Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Sculpture George Norris': 'The Crab' caught in Trap of digital camera imagery

 The basic 'professional' camera in 1968 was a medium format camera, the 120mm variety, which produced 12  (2 1/4" by 2 1/4") square images per roll with a quality four times greater than the up and coming 35mm film with its rectangular images of 24 and 36 images per roll like my Canon F1.

Photo paper is rectangular therefore the 35mm was a close match to it whereas the 120mm required that the images be 'cropped' in the mind of the photographer during shooting.

This vertical image of welder Gus Lidberg, 'The Crab', and Sculpturer George Norris.  Cropped on either side of a medium format camera?

Post Media - Regina Leader

This photo?  Cropped top and bottom.


In 1971 I was using a Koni Rapid Omega for weddings after falling afoul of the square formatted Yashica camera.  The Koni Rapid Omega Rangefinder:  120mm film, 10 images @ 2 1/4" X 2 3/4" (6 X 7), the same proportion as print papers: 16 X 20 and 8 X 10.  Heavy camera, but simple to use.)

It was with the ease of the Leaf shutter in the lens that garnered me a once in a lifetime photo of 'The Crab'. 

  • Big and bright viewfinder
    Grabbing focus with that big bright rangefinder is easy
  • Large negative size
  • Large comfortable handle
  • Leaf shutter in the lens
  • Easy to find 120 film
    there are 220 film backs available for some models and 220 film isn’t so readily available
  • Built like a tank
  • Three accessory shoes on top of the camera


Works for me

Today's images are typical, and aplenty.  A variety of a large building, small Crab vs large Crab, small building with most photos taken during daylight.  Must have something to do with the hours of opening of the Planetarium.

Google Search Criteria: Planetarium Crab




Page 6 of 41

"The Crab" sculpture and Museum of Vancouver Planetarium
1100 Chestnut Street

According to the City of Vancouver's Public Art Registry, "the crab represents the Indian legend of the crab as the guardian of the harbour and was also the zodiac sign at the time of the Canadian Centennial."  the stainless steel sculpture  was actually constructed in the south False Creek area, and then transported by barge to its present location.  Interestingly, the funds were raised by the women's sub-committee of the Vancouver Centennial Committee by hosting fashion shows and various luncheons.

It's a striking piece of public art that definitely holds its own presence against the retro-futuristic lines of the Museum of Vancouver/Planetarium.  The museum/planetarium's distinctive roof is an illusion to the woven basket designs created by the First Nations citizens who were able to leave a legacy -- what will be ours?
Sculpture George A. Norris'

Monday, November 18, 2019



By Robin Mathews, November, 2019.

The Vancouver Extradition procedure requested by the U.S. government (of the Canadian government) intends to remove Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of the huge Huawei international technology Corporation, to the U.S.A. for trial... for various alleged wrong-doings. The request is freighted with contradictions.  On the face of it a perfectly reasonable request under the Canada/U.S. Extradition Treaty was made which requires (and is proceeding) that the subject of the request, Meng Wanzhou, undergo a process in Canadian court to determine that the U.S. request is legitimate and, if so, to then be handed to U.S. authorities for trial in the U.S.A.

A Canadian can argue that the request has been made in proper form and the treaty is a common structure among countries (China apparently has a number of extradition treaties) and Canada is simply fulfilling its obligation and must do so.

The request, however, exists in a global condition in which the U.S.A. sees itself in contest with China over trade matters, spheres of influence, military power, and control of geographical areas (like the South China sea, etc.).  In addition, the Chinese may see Canada as nothing more than a U.S. lackey.

In South and Central America where the U.S.A. promotes and supports  thug leadership which aligns with U.S. policy, it has trained some of those leaders in the U.S. School of the Americas. Both Russia and China have been known to support legitimate forces struggling to represent the people of those countries against U.S. thug policies and allies.  In almost every case, Canada has supported the most egregious violators of Human Rights put in place or openly supported by the U.S.A. in Central and South America.

China, therefore, has no reason to believe that Canada is acting purely out of the requirements of the Extradition Treaty with the U.S.A (but, perhaps, as a known and proved lackey of whatever U.S. policy is hatched.)

