15 février 1963.  C’est aussi grâce à Itinéraires que l’on a pu connaître l’affaire Pax (no. de juillet-août 1964) sur les infiltrations communistes dans l’Église grâce à une note du Cardinal Wysynski, primat de Pologne.”

“A. Socci, a famous journalist in Italy, published on October 11th, 2006 an article on the subject in the Italian daily newspaper Libre.  Furthermore, profiting from the publication of many archive documents relating to the Second Vatican Council, he placed back into its context “the villainous pact between the KGB and the good Pope John”.  J. Madiran had also published in Itinéraires, as of February 1963 (no. 70), the revelation of the agreement concluded at Metz, made by the central weekly magazine of the French Communist Party (France Nouvelle, of January 16th, 1963), then confirmed by La Croix of February 15th, 1963.  It is also thanks to Itinéraires that we are able to know about the Pax affair (the July-August issue of 1964) of the communist infiltrations in the Church thanks to a note of Cardinal Wysynski, the primate of Poland.”

*  Vatican Council II, or the Second Vatican Council, formally opened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under that of Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 8 December 1965.

Jagmeet Singh, the NDP, and World Government

Jagmeet Singh is is running for the leadership of the federal New Democratic Party of Canada.  Here’s what is really behind his campaign, and behind the NDP itself, based on research of the facts and history.  (Fuller comment below, after the video transcript.)

Love and Courage

“Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada”

Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada
Research, script, animation, by Kathleen Moore


Hi, My name is Jagmeet Singh, and I’d like to be Prime Minister of Canada.

Our Canada is a beautiful country, and I want to create a Canadian Plan to eliminate inequality and poverty.  A Plan where everyone can participate in the creation and sharing of our wealth.

Here is my Income Security Agenda for Canada.

But first, a little history.

The Basic Guaranteed Income idea has been around in Canada a long time.

In 1970, Senator Davuud Avrum Croll, a Liberal from Moscow, hired four NDP economists to study poverty in Canada.

Sadly, our four far-left economists, from the Waffle, were under surveillance by both the KGB and the RCMP.

Fearing that the Liberal Senator from Moscow would water down the NDP Poverty Report, our economists stole the original research and leaked it.

As a result, there were, in fact, three different publications of the Poverty Report that year, recommending a Guaranteed Basic Income.

First, there was the report called “Poverty in Canada:  Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty”, published in November, 1971 by Liberal Senator Croll, from Moscow.

Then, Bob Chodos and Mark Starowicz — both of the 1969 Communist front movement,Operation McGill Français a protest intended to ethnically cleanse English education out of Quebec to enhance the chances of international recognition for Quebec’s “distinct society” after a Yes in a referendum — were now in Ontario, and now running their own magazine, The Last Post.

According to declassified and redacted RCMP surveillance reports, the magazine, The Last Post, was a particular Marxist tactic.

Nonetheless, Chodos and Starowicz published the NDP’s report in a special issue of The Last Post as “The Renegade Report on Poverty” in the summer of 1971.

Our four heroic NDP Waffle economists had their names on it:

Ian Adams, William Cameron, Brian Hill and Peter Penz.

And, really bad luck, Chodos and Starowicz were also under KGB and RCMP surveillance.

In fact, Starowicz was on KGB payroll at the time, selling information on Parliamentarians for the Soviets to open blackmail files.

Finally, Mel Hurtig, of Edmonton, published it.  Today, Mel is a proud signatory to the UNPA Petition for an elected World Government.

Mel is also a proud co-founder of the Council of Canadians.  That’s “Canadian Soviet” in Russian.

The Council of Canadians advocates for public input on the North American Soviet Regional Union, happening now, thanks to NAFTA.

And, by the way, the NDP also takes credit for pushing NAFTA through, against the democratic will of the vast majority of the Canadian public.

By the way, Maude Barlowe, Mel’s co-founder of the Council of Canadians, is another proud signer of the UNPA petition for an elected World Government.

Hurtig published our NDP research under the title, “The Real Poverty Report”.

As you can see, we got our Poverty Report published, our way, and to hell with the Liberals.

But that’s not the end of it.

The NDP and the Parti Québécois, like a pair of cheap hookers, have been working both sides of the political street.

In 1972, eating NDP dust — the Parti Québécois — which is really a Liberal set-up under Pearson17 — published its 1972 manifesto for the party militants.

In its manifesto, the PQ unveiled its own Plan for a Guaranteed Minimum Income.  And its own plan for sovereignty to pull it off!

Why sovereignty?

Because all the powers are needed to restructure the democratic state.

Speaking of Pearson.  Really lucky a lid was kept on the FBI report conveyed to the RCMP in 1951.

A defecting officer of Soviet military intelligence revealed that Lester Pearson, aka “Mike”, was indeed a Soviet agent.

Without his role under wraps, Pearson might never have become Prime Minister in time to begin the post-War restructuring of Canada for the planned World October Revolution warned about by high-ranking KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Frankly, the NDP claims part of the credit for keeping the lid on.

Our man in the Waffle, Ian Adams, co-author of The Real Poverty Report published by Hurtig, later dramatized a failed effort in 1964 by the CIA and the RCMP to expose Pearson as a Soviet agent of influence.

And, lucky again, the RCMP must have mislaid that 1951 FBI letter.

As the PQ knows, Jagmeet’s 4-point plan for Equality and Prosperity can only work in a structured environment called Industrial Democracy.

In 1970, Ed Broadbent, a federal NDP member of Parliament, set the agenda for the New Democratic Party.

As a Praxis conference lecturer, Broadbent said:

“Together with the trade unions, the New Democratic Party should make the creation of a democratic industrial Canada its guiding ideological principle.

This is what the “new” in New Democratic Party should be all about.”

In its 1970 conference proceedings, the Praxis Research Institute named Industrial Democracy the “true heir to Karl Marx“.

However, the NDP has always adhered to Industrial Democracy.

In 1962, as a full member-party of the Socialist International, the NDP is bound to the SI mandate of a socialist world government, and Industrial Democracy.

In 1950, Marshal Tito, who led the resistance to German occupation during World War II and established a communist state after the war, began to develop Industrial Democracy.

What a shame!  The Americans ordered Tito to break up Yugoslavia, under economic sanctions.

Tito really had Industrial Democracy on the roll!

If you elect Jagmeet Singh as Prime Minister of Canada, and put the NDP in federal power, I promise to make Industrial Democracy work for Canada.

The nation-state is out!

The city-state is in!

One local level, one socialist Five-Year Plan, one Guaranteed Basic Income.

It’s not really the gulag.

As long as you have the right attitude, Canada can be a model for the world.

Canada can do Communism right.

And, now for Jagmeet’s Plan for the Bolshevik redistribution of wealth in Canada:

1.  Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

2.  Steal from the rich and give to the poor.

3.  Free gifts for everyone!

4.  Confiscate all private property as property of the collective.

In the spirit of those great socialists of the past:  Robin Hood, Che Guevara, Santa Claus, and yes, Comrade Karl Marx himself, with LOVE, we will have the COURAGE to destroy Canada completely, and start again.

Confederation was a mistake.

World federation will rectify it.

A final note on Praxis.

How unfortunate!  About a month after a journalist wrote some unkind things in the Toronto press, a suspicious fire destroyed Praxis headquarters beyond repair.

An RCMP “red squad” was implicated, but the culprit was never nabbed.


My name is Jagmeet Singh.

Vote for me for Prime Minister of Canada.

Love.  And courage.


“Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada”

Research, Script, Animation
By Kathleen Moore

Bicycle Reunited
By Kevin MacLeod

Two FLQ Terrorist
Bomb Explosions
From Documentary Footage


@ Montreal
During the NDP Federal
Leadership Race
August 2017

– 30 –



Jagmeet Singh for Prime Minister of Canada!” is a comic exposé of the NDP and the shady red origins of the ‘Guaranteed Basic Income’ idea in Canada.  This video is based on facts, history and documented research.  It’s a caricature of reality.

The NDP is not a ‘left’ party, it is a Communist party devoted to the Yugoslav model of ‘worker control’ or ‘Industrial Democracy’, a form of Communism developed under Marshal Tito in Communist Yugoslavia, which had been a Soviet satellite.  Industrial Democracy has been called ‘the true heir of Karl Marx’.

The form of Communism called Industrial Democracy is also known as ‘worker control’ or ‘worker self-management’.  This is precisely the kind of system planned for Quebec in the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois!

Industrial Democracy terminates the free-market enterprise system as we know it.  In 1972, the president of the Quebec Employers Council, Mr. Charles Perrault, said that if ever the PQ plan (its 1972 manifesto) were implemented, which is based on Industrial Democracy, it would mean “the Apocalypse of business”.  It would be the end of free enterprise.  In other words, Quebec would become a Communist system.  This is, in fact, what the public was forced to “vote” for in 1980 and again in 1995 in the Quebec “sovereignty” referendums:  COMMUNISM!


Ripley’s Canadian Believe It Or Not:  Marxist-Leninists Support the “Sovereignty” of Canada, as Deceptively Promoted by Communist Connie Fogal Rankin!


Blast from the Past

This very good post of mine from 2010 in blogspot belongs here at CANADA How the Communists Took Control.  It’s further documentation proving the Communist nature of the Canadian Action Party (CAP) set up in 1997 by red Paul Hellyer, former cabinet minister under Soviet agent Pearson and Communist Pierre Trudeau.

The Canadian (Soviet) Action Party (CAP) was founded by Hellyer, a former Trudeau appointee (who now chases UFO’s and urges we humans to “partner” in “development” with aliens whom an ex-Air-Force pal of Hellyer’s psychically communes with).

Hellyer recruited staunch Vancouver Communist Connie Fogal Rankin, the wife of Harry Rankin who was barred from entry to the United States, to lead the CAP.

This is an episode from the positive Communist coverage of Connie’s attempt to con Canadians into voting Yes or No on the North American Union, which the Constitution of Canada actually forbids.  Connie and the Canadian (Soviet) Action Party had the full support of the Marxist-Leninists, who cheered her on at her rallies.