As in all well-run Communist Societies, merit and need decide the lives of the Chinese people: from each according to his (her) ability, and to each according to his (her) need.  Meng Wanzhou's father is an especially talented man creating, according to his ability Huawei, over which he still retains a measure of power.  His needs being especially great (as a man of genius), he is now listed as a billionaire. And Huawei, in keeping with the operative policy in China, exists in the structure of Socialism with Chinese characteristics. As an independent Free Market corporation, Huawei may or may not, ultimately, take direction from the Chinese government.

The founder's daughter, Meng joined Huawei, we are told, as an answerer of telephones.  But having great ability, she now contributes as Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Board of Huawei her relation to the founder, her father, the powerful billionaire, has had no bearing upon her rise (from sheer ability) in the Corporation.  Her needs, too, are significant and upon her arrest in Vancouver, she was able to choose which of her Real Estate holdings "valued overall at something more than twenty million dollars"  she would choose as a place to reside during the legal process.

A further complication "if not a major contradiction in the matter" involves the violations with which Meng Wanzhou is charged. She was arrested on suspicion of violating U.S. Trade Sanctions against Iran.  Those are unilateral U.S. Sanctions which have been questioned by many and rejected by the United Nations.  Upon the discovery of Iran's nuclear undertaking (earlier), a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action was initiated by a number of countries, the U.S. among them.  The U.S. withdrew (May, 2018) claiming a horrible agreement criticism which the UN didn't recognize.

U.S.-Iran Relations might fill an encyclopaedia.  Suffice it to say that since the forcible removal of the Shah of Iran, 1979, (a U.S. puppet), the U.S. (deeply interested in the oil-rich nation) has wanted to exert a proprietary hold on the country.  And so the withdrawal of the U.S. in May, 2018, from the Joint (many nation) Comprehensive Plan Of Action (approved by the UN) to oversee Iran's development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes led to the re-institution of heavy U.S. sanctions against Iran … not approved of by many other countries.

In that light alone, the U.S. allegations against Huawei and Meng Wanzhou are open to serious question.  Nevertheless, she is charged by the U.S.A. with conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions; to defraud certain banks by pretending to clear money for a corporation in order to disguise its dealing with Iran; with wire fraud to mask sales to Iran; with obstruction of justice and with misappropriating trade secrets.

A reasonable Canadian might observe that the U.S. sanctions against Iran are highly questionable and so being able to violate them (questionable sanctions) may be equally questionable.  And in that light, some argued at the time of the arrest of Meng Wanzhou that she should have been released because the U.S. sanctions against Iran are illegitimate.  As true as that may be or have been, Canada felt bound by its Extradition Treaty with the U.S.A. to arrest and to hear the arguments in Court for and against there being a legal basis for the arrest.

A more serious contradiction in the whole matter has been engaged in by China, which has chosen to arrest, hold in torture conditions, and not bring to trial two (actually more) unrelated and innocent Canadians! But Canada didn't request the Extradition of Meng Wanzhou: the U.S.A. did. And so China should have seized U.S. citizens in China, demanding that the request for extradition of Meng Wanzhou be withdrawn by the U.S.A.  HERE, the contradictions of Big Power Politics seem clearly to be in play.  China appears to have been afraid to offend the U.S.A. in a matter wholly created by the U.S.A.  Instead, China decided to beat up Canada for something Canada is not responsible for.  And, to rub salt into the wound, China bought products from the U.S.A. to make up for products it refused to buy from Canada!

The real possibility that the whole scenario is a sham points to another  serious contradiction.  And that is the failure to use the Canadian courts expeditiously to manage Canadian needs. No one claims that wait times and procedure times and accessibility to Canadian courts are reasonable for Canadians.  But the courts can be used endlessly on call to please a country (the USA) seeking, perhaps, false charges against a trade competitor.

The Canadian State, moreover, which leapt to serve the dubious request of the U.S. has still not moved on the gigantic False Flag, fake Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds on July 1, 2013, an event alleged (by TWO higher courts) to have been intricately and criminally created by the RCMP, involving the entrapment, improper incarceration, fake charges, and enormous mental stress to two wholly innocent Canadians who have not received a single gesture of compensation from the RCMP or the Government of Canada ! !