* * *

On April 17th, 2008, the MARXIST-LENINIST DAILY published its coverage and support of the Canadian Action Party, then led by well known Communist Constance Clara Fogal Rankin, bull-horn in hand, Alex-Jones style, marching to demand a “binding referendum” on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which means on the annexation of Canada to the USA in a Communist regional union.  That’s what the North American Union really is.  Otherwise, obviously, the Marxist-Leninists wouldn’t support it as eagerly as they do.

The ML Daily entitles its coverage: 

“Toronto Rally Demands Binding Referendum on Canada’s Participation in the SPP”.

The ML Daily means Connie Fogal Rankin’s Toronto Rally!

Says the ML Daily:

“Hundreds of people participated in the rally demanding an end to Canada’s participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), saying No! to a North American Union and yes to Canadian sovereignty.”

The article also reports that

“[t]he specific demand put forward by the rally was for a binding referendum of the Canadian people to decide whether or not Canada would continue to participate in the SPP.”

The ML Daily continues:

“The Canadian Action Party, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, Green Party and Libertarian Party” sent speakers to address the rally.”

And, continuing:

“Pierre Chenier spoke on behalf of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada.

[I don’t suppose he’s the same Pierre Chenier of Paul Rose’s “Chenier cell” of the terrorist group which kidnapped and is alleged to have murdered Quebec Labour Minister, Pierre Laporte at the outset of the 1970 October Crisis under Communist prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  On the other hand this Marxist Chenier who marched for the pro-Referendum gang on the SPP in 2008 has been a long-time member of the Communist Party of Canada and the Marxist-Leninists; he has sought political office many times in both Ontario and Quebec.  He was 54 in 2008, 56-ish in 2008 at the SPP march. He would have been 17-ish in 1970.  That’s about the right age for terrorist recruits.  His occupation is that of a printer; would have come in handy running off broadsides for the FLQ…  Does anyone have any more information?  Is this the same Pierre Chenier?]

Marching with the Canadian Action Party in 2008, Pierre Chenier forcefully stated that Canada must get out of aggressive annexationist treaties such as SPP, as well as NAFTA and NATO …  these treaties violate Canada’s sovereignty … Our Party will continue to go all out to build the unity in action of Canadians to defeat the SPP and this North American Union, he concluded.”

Did you get that? The anti-national Communists are claiming to support Canadian sovereignty!

They support an end to the SPP and NAFTA, which are the basis of continental merger and hemispheric union … on the way to world government, which is globalism, which is exactly what Communism was founded to achieve.

Chenier and Connie won’t be defeating SPP and NAFTA with a vote:  the referendu, they demand on the annexation of Canada contravenes the Constitution of Canada which prohibits Canada’s annexation.

Thus, while seemingly opposed to “aggressive annexationist” action, Chenier and the Marxist-Leninists are in fact aggressively backing annexation by introducing the forbidden “option” of a Yes to it.  Just like Communist Connie Fogal and the Canadian Action Party.

We are supposed to take at face value that Marxist-Leninists joined forces with the Canadian Action Party and other assorted leftists at a rally to demand a binding referendum on whether Canada should be annexed to the USA and that the Marxists were there to help save Canada!

Evidently, what they were there to do was to help shove Canada over the brink by encouraging naive Canadians to put the Constitution of Canada up to a crap shoot —

What else is wrong with this picture?

[1] The MARXISTS (via Fidel Castro) were behind the founding in 1959-1963 of the FLQ — the Front de libération du Québec, a terrorist group set up in Quebec to destroy the Constitution of Canada for an “open society” based in the FLQ’s understanding of Marxist ideology.

[2] The Constitution of Canada, as the supreme and binding law of Canada, by its own existence and operation, absolutely prohibits the annexation of Canada to the United States of America.  Indeed, Canada was founded in 1867 to prevent annexation; this being the constitutional purpose of the founding statute, it is not merely an “option”.  Forbidden means forbidden.  A “referendum” on the SPP, an extension of NAFTA, and aimed to integrate Canada into the USA and Mexico, thus annexing Canada, introduces an option which the Constitution does not allow.  For details on how the Constitution forbids Canada’s annexation, see my post The Constitution 101:  Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies

The illusion of “democracy” is being used by the Canadian Action Party and its hard-core Communist backers, to introduce a highly manageable risk of tricking Canadians into voting Yes to annex Canada to the USA and Mexico.

Canadians foolish enough to believe in such an option and to vote in such a referendum would be shooting themselves in their political foot — to the absolute delight of the Marxist-Leninists.

Within just a few days after I located, and thank God downloaded, this rally-coverage page from the ML Daily web site, the page disappeared from its URL.  It had been in the online archives of the Marxist-Leninist Daily (called the “Le Marxiste-Léniniste quotidien) in French:

Original link:

I found the google cache, however, and PDF’d it along with the dead link.  The ML daily rally review is also online today in the Wayback Machine.  Scroll down to see:  Toronto Rally Demands Binding Referendum on Canada’s Participation in the SPP.

The 2008 Rally to demand a “Binding Referendum” on the annexation of Canada was emceed by Canadian Action Party candidate, Vijay Sarma an anti-wihte racist who equates “white” people with “Nazis” (standard Commie line) and who married old-bag Connie (born 1940 and triple his age), in 2007.  Vijay has thus sacrificed his fecund “Black Krishna” sperm to the Party for the greater good and (as implied by Vijay) the greater gratification of Comrade Connie.

Attack those nasty white people, Vijay!  Destroy them, destroy their countries!  Force them into a racist, anti-white, anti-national Red Region!  Take their institutions from them, genocide them!  Do it for Israel, Vijay.  And your reward is in the sack.  Er, I mean bag — er, I mean, oh well.

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal  (wedding pic)

MPVij (aka Black Krishna) and Connie Fogal (wedding pic)

Vijay Sarma, Marxist child-groom and toy-boy, married Comrade Connie Fogal Rankin (born 1940)!  Connie must be so glad that old man, Harry Rankin, finally dropped dead of a multiple bypass!  But not without a last song good-bye.  Connie hired a choir, no less, to bid farewell to die-hard Stalinist Harry at his 2002 funeral, with the Communist hymn, the “Internationale“.

Harry Rankin Obit by Doug Ward

“Rankin Service Honors ‘Working Class Hero'”, Harry Rankin Obit by Doug Ward for The Vancouver Sun, Monday, March 11, 2002 page B3

The Toronto instance of the pro-referendum action was organized by Canadian Action Party leadership contender Wendy Forrest and Karen Wittke, using a Facebook group to summon participants for the rally.

Connie in her Vijay Wedding Dress on Howard Phillips's Conservative Caucus

Communist Connie Fogal Rankin partners with Conservative Presidential candidate, Howard Phillips, to Stop the North American Union!

But wait, I wanted you to see Connie’s wedding pictures because she got so much extra use out of that dress:  as the demure guest of Conservative Constitution Party leader and U.S. presidential candidate Howard Phillips and his, believe it not, Conservative Caucus.  From the far left to the far right, Comrade Connie’s got the big red Zionist North American Union covered!

Connie also partnered with Howard Phillips’s Coalition to Block the North American Union, backed by none other than Congressman Ron Paul (Secession Is an American Principle:  Ron Paul:com)! … It would pretty much have to be … to get the North American Union done.  Subscribe for that post coming up.

The Quebec Elections of 1960 – Lesage Minority “Liberals” Make First Attempt at a Communist Plan

René Lévesque, Jean Lesage, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, 1960 minority win for the Quebec Liberals

René Lévesque, Jean Lesage, Paul Gérin-Lajoie
1960 minority win for the Quebec Liberals

The Webster Library of Concordia University carries an official biography of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, circa 1976, published by the Liberal Party of Canada.  A scan of same, an ebook in PDF format, and a searchable transcript are free for download (157 MB zipped), together with additional documents.

At the top of page 7 of this official biography, we read the following statement:

“As the [1956 electoral] term drew to a close, Mr. Trudeau issued an appeal to the readers of Cité Libre  to support the Liberals in the provincial election of 1960.  With the Liberal victory, the democratic and social revolution seemed underway.”

(Perhaps the Communist revolution seemed well underway.)

For Pierre Elliott Trudeau is obviously not a “Liberal”, as anyone can tell who knows his pro-Communist background and his anti-Parliamentary activities while controlling Canada.  Just read his 7-part series in Le Devoir, “I’m Back from Moscow,” on the 1952 Soviet Economic Summit, and you will understand that Pierre is a Communist.  (See the Library tab under Articles for my exclusive English version.)

Therefore, the foregoing, and other statements in Trudeau’s “official” Liberal biography, were clearly intended to lull the public into believing that Pierre Trudeau was, and had long been, a “Liberal”.

However, election year 1960 disproves the claim.  In fact, it links Pierre Trudeau personally and directly to the Communist penetration of Quebec, which he facilitated with his “vote Lesage” article in Cité Libre.

This is clear from Chapter 6 of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois (for a Communist state of Quebec) entitled “The economic objectives of the plan”.  Chapter 6 reveals:

“The notion of a Plan has been tossed around in Quebec.  Since 1961, in one form or another, the elaboration of a development plan remained an objective for successive governments, except for the last which finally abandoned the idea.  […] (p. 101)”

The idea of a Communist plan was not abandoned; but merely the attempt to do it while a Province of Canada.  The Quebec referendums of 1980 and 1995 to “secede” were efforts to acquire all the powers necessary to pull one off.

1961 is year two of the Lesage “Liberal” government elected on the 22nd of June, 1960, in part at the urging of Pierre Trudeau.  These are the very same “Liberals” linked by Chapter 6 to the economic goals of the “Quiet Revolution” in Quebec

“The desire to coordinate economic objectives and instruments of action was, at the beginning of the “Quiet Revolution”, all the more acute as Quebec had traversed the recession of 1957 to 1961 with difficulty.”  (p. 101)

At page 102 of Chapter 6:

“The fundamental characteristic of a Plan is that all the principal agents of a nation’s economy agree periodically to confront their objectives, their projects or their proposals, then to render them compatible and to arrange their operations in consequence.”

At p. 103:

“What is revealed by this experiment of the Sixties, is that without the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study … The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty.  As long as Quebec is not independent, as long as it does not possess all the fiscal, legislative and mobilizing powers of a Sovereign state, to wave the banner of planning is at best the expression of a great lack of guile …”

“… the Plan will materialize only in an independent Quebec.”

It would seem that the “fundamental characteristic” of the “Quiet Revolution” was an attempt by the Jean Lesage “Liberals” to construct a Communist Plan.

Moreover, Jean Lesage had been a federal minister under Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson as prime minister of Canada, before Lesage swapped the federal “Liberals” for the provincial.

Charles Perrault, President of the Quebec Employers Council, interviewed on the concept of the 1972 manifesto by French CBC (Radio-Canada) on May 9th, 1972, points out the kind of Plan intended by the PQ, at which a first attempt was made in 1961 under Lesage:

À toutes fins pratiques, on va donner ici à l’Etat le rôle qu’il joue dans les pays socialistes de l’Est de l’Europe. On va centraliser la production, on va construire des plans — euh — coercitifs — et à toutes fins pratiques, comme je le disais, — euh — donner à l’Etat la gouverne totale.  Et on doit s’attende à ce que le, le, l’économie progresse à peu près comme celle des Polonais ou des Czecks ou des Allemands de l’Est.

Ça ferait quelque chose dans ce genre-là.

For all practical purposes here, they are going to give to the Government pretty much the role it plays in socialist countries in Eastern Europe.  They are going to centralize production, they are going to construct coercive plans — uh — and for all practical purposes, as I said  uh  give to the Government total control. And one must expect that the, the, the economy will progress pretty much like that of the Poles or the Czechs or the East Germans.

It would be something of that nature.

Ce n’est pas d’un plan indicatif qu’il s’agit ici.  C’est clairement d’un plan coercitif — euh — qui ref — euh, qui représente la sorte de, de — de — euh — de système qu’on connaît dans les pays socialistes

Mais, sûrement pas, sûrement pas en Suède, et sûrement pas non plus en France.

This is not an indicative plan that we have here.  This is clearly a coercive — uh — which ref — represents the kind of, of — of, uh — of system known in socialist countries.

But surely not, surely not (the kind found in) Sweden, and surely not in France, either.

Marxist sociologist Narcisso Pizarro, in the same radio round table, states without hesitation that the notion of a Plan in the 1972 manifesto is a reference to worker self-management — a form of Communism underway in Tito’s Yugoslavia since 1950:

“In another aspect, inspiration in the Yugoslav model:  which is to say participation, co-management, self-management.  Uh –”

In 1972, Yugoslavia still is Communist, under Tito.

Furthermore, the federal regime under Pierre Elliott Trudeau will “liberally” siphon federal taxpayers’ money to an organization called Praxis Corporation, infamous for promoting socialism by organizing “poor peoples’ conferences”.  The 1970 conference proceedings of Praxis (Research Institute for Social Change) were published by Black Rose Books.  The contents reveal that precisely the Yugoslav model of worker self-management (industrial democracy) is the model of Communism preferred by the Trudeau-financed Praxis for all of Canada.  Says Chris Trower, United Steelworkers of America (Toronto) (p. 29):

“Yet the pursuit of this goal not just for ourselves, but for all mankind, is the only cause worth fighting for.  It is in the belief that we are joined in that historic cause, that we must work to build an industrial democracy in Canada.”

At page 34, Comrade André Bekerman says:

“II.  The Immediate Importance of Industrial Democracy in Canada
The idea of Industrial Democracy is not new to Canada, nor is it a foreign import unrelated to Canadian realities. It was advocated in the Regina Manifesto of the CCF and even earlier. It now needs re-introduction, however, because for several decades the unions have avoided challenging the fundamental issue of ownership and management’s rights to exercise authoritarian control over workers and production.”

The CCF, in case you didn’t know, is the original name of the party that became Canada’s NDP, our New Democratic Party, a full member, like the CCF before it, of the Socialist International, working toward socialist (Communist) world government.  The NDP is Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s real political home in Canada, not the Liberals, whom he merely infiltrated like so many other Fabian Socialists.

Included in the Black Rose conference proceedings of the Praxis Institute for Social Change is an advocacy paper entitled “Industrial Democracy:  Where do we go from here?” by none other than our respectable NDP’er, Edward Broadbent, M.P., and future NDP leader, influential in the administration of the Socialist International.

Industrial democracy is precisely the form of Communism framed in the pages of the 1972 PQ manifesto.

“Former” Marxist Lyndon Larouche’s Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) of July 12, 1977, Vol. IV, No. 28 (ISSN 0146-9614), referring to EIR’s own research, has alleged:

“A preliminary investigation of the actual nature of the Praxis Corp. network reveals it to be the centerpiece in a broad-based, largely Rockefeller-inspired, conspiracy directed at all phases of the Canadian policy making process.  Information on Praxis and associated networks gathered in Canada and gridded against the extensively documented activities of the terrorist controllers at the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) both in North America and in Europe show the Praxis Corp. to be an IPS-Canadian front organization.”

The EIR concludes:

“This iden­tification, matched in turn against known official Rockefeller policy options for Canada, allows the ef­ficient assemblage of the complete profile of Rockefeller and allied network agencies of subversion directed at Canadian national sovereignty.”

The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank was a co-financier of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, along with Bankers Schiff, Warburg, Rothschild, and others.

Which raises the question:  who, in fact, owns and operates Canada’s federal and provincial governments?  For decades now, our federal and Quebec levels have colluded in illegal referendums to convert Quebec to Communism on the model advanced by the former Praxis, an alleged Rockefeller policy outlet.

Furthermore, the real goal of the Quebec “secession” front has been to restructure all of Canada through federal-Quebec “negotiation” following a referendum Yes.

The “Quiet Revolution” is not Over

The “Quiet Revolution” of the Lesage Red “Liberals” isn’t over.  In his 2014 Liberty-Nation Project, Quebec city lawyer, “separatist” tactician and Communist co-founder of the Parti Québécois, Guy Bertrand, points out Quebec’s continued need for “sovereignty”.  (It’s actually the Communists who need it.)  However, the picture is shaping up.

The empty shells of the “radically revalorized municipal institutions” called for in the PQ’s 1972 manifesto (see “Democratic Communities, page 31) were created by the PQ  in November-December 2000, without waiting to “secede”.

The PQ, as a rogue government legislating not for the governance of Quebec, but for the future dismantling of Quebec, created:  “an array of regrouped and amalgamated municipalities” as called for (also on page 31) by its own manifesto of 1972.  Obviously, that manifesto is current; it’s not passé or lapsed.  In French, the PQ created “un ensemble de municipalités regroupées et fusionnées“.  These are the “regions” that Bertrand is referring to in calling for a transfer of powers to  them, aka “decentralization”.

This will indicate the determination of the Communists to in fact cause Quebec to “secede” to complete and implement these new Communist metropolitan regions.  Which is what we really were forced to “vote” for in the 1980 and 1995 referendums.  Not Quebec “sovereignty”.  Not the independence of the ethnic French Canadians, but the dismantling  of Quebec into a string of socialist banana republics, planned city-states on the model of Moscow.

With Bertrand, as with Parizeau and Lévesque before him, the real purpose of sovereignty today is not to defend the French Canadian people and their culture, but to transfer (decentralize) legislative powers  to the new international, multicultural  city-states, to replace Confederation.  Says Guy Bertrand:

“2.5  Transfert de pouvoirs aux régions

La réforme des institutions politiques au Québec doit néces­sairement passer par le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions, une fois modifié le statut poli­ti­que du Québec.  La décentralisation s’impose.

« La décentralisation, c’est le transfert de pouvoirs gouver­nementaux vers les régions, avec, bien sûr, les ressources nécessaires pour les exercer, sans quoi il s’agit d’un transfert bidon.  La décentralisation, précisons-le d’emblée, n’est pas un transfert ou une déconcentration de services, mais un transfert de pouvoirs.  L’opération n’est pas de nature administrative, mais de nature politique.  Il ne s’agit pas de réaménager l’Administration.  Il s’agit de réaménager l’Etat.

2.5  Transfer of powers to the regions

The reform of political institutions in Quebec must necessarily proceed by way of the transfer of governmental powers to the regions once the political status of Quebec is modified.   Decentralization is the way to go.

“Decentralization is the transfer of governmental powers to the regions, with, of course, the necessary resources to exercise them, without which, it would be a useless transfer.  Decentralization, let us stipulate at the outset, is not a transfer or a dilution of services, but a transfer of powers.  The operation is not administrative in nature, but political in nature.  It is not a question of restructuring the Administration.  It is a question of restructuring the Government.

Now, get this.  Bertrand underscores that all the political parties in Quebec since the 1960 minority win of Lesage, have been planning to Communize Quebec the same way.  At page 60, Bertrand says:

Même si tous les partis politiques au Québec, et cela depuis 1960 à aujourd’hui, « se sont engagés formellement dans leurs programmes officiels à effectuer des transferts de pouvoirs vers les régions », la décentralisation attend toujours.  Pourquoi ?”

Even if all the political parties in Quebec, and that from 1960 to the present day, “were formally committed in their official programs to carrying out the transfers of powers to the regions” decentralization is still in the wings.  Why?”

Why, indeed.  The answer is in the PQ’s 1972 manifesto:

“[W]ithout the necessary instruments, a Plan will never be anything but a more or less inadequate study … The missing instruments are precisely those which result from sovereignty.”  (103)

Those “missing instruments” are the legislative powers of the Province of Quebec, and of the Parliament in Ottawa, to be taken by UDI — a unilateral declaration of independence of the Communist state of Quebec, and handed over to the city-states, and to a new regional government, and undoubtedly, a world government.

Download a package of my exclusive English translation of parts of Guy Bertrand’s 2014 Liberty-Nation Project.

Cité Libre

Cité Libre  juin-juillet 1960

Trudeau:  The Left must Vote “Liberal”
to put “democracy first”

First, said Trudeau in the opener to his pro-“Liberal” article entitled “Notes on the provincial election” (Cité Libre, Volume 11, Number 28, June-July 1960, p. 12):

Je n’avais pas cru, après l’élection de 1956, que la conjoncture électorale de 1960 serait aussi simple qu’elle l’est. [….]

Il suffit de rappeler ici que la Fédération libérale accepta la formule d’union des forces démocratiques, alors qu’à toutes fins pratiques  cette formule fut rejetée par l’Action civique et par le P.S.D.