Contradictions in the Meng Wanzhou Extradition case in the Vancouver Courts pile up as I write, not only in Canada, but in the lands of the two principals in the case, both apparently too powerful to be challenged or to be bothered much with Truth and Justice.

 Contact: Robin Mathews

Friday, November 15, 2019

CANADA AND CHINA. From Slavery to Managed Citizenship on the Globe. PART ONE. the Late Robin Mathews

CANADA AND CHINA.  From Slavery to Managed Citizenship on the Globe. PART ONE.

By Robin Mathews, November, 2019

The great civilizations of Greece and Rome were founded upon slavery at a time when physical labour was basic to managing individual life.  But life could have proceeded there, happily without slavery.

China used slavery through some of its history, but does not seem to have founded its community on slavery as did Greece and Rome.  There were, indeed, times when slavery was outlawed in China. (The history of China is very long over three thousand years, and so almost any generalization about China can be challenged.)  Wars killing millions have been fought there by the ambitious.  Competitions for suzerainty have been common. Some scholars suggest Mao's (modern) policies and actions resulted in the brutal death of untold millions.

In what we choose to speak of as modern times (post the Christopher Columbus discovery of the Americas, 1492), one of the most brutal, oppressive, and warlike (democratic) Imperial Powers “the USA“ was also founded upon slavery. Even while composing its great Declaration of Independence (declaring that all men are created equal) and for many decades after it the U.S. welcomed ships full of Black Slaves and put them to (mis)use.

Indeed slavery has much to do with the difference in development between Canada and the United States.  The U.S. has a more productive climate, about seven times as much arable land, and it produced an independent central government nearly a hundred years before Canada did. But perhaps the most important element of its growth to wealth and power was SLAVERY which flourished in the USA for 250 years before its erasure. One of the major expenses in the Capitalist System (we all know) is The Cost of Labour.  In the U.S.A. for nearly 250 years the Capitalist system could develop with a huge slave population almost erasing “the cost of labour” from the account books of huge portions of the U.S. economy.

China's (recorded) history is very old and fascinating.  The communities, clans, ethnic groupings, movements of population resulting in the Han people and its equation with the Chinese may play a small part in the present sinofication of the Uyghur (Islamic) population allegedly being re-educated (inside kinds of settlement areas) into conformity with present Chinese values. Put very simply, the imposition of present values under the for life head of the Chinese government, Xi Jinping, will want to erase (or at least defuse) the Muslim faith, assure use of the Chinese language (Mandarin), and teach acceptance of whatever iteration of Communist belief is dominant in China. (Managed citizenship?) That is not at all to say the Chinese Mainland population is servile.

Indeed, public protests and disagreement have not been uncommon, and the Central Government takes pains to work on the living conditions of average Chinese people ... raising the standard of living of a gigantic population as a major program.

We cannot say with the wildest stretch of the imagination - that a good (U.S.) democratic country is in contest with an evil (China) undemocratic country for global dominance or that a freely choosing, enlightened population faces a managed population under the heel of communism.  The U.S. population is as managed as any population on the globe.

For the 35 or so millions of (mostly) Euro-Canadians in a Canada that crystallized in 1867 (upon a sub-group of indigenous peoples roughly brushed aside), the one billion and a quarter population/Chinese phenomenon (in a country smaller than Canada) shaping itself over 3000 years until the 1912 Declaration of the Republic of China (ending 2000 years of dynastic rule) presents a reality and a modern State of a stunning and complex kind.

In 1949 the Chinese State was won to Communism by a romantic, adventurous, daring, imaginative, and (more recently) much maligned wartime leader called Mao Tse-Tung.  He was, among other things, a political philosopher, military leader, and a poet and even a theorist on the need for democracy within a centralized system.

Today China still presents itself as a Communist society (a semi-Command Economy).  It is, in fact, a One Party State and the One Party has opened itself to something like Capitalism within a Communist State.  Within that One Party State ties to increasingly large and successful Capitalist corporations are made with the governing class, a class that cannot be called dynastic certainly, but which has visible ties to the Mao generation as if succession in power is based upon Party affiliation and merit married to some kind of affiliation with the Mao generation.