“I had not believed, after the election of 1956, that the electoral conjuncture of 1960 would be as simple as it is. […]”

“It suffices to recall here that the Liberal Federation accepted the formula of a union of the democratic forces, whereas for all practical purposes  this formula was rejected by the Action civique  and by the P.S.D.”

Trudeau says later, obviously to hide the fact that he knows Lesage et als  are not really “Liberals”:

Je veux bien croire que les Libéraux bluffaient peut-être au moment où ils acceptaient de négocier, même en dehors du parti libéral, une formule d’union des forces démocratiques.  Je pense aussi que depuis la mort de MM. Duplessis et Sauvé et le retrait de l’Action civique, les Libéraux sont vraisemblablement ravis que cette union ne se soit pas réalisée.

“I would truly like to believe that the Liberals were perhaps bluffing when they agreed to negotiate, even outside of the Liberal party, a formula of union with the democratic forces.  I also think that since the deaths of Messrs. Duplessis and Sauvé and the withdrawal of the Action civique, the Liberals are truly thrilled that this union did not take place.”

However, in the next segment called “The Democratic Bet”, Trudeau tells his readers to vote “Liberal”:

En conséquence, cet électorat sera justifié, autant en théorie qu’en pratique, d’appuyer carrément le parti libéral aux élections prochaines.

“In consequence, this electorate will be justified, in theory as much as in practice, in squarely supporting the Liberal party at the next elections.”

At the same time, Trudeau impliedly offers “democracy first” as the cover for his Communist friend, René Lévesque, who “suddenly” got into “politics”, but with these so-called “Liberals”:

Je sais même qu’ils refuseraient aujourd’hui de se compromettre avec trop d’hommes de la “gauche” démocratique, voire même avec d’authentiques indépendants. […]

“I even know that they would refuse today to compromise themselves with too many men of the democratic “left” or even with authentic independents. [….]”

Et le corollaire, c’est qu’un René Lévesque — soudain désireux d’exercer une action électorale — se trouve dans l’impossibilité pratique d’agir ailleurs que dans le parti libéral.

“And the corollary is that a certain René Lévesque – suddenly wishing to get into politics – finds it practically impossible to act other than within the Liberal party.”

René Lévesque was apparently recruited by the Lesage Liberals; he didn’t find himself unable to run for office with one of the Red groupings on account of their failure, according to Pierre, to put “democracy first”.

It should be evident that Pierre Elliott Trudeau recommended voting for a party which he had to have known was going to attempt a Communist plan.

It must also be clear that if Quebec supposedly required “sovereignty” in order to acquire “[t]he missing instruments” to construct a Communist Plan, it is therefore and always has been in the direct personal interest of Pierre Elliott Trudeau — who urged his pro-Soviet readers of Cité Libre to vote for the Lesage “Liberals” — to find a way to dismantle Canada to construct that Plan.

And therefore, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the other Reds long at the federal level, would have to be aiming at restructuring all of Canada to facilitate “provincial” Communist planning.

Which is not to say that other motives are not afoot for the redistribution of legislative powers from Ottawa to Quebec.  Without all powers in its hands, Quebec would be unable to redistribute them in turn … to a decentralized group of expanded and consolidated Communist metropolitan regions on the model of Moscow in socialist sociologist Maurice Zeitlin’s “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark” in a 1975 issue of the Communist Party of the USA’s Daily World.

It must therefore be clear that it is not “Quebec” that wants “sovereignty,” nor was Pierre Elliott Trudeau “fighting to save Canada”.  He was working, in both the Justice department under Soviet agent prime minister Pearson, and then in his own regime as prime minister, to restructure Quebec and all of Canada for Communism, after a “Yes” in a referendum.

To cover his insider knowledge of the true nature of the Quebec Liberals, Trudeau demurs:

Il va sans dire, mais cela ira peut-être mieux en le disant, que je ne suis pas autrement fier d’avoir à faire ces constatations.  Mais si je ne les faisais pas [ces remarques], je renierais le long manifeste publié dans le numéro sus-dit de Cité libre, et je reculerais devant la logique à laquelle je risquais d’être pris en jouant à “démocratie d’abord”.  Car il est certain que si, par exemple, le P.S.D.

“But if I do not make them [these remarks], I would repudiate the long manifesto published in the above-mentioned issue of Cité Libre, and I would back away from the logic to which I risked being held by playing at “democracy first.”  Because it is certain that if, for example, the P.S.D. had supported the union of democratic forces, and the Liberals had rejected it, I would today be justified in concluding that all sincere democrats would have to vote against the Liberals and support the P.S.D.”

And further on again:

Le résultat net, c’est que le parti libéral a obtenu à peu de frais le monopole des votes oppositionnistes.

“The net result is that the Liberal party has obtained at little cost the monopoly of the opposition vote.”

Pierre Trudeau’s official “Liberal” biography therefore links him directly to the Communist penetration of Quebec with a view to constructing a Communist Plan.  It links him through his own article published in Cité Libre in 1960, “Notes sur l’élection provinciale” (translation:  “Notes on the Provincial Election”) (Volume 11, Number 28, June-July 1960, p. 12 et seq.) in which he invites his readers of Cité Libre to vote for the Lesage “Liberals”.


The electorate who unintentionally will vote for the Communists in 1960 were not, however, without counsel.  Both Robert Rumilly and Patrick Walsh are present, trying very hard to warn Quebec voters about the leftist inclinations of their “Liberals”.

In his quite excellent public lecture entitled (translation:)  “June 22nd 1960 — the Election of Jean Lesage:  “a change of life”?”), Éric Bédard explodes the myth of a backward Quebec still used today to justify the Lesage Liberals and their call for a “revolution”.  However, in 2013, Mr. Bédard, like the voters in 1960, discounts the warning.  Describing the 1960 electoral campaign, Bédard says:

Quant à l’épouvantail du communisme, il ne semble guère pris au sérieux par l’électorat.  Durant toute la campagne, René Lévesque fut plusieurs fois présentée comme un cryptocommuniste.  Dans un entrefilet du 1er juin, le Montréal-Matin expliquait que « Pat Walsh, chef anticommuniste bien connu, a annoncé qu’il ferait la campagne contre René Lévesque », comme s’il était normal de surveiller René Lévesque en tant que communiste !

As for the scarecrow of Communism, the electorate hardly seems to have taken it seriously.  Over the course of the campaign, René Lévesque was depicted a number of times as a crypto-communist.  In a brief report on June 1st, the Montréal-Matin  explained why “Pat Walsh, the well-known anticommunist leader, announced that he would campaign against René Lévesque”, as if it were normal to view René Lévesque as a Communist !

And again:

Le dernier épouvantail, celui d’un Parti libéral résolument hostile aux valeurs religieuses et à l’Église, est également agité par des partisans de l’Union nationale.  À la toute fin de la campagne, l’historien traditionnaliste Robert Rumilly fait circuler un pamphlet dans lequel il s’insurge contre la gratuité scolaire qui violerait les droits de l’Église.  Les cibles principales de l’historien sont Jacques Hébert, Jean-Louis Gagnon 1  et René Lévesque.  Le 19 juin, il offre une causerie sur ce sujet à la radio (diffusée dans 9 postes, dont CKAC et CHRC), annoncée la veille dans Le Soleil.  Le titre de cette causerie commanditée par la Ligue pour l’Autonomie des Provinces est « L’infiltration gauchiste dans les élections provinciales ».  La réplique de Jean Lesage fut cinglante.  Selon ce que rapporte le journaliste du Devoir, le chef libéral aurait déclaré :  « Il a dit qu’il n’a pas de leçon de catholicisme à recevoir de cet “importé”, que le peuple canadien-français a réchauffé sur son sein pendant trop longtemps cette “vipère” qui le darde aujourd’hui dans ses idées » !

The final scarecrow of a Liberal party resolutely hostile to religious values and to the Church, is also brandished by partisans of the Union Nationale.  At the very end of the campaign, traditionalist historian Robert Rumilly circulates a pamphlet in which he rails against free schooling, which would violate the rights of the Church.  The principal targets of the historian are Jacques Hébert, Jean-Louis Gagnon 1  and René Lévesque.  On June 19th, he hosts a talk on the subject over the radio (broadcast from 9 stations, including CKAC and CHRC), publicized the day before in Le Soleil.  The title of this talk, financed by the League for the Autonomy of the Provinces, is “The Leftist Infiltration of the Provincial Elections”.  The ripost of Jean Lesage was withering.  According to the report of the journalist from Le Devoir, the Liberal leader had declared:  “He said that he had no lessons on Catholicism to learn from this “import” , that the French-Canadian people have for too long warmed this “viper” in their midst who today strikes it in its mind.”

Perhaps the intensity of Jean Lesage’s insult to Rumilly reflects the degree of accuracy of Mr. Rumilly’s political forecast with regard to the Liberals.

Almost as soon as Lesage got in, he kicked the Catholic church out of Education. 2  The nuns and priests who for centuries, and in Confederation since 1875, had propagated the culture of the French Canadians in their schools were no more.3  These, Lesage replaced with “imports”:  a battalion of secular teachers of popularized Marxism.

(Just a couple of years ago, a French Canadian Catholic woman ruefully told me with what grace the nuns and priests had withdrawn from their historic roles on orders from the new Lesage government.)

There was no “Great Darkness”

The 2013 lecture by Éric Bédard, excerpted above, is an excellent off-the-beaten track background to the 1960 Quebec elections.  It was first delivered under the auspices of the Quebec library and archives (BAnQ), with a transcript now online by the Fondation Lionel-Groulx.

Using the Liberals’ own statistics from a survey conducted by the Liberals at the time, Bédard explodes the “myth” that the Quebec of 1960 was “backward” and needed to be rescued.

The election of the Jean Lesage “Liberals” on 22nd June 1960 marks the beginning of the alleged “rescue”, i.e.:  Quebec’s “Quiet Revolution”.  The period prior to the “rescue” is often called “la Grande Noirceur” (the Great Darkness).  However, Quebec of 1960, according to Bédard, was neither “backward” nor in “darkness”.

Therefore, what were the Liberals really doing when they merely pretended to rescue Quebec?