After two thousand years of dynastic rule, could it be possible that a natural tendency of spirit, historical experience, and a special understanding of rulership is moving China close to old ideas?  Time will tell.  When democratic government is not in use in a country, the search for top governors tends to move into and among people with familiar backgrounds, historical relations, and genetic connections.  And those people tend to forge relations with especially helpful associates found among those with (apparently) civic, non-political, kinds of Corporate power.

Does that mean serious exchange and relation cannot exist between such a government and democratic governments of the West?  Not at all.  It means simply that special care must be taken to fashion meaningful ties.  Special care on all sides.

In the meantime, in Vancouver, a drama is playing out with the arrest and extradition proceeding (requested by the U.S.A.) related to Meng Wanshou, who is a top officer of Huawei, said to be the world's largest telecommunications technology corporation. Wanshou is accused by the U.S. of violating (U.S.) Iran sanctions (questioned and/or rejected by many countries).

THAT situation has played upon and plays upon Canada's relation to China.  And since China is vying for predominance as a trading and military power in the East (at least) of the world Canadians would do well to think about it and about Canada/China relations. It is not, however, a one-way street by any means.  To achieve its aspirations, China, too, must think of its one-on-one relations with other countries on the Globe.  Moving into a relatively new relation in the world, China is flexing its muscles and seeking super-power relevance and influence.

 Contact: Robin Mathews

Monday, September 23, 2019



 By Robin Mathews/September 2019.

Like a Phoenix Infrequent The Council of Canadians is, sort of in the news again, with a new Executive Director and new Chairperson. Named by whom? (People think of Maude Barlow when they think of the COCO.  More about that later.) From my recollection, the list of founding members of the COC as named in Wikipedia is as fine a romantic, fantasy list as might be available!! The Council seems to attract fabulation. As one of those who was on the ground floor back in 1985 at the founding and was on the first National Board I will tell all.

Just where the new officers come from I cannot tell you.  From being envisaged as a wonderfully democratic organization back in those heady days of the 1980s, the two new officers may have appeared from under a large mushroom. Although I live in a tiny village in B.C. called Vancouver, COC managed to find me, it seems, so it could announce the changes, and ask for money: over and over and over.

Reviewing the past, the recent message from The Centre does NOT SAY the Council of Canadians (begun, in fact, by Mel Hurtig and Walter Gordon: Wikipedia gets much wrong) was created as an actively anti-imperialist organization (nor, or course, does Wikipedia).  The Big Fact at the time was U.S.-loving-Brian Mulroney, full of Blarney and uncertain truth taking Canada into a questionable Free Trade Agreement with the USA. (That was a present symptom: more integration was at stake.) The writers of the recent message skirt the foundational fact about the COC its anti-imperialist roots. Who, in public life in Canada today, would be so crude, so bad-mannered, so boldly forthright as to tell the truth about the formation of the Council of Canadians!

The truth is borne out by the fact that Walter Gordon (important Liberal Party organizer, brief Liberal Finance Minister, and on-going fighter for Canadian independence) began in the early 1960s writing books about foreign (read U.S.) takeover of the Canadian Economy.  He was a key builder of the revived Liberal Party and was made Finance Minister in the government of Lester B. Pearson. As minister he introduced (in 1963) a takeover tax to slow, especially, takeover of the Canadian economy by the imperializing U.S.A.

Lester B. Pearson was attacked by all the powers of Finance in Canada, roiling in fury at Gordon's initiative. Courageous Lester Pearson did not defend his minister. He asked for Gordon's resignation. Gordon agreed to go on condition Pearson would permit the creation of a Task Force to investigate Foreign Ownership in Canada.  Pearson agreed.

To be brief the Task Force (made up of a number of economists, not all progressive ones) reported in 1968 and advocated measures to control investment from outside Canada. 

That takes us one more step towards the formation of the Council of Canadians.