Were they simply trying to justify the revolutionary steps they planned to take, not even mentioned in their electoral platform, and thus not sought by the electorate?  These included nationalization of hydroelectricity (Power Corporation of Canada came by a tidy sum of cash on that occasion; seven years later, it would found the Parti Québécois on its Montreal downtown business premises), secularization of the public education system, and a secret design (not mentioned by Bédard, which surfaced in my own research) to attempt to construct a Communist plan to run Quebec.

The “myth” of Quebec’s backwardness before the 1960 Liberal win still commands the airwaves at the Communist Broadcasting — I mean Canadian  Broadcasting Corporation.

At, we find it at the very top of “The Story” of the 1960 election:

“It’s 1960 and Quebec is at the dawn of the Quiet Revolution.  A progressive, urban and modern Quebec is quickly overtaking the old Quebec, characterized as conservative, patronage-oriented, rural and under the thumb of the Roman Catholic Church” …

Bédard’s lecture is well written, amply footnoted, and my additional reason for enjoying it is that two of my anticommunist “old friends” have shown up:  Robert Rumilly and Patrick Walsh.

Is Trudeau Really a Democrat?

Trudeau’s pretext for telling his readers to vote “Liberal” on June 22nd, 1960, is “democracy first”.

It was the “Liberals”, Trudeau says, who alone were willing to form a coalition to force Maurice Duplessis and the Union Nationale  out of office.  Because the watchword is “democracy first”, says Trudeau, the provincial “Liberals” have earned his readers’ vote.

This is a very nice pretext, in particular since Pierre Elliott Trudeau cares little if anything for “democracy” (at least as we envision it in our supreme Westminster Parliament of 1867).

In his 1977 book Viva Chairman Trudeau, commencing at the segment entitled “NDP Rule by Proxy – 25 April 73”, we have a portrait of the extent to which Pierre Elliott Trudeau is attached to “democracy” as a principle to influence the vote.


Since the life of the Trudeau minority government depends on the 31 socialist votes in the Commons, what the New Democrats want they usually get.

The pattern of the informal coalition was set the very first day the 29th Parliament met.

From then on the Trudeau-Lewis organic understanding has been refined into a smooth symbiosis which is in fact giving the country NDP government by proxy.  Quite an achievement for a party which polls about 17 per cent of the vote.

Handy Paradox – 19 Sept. 73

One of the paradoxes of the 1972 federal election is that the near defeat of the Liberal party has increased Trudeau’s operational scope.

Since his minority government needs the NDP votes in the Commons to stay in office, Trudeau can now explain his version of any portion of the NDP program as an inescapable tactical necessity to keep the Liberal party in power.

It wasn’t David Lewis or Tommy Douglas but Pierre Trudeau who hit upon the idea of using the Liberal party for pushing the country down the socialist drain.  The fact that the scheme now needs open NDP support in the Commons simplifies, not complicates, matters.

Political Piracy – 20 March 74

Until the 1972 election, opposition of genuine liberals to Trudeau’s pre-conceived policies of armchair socialism managed to blunt or moderate the illiberal impulses of his administration.  Since late 1972 this internal check has been rendered ineffective.

The survival argument smothers any objection to anything the Trudeaucrats present as necessary payment for NDP support.  The slightest internal criticism of the Trudeau-Lewis symbiosis is easily silenced by a simple question:  “Do you want our party to stay in power?”

Since keeping their party in power comes first with virtually all the ranking Grits, Trudeau is now free to impose on the country the framework of “socialist” policies he had trouble smuggling through in bits and pieces before the excuse of buying NDP support swept aside all objections.

The New Democrats find the arrangement ideal because it gives them more power than they could ever expect to get from their voting support, without at the same time burdening them with any of the responsibilities that go with exercise of power.  What it all boils down to is political piracy.

Old Ties – 12 Dec. 73

A few observers are now coming close to my long-standing contention of Trudeau’s use of the Liberal party as a camouflage for NDP rule.

The latest discoverer of Trudeau’s capture and manipulation of the Liberal party for the socialists is columnist Charles Lynch.

“What we may be seeing,” writes Lynch, “is the re-emergence of Trudeau the convinced socialist, acting on the beliefs he held until he put them into mothballs when he joined the Liberal party at the age of 45.

“If this is so, as recent events suggest, it means that I have been misreading this minority … Parliament in supposing that a reluctant Trudeau was yielding to NDP demands against his will …”

A wisened Lynch then goes on to say that “the picture changes somewhat if we perceive Trudeau the socialist emerging from the Parliamentary woodword, using the threat of the NDP to bend, if not break, the moderate Liberals in his cabinet and his caucus, and happy to be getting on with the building of a Canadian New Jerusalem.”

This, of course, should have been obvious all along, and certainly since the 1972 election.  Why, then, was the perception of virtually all our political commentators clouded for so long?

Lynch explains:  “So much has been written about Trudeau the small-c conservative that we have almost forgotten his old political roots, which were closely intertwined with the latter-day CCF and the early-day NDP.”

It’s not the whole explanation.  It leaves out the sad fact that writing about Trudeau’s political roots means risking ridicule, condemnation and ostracism.

Hypocrisy – 4 Jan. 74

Trudeau’s claim that the New Democrats are not directing the ship but following it is justified.  He does not need them as navigators, because the general direction of their course has always been his own.  But he needs them for a semblance of legitimacy of his continued command.

In that sense the ship of state has now been actually steered for over a year by the 31 official socialists in the Commons, for without their support Trudeau and his crew could not hold on to the controls after the 1972 election.

David Lewis’ claim that “we were elected to make parliament work” is cynical hypocrisy.  Parliament represents the will of the people, not the will of any one of its members.  In the 1972 election the will of the people signified rejection of the Trudeau regime, without conferring the mandate to govern on any other party.  The New Democrats, who polled less than 18 per cent of the votes cast, certainly did not receive a mandate to defy the will of the majority of the electorate in nine out of Canada’s ten provinces.

Union Veto – 13 Feb. 74

By keeping in office a government rejected by the majority of the electorate in all the provinces but one, the New Democrats are not only in contempt of the democratic process but are now primarily responsible for the continued mismanagement of the country.

The Facade  of Quebec “Separatism”

In closing, and in terms of a broader conclusion to be drawn from Trudeau’s 1960 support for the “Liberals”, the apparent “struggle” of the federal government of Canada, first under Pearson, then under Trudeau, and afterward under others, with a “separatist” Quebec, is a cleverly staged sham.  It is meant to hide a confidence game and close cooperation among Communists top and bottom who have penetrated both the federal and provincial levels.  They are manipulating their way toward dismantling Canada precisely to give each of the Provinces all the “instruments” necessary … to construct a Communist Plan.

And they are doing so with the full support of the family which has hijacked the Crown and Throne, and the democratic liberty of Canada.
1  Jean-Louis Gagnon was a Soviet agent, one of many exposed by Igor Gouzenko.  Gagnon escaped the Canadian “spy trials” (he fled to Brazil) with the help of Mitchell Sharp, the latter a future member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and a future adviser to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Paul Gérin-Lajoie, 1960

Paul Gérin-Lajoie, 1960
Lesage-Liberal election win

2  As Lesage’s brand new Minister of Education — a post not occupied since 1875 when the decision was made to restore Church control of Education — Paul Gérin-Lajoie, in the photo at right, was instrumental in evicting Quebec’s Catholic faith from the public school system.  There had to be at least two purposes for doing this.  First, mass immigration could not begin in earnest without faith-neutral public schools.  Secondly, socialist planning in the future multicultural (non-national) city-states could not be done without city control of Education in order to train people for the jobs planned to be filled.  Thus, the ancient constitutional right of the inhabitants of New France to preserve their faith and culture was eradicated in Quebec to facilitate their ethnic replacement, and fully planned socialism in a Marxist world state.

Gérin-Lajoie moreover knew full well what the effect would be of interfering with Education.  In his 1951 article in French for the Canadian Bar Review (Vol xxix), “Du pouvoir d’amendement constitutionnel au Canada,” Rhodes Scholar Lajoie correctly observed (pages 1174-1175), translation:

L’intervention fédérale dans le domaine de l’enseignement pourrait saper à leur base toutes les institutions québécoises.  L’octroi de subsides fédéraux pourrait à lui seul produire une petite révolution.  Imaginons, par exemple, que le gouvernement fédéral décide de donner un octroi substantiel à certaines facultés universitaires à l’exclusion d’autres facultés auxquelles la province de Québec attache la plus grande importance, contrairement aux autres provinces.  Les répercussions ne seraient pas lentes à se faire sentir dans l’orientation de la pensée, le sens des valeurs et, éventuellement, les institutions sociales.

Federal intervention in the field of education might undermine at their base all of Quebec’s institutions.  The granting of federal subsidies alone might produce a small revolution.  Imagine, for example, that the federal government decides to give a substantial grant to certain university faculties to the exclusion of other faculties to which the Province of Quebec attaches the greatest importance, contrary to the other provinces.  The repercussions would not be slow to be felt in the orientation of thinking, the sense of values and, ultimately, the social institutions.

Il ne s’agît pas de représenter le gouvernement fédéral comme ennemi du Québec.  Loin de là!  Mais le danger existe qu’en étendant les compétences fédérales à des domaines qui ne sont pas purement économiques, la nouvelle législation soit orientée — bien inconsciemment, peut-être — d’une façon défavorable au Québec.  Voilà pourquoi la province s’inquiète toujours des agrandissements des compétences fédérales, et pourquoi son gouvernement exige un droit de contrôle sur tout amendement à ce sujet.

This is not to depict the federal government as the enemy of Quebec.  Far from it!  But the danger exists that in extending the federal powers into fields which are not purely economic, the new legislation might be oriented — quite unconsciously, perhaps — in a way unfavorable to Quebec.  That is why the province is always concerned about enlargements of federal competencies, and why its government requires a right to control all such amendments.

What happened in Quebec under Lesage and Lajoie after their 1960 win was far more devastating than federal intervention or a constitutional amendment.  With no hint in their platform, Quebec’s Red Liberals implemented their own “revolution” against Quebec’s ancient institutions.

Lesage called new Quebec elections in 1962.  Says Wikipedia:

“In an unusual move, the election was called just two years after the previous 1960 general election.  Lesage sought a mandate for the nationalization of the electricity industry, declaring it a single issue important enough to stake his political career on it.”

Two other “single issues” leap to mind which are more important, and for which no mandate was ever requested:

1).  destroy Quebec’s public education system, designed to preserve the cultures and peoples who had founded Canada’s ethnic federation in 1867;

2)  intent of the Lesage “Liberals” to construct a Communist Plan to run the economy, an undertaking apparently quietly begun in 1961 according to page 103 of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois.

I can find no documented source alleging that the voters turfed out Lesage in 1966 over the education reforms.  The only reference to the subject at all says the Union Nationale alleged that Lesage would remove the crucifix from the schools if re-elected.  I sense that this reference probably hides deeper public discontent which the controllers of the “Memory Hole” have left unrecorded.

3  In Part 2 of his 7-part series on the Moscow Economic Summit penned by Trudeau for Le Devoir i 1952, Trudeau summarizes his own and the visits of other Summit delegates to the various places of worship of the different denominations.  However, he had to admit that for want of religious instruction (no doubt suppressed in the Soviet schools), mostly only the elderly still attended religious services.  The destruction of the French Catholic education system by the Lesage cabinet in the early 1960s would obviously have the same effect here.  Indeed, in Montreal, once called the “city of a thousand bells,” the steeples of its many churches have fallen silent.  Said Trudeau:

Or, les jours de grande fete, ces temples sont remplis à craquer, — mais uniquement de vieillards.  La liberté de culte n’est donc pas éteinte; mais faute d’instruction religieuse cette chrétienté est amputée de sa jeunesse.  Sauf en Georgie toutefois, où les jeunes paraissent encore assez dévots.

Now, on high feast days, these temples are filled to bursting — but only by the elderly.  Freedom of religion is therefore not extinct; but for want of religious instruction this Christendom is cut off from youth.  Except in Georgia, however, where the young seem still rather devout.

– 30 –


News-Slanting and Communist-line Propaganda on the CBC

Category:  Historical reprints
Source:  Brief of Ron Gostick.  Cover:  This brief deals with alleged news slanting and communist line propaganda on the C.B.C.  Brief #145, ex. 285

Download scans of the original Brief from the National Archives, together with a few more related vintage news items:&nbsp:


Nota Bene:  My discussion of this Brief follows below. (Admin. NSIM)





News-Slanting and Communist-line
Propaganda on the CBC


                          Ottawa, Canada

by:     RON GOSTICK of Flesherton, Ontario,
          Editor of The Canadian Intelligence Service
          and director of The Canadian Anti-Communist League

April 13, 1956

The Free World is spending immense financial resources combatting the international Communist conspiracy which already holds in slavery over 900 million souls.  In Canada the struggle is yet a ‘cold’ one — a psychological, ideological battle for the minds and souls of men.  Our defence, therefore, requires not only military preparedness, but full information and a thorough understanding of Communist strategies, tactics and propaganda.

The CBC should be our most powerful cold war weapon in the defence of this nation and Christian civilization.  Yet, it is a disturbing paradox that as we spend billions of dollars in defence against the Communist conspiracy, the Number 1 weapon in our ideological arsenal, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, more and more reflects the leftwing, pro-Communist propaganda line.

Communist Propaganda Line

Perhaps the best approach to this question is to lay down the Red propaganda line, and then compare the CBC’s line with it over a period of years.  The Communist ‘line’ in recent years has included:

1.  Promoting of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and trade with Red regimes.

2.  Disparaging Chiang Kai-shek and demanding ‘recognition’ (diplomatic facilities and privileges) and a UN seat for Red China.

3.  Smearing and ridiculing of anti-Communist leadership throughout the world, while praising the fence-sitters and neutralists in the cold war.

4.  Popularizing of a smear vocabulary — including such terms as:  guilt by association, hysteria, witch-hunt, fascist, book-burning, reactionary, etc. — to be hurled at those who effectively oppose Red activities.

The CBC Propaganda Line

While it would take weeks of this Commission’s time to study even a summary of all the Red-slanted CBC propaganda of recent years, following are a few typical examples.

Oct. 15/50:  Harold Isaacs promoted recognition of Red Chinese regime and its admission to the UN.  Reds pictured as agrarian reformers (a few days later they carried their ‘agrarian reform’ into Tibet and then into Korea).

Nov. 12/50:  Max Freedman expressed opposition to anti-Communist Senator Hickenlooper of Iowa:  lamented defeat of anti-McCarthy Sen. Tydings; spoke glowingly of Mrs. Helen Gahagen Douglas, California darling of the leftwing clique, and disparagingly of Sen. Nixon (his committee exposed Alger Hiss) who defeated her at the polls.

Nov. 21/51:  Mrs. Dorothy Steeves advocated that Red China (then at war with Canada) should be admitted to the UN and given Formosa, at the expense of anti-Communist government of Chiang Kai-shek.

The CBC, in the cultural field, during 1951 sponsored several speakers, including Dr. Brock Chisolm, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Anna Freud, Dr. Ewen Cameron, Professor Fred Hoyle, and Dr. Carl Binger — who attacked religion, Christian ethics and morality.

And during the past five years such propagandists as Max Freedman, Matthew Halton, Alexander Uhl, Frank H. Underhill, James McConaughy, Murray Balantyne, Maxwell Cohen, and many others, have used CBC “Capital Reports” and “Week-end Reviews” to attack and smear Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fight against Reds in the US Government.

June 14/53:  Charles Woodsworth (Capital Report) attacked anti-Communist Syngman Rhee.

July 19/53:  Anne Francis advocated ‘recognition’ of, and a UN seat for, Red China.

Jan. 17/54:  Roger Baldwin, chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, and associated with no less than 40 Communist ‘fronts’ according to chairman Harold Velde of the Un-American Activities Committee, was a special CBC speaker.  He attacked Sen. McCarthy and all congressional investigations of subversion; boasted that his organization opposed the prosecution of the Red leaders convicted in 1949, opposed loyalty oaths, opposed immigration policies which prohibit Reds from entering the US, and opposed US insistence on loyalty from her UN personnel.

April 15/54:  Ralph Lapp, speaking from Washington over the CBC, defended Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who had just run afoul of US security requirements through his long recorde of Communist association and support.

May 2/54:  Matthew Halton (C.R.) supported Red Chinese admission to UN.

July 12/54:  James M. Minnifee (C.R.) disparaged Chiang Kai-shek.

This last year, as the emphasis in the Red line shifted more and more to ‘peaceful co-existence’, this whole pack of CBC commentators has parroted the ‘line’.

Even in ‘drama’ we find the ‘line’.  I shall not in this brief deal with the licentiousness and disregard for Christian morality in certain CBC productions.  But it is significant that even in the drama section of the CBC we find the Red propaganda line.  For instance, on the Sunday night (Mar. 17/54) CBC play we heard these lines:

” …You think he is a Communist?  Oh, Joe, this isn’t the United States with its witch-hunting.  This is Canada.”

The foregoing are but a few typical examples of the almost daily Commie ‘line’ carried over the CBC.

The Strange Case of Reuben Ship

CBC policy has perhaps never been more accurately reflected than it was in 1954 in the strange case of Reuben Ship.

On May 30, 1954, the CBC produced and broadcast a Commie-line propaganda play smearing Senator McCarthy and investigations of subversion, written by one Reuben Ship.  A New York Times  report (June 1/54) read:

“Canadians were chuckling today over the ribbing given Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in a burlesque of a Senate committee hearing broadcast last night.  The broadcast originated in Toronto and was carried by the Trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

“The play was ‘The Investigator’ by Reuben Ship of Montreal, with John Drainie of Montreal playing the title role with such accent, intonation of voice and mannerisms of speech that many listeners thought for a time that they were listening to a recording of the Wisconsin Republican Senator.

“The play concerns an investigation ‘up there’ after the investigator is killed in a plane crash.”

And just who is Reuben Ship?  The New York Times  itself supplies the answer:

“Mr. Ship was deported from the United States last year as a result of testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that identified him as a member of the Communist party.”

The files of the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities contain the following information on Mr. Reuben Ship:

He was a witness before this Committee during public hearings in Los Angeles, September 24, 1951 (Communism in Motion-Picture Industry), Part 5, pages 1771-1775).  At that time Ship, under the privilege of the ‘Fifth Amendment’, refused to answer questions concerning present or past membership in the Communist Party.

Referring to the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, of wihch he had been treasurer, Owen Vinson gave the following testimony:

Mr. Tavenner:  Ruben (sic.) Ship appeared before this committee last September and refused to answer any material questions that were asked him.  Was he a member of that group?

Mr. VinsonYes; he was.

Mr. Tavenner:  How do you know that?

Mr. Vinson:  He attended meetings and I collected dues from him, also.

Mr. Tavenner:  What was his occupation?

Mr. Vinson:  Radio writer.

— (Communism in Los Angeles Professional Groups, Part 3, October 2, 1952, p. 4078.)

Paul Marion, an actor who was a member of the Communist Party from early 1946 until early 1948, in listing for the Committee those members of the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles to which he had belonged, named Ruben (sic.) Ship.

Mrs. Pauline Swanson Townsend, a member of the Communist Party from 1943 to 1948, testified before the Committee on March 12, 1953, that Reuben Ship’s membership card in the Communist Party was turned in through her branch.

William L. Alland, motion-picture producer and former Communist Party member, testified before the Committee on November 23, 1953, in part:

Mr. Tavenner:  Now, will you tell the committee, please, what the principal activity was of this group of the Communist Party organized within the radio field?

Mr. Alland:  Its principal activity was attempting to control the Radio Writers Guild … They wanted the Radio Writers Guild to try to get the Screen Writers Guild to be more lenient in its actions and attitudes toward the Communist members in the Screen Writers Guild.  They tried to get its members in any way possible to censure and block the work of the Un-American Activities Committee, certainly, and to in any way possible aid and support those people who had been exposed by the committee …

Mr. Tavenner:  Can you recall members of your Communist Party group who actually became officials in the Radio Writers’ Guild as a result of the activities of your group?

Mr. Alland:  … Reuben Ship was an official …

COUNTERATTACK, the authoritative New York report on Communist activities, in its January 21/55 issue, revealed that the tape recording of the CBC production of “The Investigator” was sold to Ship, and from it a long-playing record was produced, handled in New York by Walter Colquitt and John Bubbers (B & B Recording, Inc.).