The Watkins Report, issued in 1968 (a year after the widely celebrated Centennial of Canada celebrations) was a major National Event. And it is connected, of course to Walter Gordon, and both are connected to the creation of the 1969 Movement (Mel Watkins, Jim Laxer, Bob Laxer) in the NDP for a swing to the Left and to increased national ownership of the economy. The movement called The Waffle Movement, attracted many, and it fought to take the NDP in a Left-wards direction. Indeed, Liberals Walter Gordon, Peter Newman, and Abraham Rotstein fell together, as a result, to form in the next year The (Liberalish) Committee for an Independent Canada which - on its slightly less militant part - advocated action on the ownership of the Canadian economy and much more.

Just as Walter Gordon and the Watkins Report had much to do with the creation of the Waffle Movement in the NDP [Go Left], they also contributed greatly to foundation of The Committee for an Independent Canada. The Far Right operators of the New Democratic Party at the time were, really, David Lewis and his son Stephen with U.S. Unions-in-Canada providing some of the financial basis of the Party.  And so in 1974, in the Orange Hall in Orillia, Ontario the NDP had a Night Of The Long Knives and drove OUT OF THE PARTY its first progressive, reform movement since its founding in 1960.  The bosses of the New Democratic Party wanted no movement to the Left that the Waffle Movement represented as has been clear ever since which is why the NDP is not characterized as the Canadian Parliamentary Left but as Liberals In A Hurry (and not much of a hurry).

Time passed  The Waffle Movement in the NDP was crushed. The Committee for an Independent Canada folded its tents. Brian Mulroney took power the Trudeau Era was over and Big Negotiations were on for a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.A. Many saw that (with Brian Mulroney fronting the action) as, very probably, a danger to Canadian independence.

Walter Gordon was aging and, in addition, ill. So Mel Hurtig was front and centre in the call to a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel on Bloor Street in Toronto in 1985.  When I walked into the meeting, I found myself in the company of the people I knew in all the fights for Canadian Independence over the previous twenty years.  And from his sick-bed Walter Gordon came for a brief few minutes to the meeting to give the new departure his blessing.

(A side piece of information of a disturbing nature: talking not long after the meeting to Mel Hurtig, he informed me that while the meeting was going on downstairs, his room in the hotel was entered, ransacked, and all his belongings and papers were messed with and scattered around the room ... in evident disarray. I was alarmed and puzzled. Who?  Mel smiled: the RCMP leaving its calling card he opined.)

Out of the meeting came The Council of Canadians. It was to be a democratic organization meeting every two years in a major Canadian centre where policy would be shaped and officers democratically selected.  As I remember it, Mel Hurtig was the first (naturally) head of the Council, and was re-voted in at the next meeting (was it Winnipeg?). Remember? Mel Hurtig flew over the U.S. ship travelling through the Canadian Northwest Passage (without permission) and dropped a Canadian flag on its deck to remind it, (Canadian government being too reticent to do so!!)

A little later, Maude Barlow became the energetic and effective leader of the Council. From then on there were no more bi-annual meetings to shape policy and to elect the leader. Because two-year periods repeatedly passed without meetings, Ms. Barlow was not, obviously, the elected Chair and so for some years she signed communications as Voluntary Chair of the COC.  Members of the Council of Canadians have not met … have not jointly made policy and have not voted for top officers for at least 25 years.

The fight for Canadian independence has been erased until the Council is now well What is it now??

There may not, in fact even be members anymore maybe just contributors.  Who elected the two named as Chair and Executive Director in the recent communication?  And so who is the Council in the phrase The Council of Canadians and who made Maude Barlow Honorary Chair of the Council of Canadians? (Not you.  Not me.)

Behind all the history considered here a larger question seems to loom. Canadians (beneath the surface) seem to want a Canadian independence party one that rejects, for instance, the me-too / U.S.-ordered hatred of Russia, of Venezuela, of Iran, of Middle East countries, of now Cuba ALL OF WHICH Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Me-too! Us-too! Foreign Affairs minister embraces as if she were, herself, a born-again citizen of the U.S.A.

No wonder the urge for something different, for an independent Canadian path surfaces over and over until maybe one day Canada will create a winning and triumphant Party of Canadian Independence and Decency.  Obviously The Council of Canadians created to urge forward that purpose, has chickened out ....  And so ... the field (ladies and gentlemen) is open again.