The Daily Worker  expressed its pleasure over this CBC venture, boasting that the sale of records would not be less than 100,000 — at $5.95 each!

Thus did the CBC not only produce and feed to the Canadian public, at its own expense, a Red-line propaganda piece, but it also helped to raise funds for ‘Fifth Amendment’ Ship and his associates!

Reports indicate that there was a heavy mail sent to CBC Chairman Dunton’s office, protesting this production.  One citizen who protested advised me that Mr. Dunton’s reply was to the effect that it was not proved that Ship was a Communist.  A study of the foregoing testimony would indicate that Mr. Dunton has a cavalier disregard for evidence, at least when it concerns pro-Communist writers.

Overt CBC Communist Support

Following are a few examples of overt CBC support of the Communist conspiracy in Canada:

  • During the federal election in 1953 the LPP (Communist Party) was given free time on the CBC.  At that very time thousands of Canadian boys were in Korea risking their lives, supposedly in defence of the very things which the Reds in Canada, with the co-operation of the CBC, were working to destroy.  Combat Communism in Korea — but subsidize it at home!

  • The CBC televised the 1954 May Day parade and rally in Vancouver, addressed by such Red leaders as A. A. MacLeod (Ontario Red Leader) and Harvey Murphy of the West Coast.  The Communist weekly, The Canadian Tribune  (May 17.54) congratulated the CBC for carrying this propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.  Again, this is a case of taxing Canadians to arm against Communism, and at the same time taxing them to buy TV facilities for the Reds to spread their poison in Canada.

  • The same Commie weekly, in June of 1954, warmly praised the CBC for its Reuben Ship production; and in September of 1954 reported favourably on Canadian TV development as a government monopoly, beginning to carry educational programs into Canadian schools. 1  A letter published in the February 27, 1956, issue of this Red organ expresses pride in the CBC, referring to it as the “most democratic institution in Canada.”

CBC Communist Line Stepped Up

The fantastic success of this Red infiltration is evident from the glowing accounts of CBC programs recently carried in the Communist press.

Last October 1st, CBC carried the last of its Focus — series — a two-hour Commie play entitled We Shall Not Be Moved, which received two full columns of build-up in the September 25th CBC Times, and rapturous applause from the Red press.

The U.S. West Coast Communist organ, Daily People’s World (Oct. 13), reported:

“The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. made radio history Oct. 1 when it presented a two-hour special program, ‘We Shall Not Be Moved,’ in which Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, now jailed as a Smith Act victim, is portrayed as a leading figure.”

This CBC production featured a recording by Paul Robeson, the notorious Communist-front personality and money-raiser.  The People’s World  boasts that it “took over the best possible broadcasting time — 8 to 10 p.m. Saturday.

There were no interruptions — even the usual station breaks were omitted.”

The play glorified Elizabeth Gurley Flynn as a “rebel girl,” and People’s World, hardly able to conceal its mirth, suggested:

“Perhaps someone has made a recording of this program as was done with the play ‘The Investigator’ from the same network.  It would be a smash hit.”

The Canadian Communist weekly, The Tribune  (Oct. 17), carried this letter to Elizabeth Flynn:

“You were not in your cell Saturday evening, October 1st.  You travelled across the Canadian border.  You were in many Canadian homes. …”

And the same Communist organ (Oct. 10), under a 3-column headline “THREE CHEERS FOR THE CBC,” eulogizes it in these terms:

“For the excellence of this program all concerned must be congratulated.  John Reeves, the producer, deserves special applause.  He struck a new vein for Canadian radio to work, and it is a rich one.”

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Elizabeth Gurley Flynn is one of the leaders of the Communist conspiracy in the U.S., and is presently serving a prison term for her role in Red subversion in America.

The Communist propaganda line today is to paint Communists as persecuted champions of the working class, make the public believe that there really is no Communist menace, and defeat or emasculate anti-Communist security measures in order to spring their convicted agents from prison and open the way for further infiltration.

This CBC production, by glorifying the Red prisoner, and undermining security measures, followed every turn in the Communist line.  Thus, as the U.S. cracks down on subversion, the CBC is used to beam the Red line to the U.S. and at the same time brainwash Canadians.

It is difficult to ujnderstand how such an incredible situation has developed in our CBC.  This material is not merely slanted in favour of Communism — it IS Communism, pure and simple.  The people responsible for staging such productions must be either outright Communists, or ‘egg-heads’ under the influence and control of those directing today’s Red line.

CBC Bias Widely Recognized

That the disturbing leftwing, anti-Christian influence I observe in the CBC is no figment of the imagination, is confirmed when we note but a few of the increasing protests.

Dr. W. A. Brown, Lion’s Club Governor for Renfrew, in 1951 told the Ottawa Lions Club:

“I am opposed to the godless vaporings of some top United Nations members of the medical profession heard over the government-owned radio system on a recent Sunday evening.”

Lions International, he said, was “a Godfearing, Christian organization, and we are not going to stand for some of this CBC broadcasting.”

The Canadian Slovak League, in a brief to the Ministers of External Affairs and National Defence in 1952, relating to CBC-Slovakia policy, said:

“The Slovaks are a conservative people with an absolute Catholic majority (about 85%), but the propaganda from Canada for Slovakia is performed by this Staff of Employees:  Dr. Schmolka, Mr. Rejhon and his brother, Reichman, Stauber, and Williams, all of whom are of the Jewish religion … and of a deep socialistic conviction … and also three Czechs, Volesky, Skvor and Mrs. Vasak.  We strongly doubt … that this is a good staff for the defence of these (Christian and national) ideals which today alone strengthen nations in their resistance.”

The leading Western Canada weekly, Camrose Canadian (July 22/53), commenting on a CBC report by Anne Francis in favour of recognition of Red China, described the talk as “pretty hot socialist propaganda.”  And on Sept. 9/53, commenting on a series of CBC talks, observed:  “An outsider could readily label each speaker as a Communist fellow traveller … and we Canadians are paying these men …”

The Ensign  (July 31/54) said editorially:

“The ‘radio curtain’ can be noted also in Canada in the consistency of choice of political commentators on the nationally owned networks, who are most critical of Washington and most sympathetic to the recognition of Red China.

“It is interesting how a conspiracy of silence towards those advocating contrary views is a growing problem in many countries. …”

And on October 10/54 The Ensign  observed:

“What the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through a consistent choice of political commentators seems to be advocating is what Moscow desires.”

The Edmonton Journal, two years ago, observed editorially:

“Canadian listeners would like to have a balanced, objective account … Instead, all the commentators on this program, whether Canadians or Americans, give us virtually nothing except straight Democratic Party doctrine.”

Why The Strange Conformity ?

Why do the overwhelming majority of CBC commentators consistently follow the line promoted by the Communists, and consistently attack the most militant anti-Communist leaders and measures?

Is it because only individuals holding such pink views are selected consistently by the CBC ?

Or is it because reporters are anxious for these CBC contracts, and promote the line which they know, from experience, will assure them of more contracts?

It is respectfully submitted, gentlemen, that the CBC should be our most powerful weapon in the present ideological struggle, but that the evidence presented demonstrates that all too often it is actually used to further the Communist propaganda line.

It is hoped that the information contained in this brief, and the questions raised, will assist the Commission in finding and recommending action for the eliminating of Communist propaganda from our CBC.

– 30 –

1  Constitutionally, the federal government (and thus the CBC) is denied (local) Education powers.  This was pointed out by Quebec historian, Robert Rumilly, also in 1956, the year of this Brief, in his L’Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada).  Radio-Canada is the French name of the CBC in Quebec.  From page 95:

Radio-Canada complète et soutient le réseau gauchiste qui s’est mis en place, dans notre province, depuis quelques années.

Il est déjà inconstitutionnel que l’État fédéral accapare une tranche de l’éducation –- domaine réservé aux provinces –- comme il le fait par le truchement de Radio-Canada.  Les tribunaux ont reconnu à l’État fédéral le droit de réglementer l’usage des ondes.  Ils ne lui ont reconnu aucun droit sur l’éducation populaire.  La Société Radio-Canada, telle qu’elle fonctionne, est illégale.  Il est doublement intolérable que la radio et la télévision d’État d’expression française, vivant des deniers du peuple canadien-français, cherche à l’entraîner vers une idéologie contraire à ses traditions et à ses aspirations nationales.

Radio-Canada completes and has been supporting the leftist network set up in our province in the last few years.

It is unconstitutional already that the Federal state monopolizes a section of education –- a domain reserved to the provinces –- which it does by the interposition of Radio-Canada.  The courts have recognized to the Federal state the right to regulate the use of the air­waves.  They have not conceded to it any right of public education.  Radio-Canada, the corporation, such as it functions, is illegal.  It is doubly intolerable that French-language State radio and television, living off public funds of the French-Canadian people, seek to drag them towards an ideology contrary to their own traditions and their national aspirations.

However, the CBC today has done far more than to “merely” invade the “exclusive” provincial Education power.  Major mega-movie-length series productions, edified by the CBC web site, have revised Canada’s history while offering course plans and “educational” packages to teachers Canada-wide.  Thus, the CBC conscripts teachers to indoctrinate, meaning brainwash, Canadian children at the expense of their parents, the taxpayers, both federal and provincial.

But with what are they indoctrinating our children?  Well, if you were the Soviet Union, having feigned collapse with intent to penetrate and merge with socialized and restructured western countries (as warned by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn), imagine your advantage if the children of these countries could be made to grow up not merely believing their nation was on the brink of collapse, but literally expecting and accepting that it was going to happen.  And that this feigned collapse of their own countries was the signal for the long-planned Communist restructuring to carry off the merger.

In Canada, our children are being brainwashed to view the Communist dismantling and restructuring of Canada as inevitable.  This is not “education”.

This is what the CBC has accomplished for the benefit of world Communism and the advance of the underground Soviet Union, with its “history” segment on the “struggle” of the (Communist) Parti Québécois with (Communist) prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entitled:  “A Fragile Unity”, produced by Canada’s man on the KGB payroll, Mark Starowicz.

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

The images above, top-down, are taken from [1] the 1968 organization by René Lévesque of the (Communist) Parti Québécois, implying, of course, the 1980 referendum conducted by him unlawfully as contrary to Confederation; [2] Pierre Elliott Trudeau of the “secret committee” of Power Corporation which appointed Lévesque to set up the PQ; and [3] the 1982 false “patriation” which overthrew the lawful Parliament and Legislatures of Canada using the Sovereign as the front to pull it off.  The title of the episode, “A Fragile Unity”, however, impliedly refers to the 1995 referendum, also unlawful, also under the PQ, and which most likely was rigged, but failed nonetheless thanks to a last-minute Canada Rally organized by a local businessman.

The “patriation” image implies what those behind the scenes know; had the 1980 referendum pulled off a “Yes”, United Kingdom, under the pretense of constitutional “amendment” of the British North America Acts (1867 et seq), was to pass a “law” “patriating” a new constitution disassembling Canada into a string of “associated” proto-Communist banana republics.

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests

In 1975, Progressive-Conservative Member of the Canadian Parliament, Tom Cossitt (for Leeds) tried repeatedly to open an inquiry into the KGB’s Konstantin Geyvandov, a Pravda  correspondent, and money received from him and promises made to him by CBC producer, Mark Starowicz:
According to just one of his interventions in federal Hansard, on the 12th of June 1975, the Hon. Thomas Charles Cossitt said in the House:

Mr. Speaker. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the following motion:

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt, a Canadian hero.

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt,
a Canadian hero.

That a special committee of this House be set up forthwith to investigate all activities of Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov while he was in Canada, that the committee be charged with examining all connections with this matter on the part of Mark Starowicz, executive producer of the CBC program “As It Happens”, that the committee be given power to summon any persons whatsoever as witnesses that it deems advisable, that files on the matter including those of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, External Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing the activities of Geivandov, Starowicz, and others, be produced to the committee and, finally, that such files, pending examination by the committee, be forthwith placed in the safe custody of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to guarantee their safety from destruction for political or any other purposes whatsoever.

In 1979, the irrepressible Mr. Cossitt is continuing his effort to launch a formal investigation:

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity as a result of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) this morning at his press conference, that there was concern within the CBC regarding an individual who allegedly assisted a KGB representative in Canada, and I might add that this individual had been previously identified in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general of Ontario as CBC producer Mark Starowicz.  I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):

Whereas CBC producer Mark Starowicz assisted KGB agent Konstantine Geyvandov in compiling information on certain persons, allegedly on six different occasions, and also promisedto act on behalf of Soviet interests“, that the CBC be required to give a public explanation as to why Mark Starowicz continues as producer of the public opinion influencing program “Sunday Morning” and, finally, as to why he is being considered at this very moment to head all CBC national news and public affairs programming.

In 1983, on Friday, March the 4th, another Progressive-Conservative Member, the Hon. Elmer MacIntosh MacKay (for Central Nova) picks up where Mr. Cossitt left off (I have not cited all of Mr. Cossitt’s interventions).  Mr. McKay will quote newspaperman Peter Worthington quoting the RCMP.

Madam Speaker, some years ago the then Member for Leeds [Mr. Cossitt] noted for the first time in this House the name of CBC producer Mark Starowicz in connection with the expelled KGB agent, Konstantin Geyvandov, who masqueraded in Ottawa as a Soviet journalist.  Two years later the Attorney General of Ontario quoted in the Legislature an RCMP document according to which a Canadian media person over a period of five years was selling Geyvandov reports at clandestine meetings.  Next day CBC producer Mark Starowicz identified himself as the person who, between 1970 and 1973, had accepted money for reports written for a Soviet correspondent in Ottawa.

Three months later Peter Worthington published excerpts from an RCMP document dated March 24, 1976, as well as this passage:

The RCMP report says Pravda’s man in Ottawa, Geyvandov, was expelled from Canada after persuading a Canadian journalist to act on behalf of Soviet interests when reporting Canadian political events. …

I am strongly inclined to believe that the Canadian media person in the McMurtry statement and the Canadian journalist in the report referred to by Mr. Worthington are the same person.  I wrote about it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).  He is reluctant to reveal the man’s identity.  In the meantime, CBC keeps on its payroll a senior executive who, by his own admission, was also on the payroll of a Soviet official and who, I strongly suspect, is the same person identified by the RCMP as acting on behalf of Soviet interests.

I do not believe at this stage that the Liberal Government with its track record –

Two sad ironies:  there has been a Southern-Rhodesian-style coup on Parliament under Trudeau in 1982.  Canada, long occupied, has been dealt a pounding blow.  Men (quoted below) who would be legitimate Members of the House are apparently not aware, although the coup was admitted by one of its perpetrators in 1982, Barry Lee Strayer, in his pair of Cronkite Lectures to a university law faculty.

The other sad irony:  Mr. McKay is not among friends in the House.  The “Madam Speaker” to whom he has addressed his plea is Jeanne Benoit Sauvé, future Governor General of Canada (representing the post-coup Queen) and the wife of ex-Forestry Minister Maurice Sauvé under Soviet agent prime minister Lester Pearson.

Sauvé sat on the Friday-night “secret committee” at Power Corporation where the plans to set up the (Communist) PQ and put (Communist) Trudeau in power to negotiate with it, were incubated.

In fact, both Jeanne and Maurice Sauvé were involved in a Communist front put in place in the 1950s by Soviet-infested British Secret Intelligence (MI6) and the Communist-staffed CIA, at the prompting of British Fabian socialist Sir Stafford Cripps.  The World Association of Youth (WAY), with Member of Parliament Maurice Sauvé as its first president, and his wife at his side, organized youth to help federalize Europe (destroy the nation-state).  In Canada, after 9/11, a similar group emerged under the wing of Sauvé’s Communist PQ:  the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), devoted, like WAY, to subverting our youth to restructure the continent for a federalized North American Union on the EU model.

We can see that for nearly a decade, decent men tried to expose Soviet tool, Mr. Mark Starowicz.  However, I am of the view that the above-said Mr. McMurtry is not to be classed among them; the grounds will appear.

In Ontario Hansard of December 9th, 1977, provincial justice minister, the Hon. Mr. Roy McMurtry, while withholding the name of Mr. Starowicz, had nonetheless to admit:

“… the RCMP concern with individuals in the Waffle was increased when it was found that a Canadian news media person, closely associated with leading people in the Waffle, was meeting clandestinely with Konstantin Geyvandov, a Russian KGB intelligence officer who, between August 1968 and September 1973, operated in Canada as a Pravda correspondent.”

McMurtry continued:

“The RCMP investigation confirmed that this Canadian provided reports to Geyvandov during these clandestine meetings and on at least six occasions was paid money by Geyvandov.  Amongst other things, the Canadian was specifically asked by Geyvandov to provide reports to him on the NDP and the Waffle.

“… The RCMP believed that Geyvandov’s purpose in seeking such reports was to assist the Russian KGB intelligence service in deciding whether the Waffle group or any of its members were worthy of further attention by the KGB.”

The Hon. Mr. Gaunt interjects:

“Now a pipeline right to the Kremlin.”

Ontario justice minister Roy McMurtry in the Ontario Legislature on the 9th of December 1977, failed to name Mark Starowicz, though he had to know his name.  McMurtry seems to me to protect Starowicz when he refers to him simply as “a Canadian news media person”.  McMurtry names the Soviet agent, but not Mark Starowicz, who has been on the KGB’s payroll.

The Kitchen Accord

The Kitchen Accord:  L-R:  Roy McMurtry, Marxist Jean Chrétien,
Saskatchewan’s Roy Romanow — the authors of the Kitchen Accord (1979)

Then, in 1981, McMurtry shows up in the media during the (false) “patriation” as one of three men in the photo at the time of the so-called “Kitchen Accord”.  The “Kitchen Accord”, incorrectly described as an agreement to patriate the Constitution (in the propaganda which serves as “news” in Canada), was in fact a “federal-provincial” agreement to overthrow the Parliament and Legislatures for a new form of non-sovereign government.  It was nothing less than a Southern Rhodesian-style coup d’état, a leftist coup on Canada.  However, it was not challenged, at the UN or elsewhere, and I believe that is because Mrs. Windsor leant herself as the front, visiting Canada personally to “proclaim” it as a constitutional amendment, which it was not.

And here is Roy McMurtry in the middle of it, in the guise of a “justice minister”, lending his title, his name and his face to it.

This suggests to me that McMurtry is a left sympathizer; that he deliberately protected Starowicz by withholding his name from the Ontario Members.  (In fact, I haven’t got any earlier Ontario Hansard than the one I’ve quoted, and which is posted online.  It is always possible that McMurtry mentioned Starowicz on another occasion, but to date I have nothing to suggest that he did.)

Now, McMurtry’s payoff for the “Kitchen Accord”:  a distinguished career under the 1982 coup d’état constitution, culminating in his appointment as Chief Justice of Ontario, the courts now, of course, imposing the illegal Charter.  At his law firm’s web site (Hull & Hull LLP, 2016), the now-retired McMurtry

“was deeply involved in the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  During that period, he also served four years as the Solicitor General for Ontario.”

The law firm also says:

“In February 1996, he [McMurtry] was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario, a capacity in which he served for over 11 years until May 30, 2007.”

That places Mr. McMurtry in the Ontario provincial driver’s seat during the artificial “law suit”, Lalonde v. Ontario 1, concocted out of the wholly staged, “SOS Montfort” protest, for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping with a non-appealed concocted “judgment” of an Ontario court of record, the so-called “unwritten principles” of the 1998 “secession” opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s non-judicial advisory board, to make them look like “law”.  The “principles” then form the basis of the federal Clarity Act, a counterfeit “statute” intended to force Canada to dismantle itself, while authorizing the international community to “recognize” a string of UDIs.  And thus will end Canada’s so-called “fragile unity” (according to former executive producer at the CBC, Mark Starowicz).

In recent results on Google, both Mr. McMurtry and Mr. Starowicz collected their official recognitions fromConfederation Center of the Arts (See:  Previous Symons Medal Recipients:) “Canada”:

In Conclusion

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is the ultimate, entirely subversive tool of political control exerted over the educational and communications systems of a target country by a hostile foreign power.  Sun Tzu would be awe-struck.

1  Lalonde c. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 56 OR (3d) 577 [Not online];  Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON CA);