Contact: Robin Mathews

Saturday, September 7, 2019

The Birthday Of A Gigantic Colony (July 1, 2019). The Indigenous Peoples Of Canada. Part Three. What's To Celebrate? by Robin Mathews

 The Indigenous Peoples Of Canada.

The amount of money spent is huge.  It is accompanied by unending faux comment by the Mainstream Press and Media [half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand].  The Fourth Estate bathes itself in the flood of expertise by Social Scientists: Sociologists, Anthropologists, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Suicidologists and more who operate and/or provide the structure of the passionately concerned, humane, sensitive, deeply caring reconciliation, truth and other keenly motivated "Commissions of Inquiry" into the deeply destructive, on-going, un-health and deracination of Canada's Indigenous Peoples from sea to sea to sea.

How has the legislation since John A. Macdonald continued to be destructive of Indigenous life and community?  Why are top Social Scientists unable (?) to fathom the reasons for the unending degradation of Canada's First Peoples?

The hard, hurting short answer to the last question may be because the Social Scientists are, in fact, (even when unaware) unable to find any meaningful solution living as they do in the side-pocket of Power (quite close to its wallet).

What is to celebrate about a sickness in Canadian Society that is more than 150 years old?

The vastness of the subject, its intricacies, its on-going (apparent) insolubility, and the endless publication attempting to deal with it must surely cause many, many concerned non-indigenous Canadians to turn off, to turn away from the subject from sheer confusion. Are they racists?  Perhaps. One cannot say categorically: No, not racists.  But let us say 'Not Racists' merely confused people unable to find a thread they can take hold of to lead them (a) to the core of the problem, and (b) able to see Real Solutions that may be given life.

With the enormous literature on the subject one is lucky to find the core, the key, the heart and soul of the matter in terms that any Canadian may understand.  It is there.  And when it is presented any Canadian (except those who are on the distraction payroll) will say:  Yes, of course.  Now let's begin real change.

Reading the book by Roland D. Chrisjohn and Shaughnessy McKay (with Andrea O. Smith): Dying To Please You: Indigenous Suicide in Contemporary Canada makes everything plain.  [Read also The Circle Game by Roland Chrisjohn and Sherri L. Young , with Michael Maraun].

[Notice the two books are not published either by major University Presses or by major Mainstream publishers in Canada those last being, in fact, U.S. Branch Plant operations in Canada: Gigantic Imperial  Publishers for a Gigantic Colony.]    The publisher is Theytus Books, Penticton, B.C.

The condition we face arises, they reasonably say, out of the nature of our society.  Dying to Please You¦. refers to global developments since Columbus discovered the geography of the Western Hemisphere in 1492 and the rape of South and Central and North America was launched, and (in relation to the lives of the Indigenous Peoples) has never ended.

That is the basis of the argument.  It is that Pizarro, the famous looter/murderer of Indigenous people in the first half of the sixteenth century was simply father and uncle to all that has followed and which continues to this day: the rape and looting of all 'The New Worlds' by Pizarro's Capitalist descendants. The primary cause of the disease attacking the Indigenous in the world and in Canada is called Capitalism.  Genocide follows.

Genocide, write the authors of The Circle Game, is key to the whole story.  Genocide to cover up the wholesale theft of North America from the Aboriginal Peoples, to avoid having to compensate those whose property was stolen, and to obliterate the chain linking specific genocidal actions taken against Aboriginal Peoples, to the legal, political, economic, and social elite that conceived and implemented genocide. (p. 74)

(On that central matter read all the volumes by Anthony Hall and Bruce Clark as very useful further instruction.)

The authors of Dying To Please You. assert that the program has been a shared activity of all The Western Imperial Malevolent Powers. (p. 104)  That is true from at least Pizarro onwards. The authors of the two books before us deal head on with the subject and so we may be usefully brief. The nature of our society is (as the authors record) that it is a Capitalist Society … one in which (a) Capitalists, in fact, rule, and (b) in which the goal is to gain possession of and exploit anything and everything that will increase Capitalist wealth.  The problem for Canadian government, now, the authors aver, is how to appropriate indigenous land and property without paying for it.  Moreover, the possibility that indigenous nations maintain their ownership while being compensated for previous outright robberies is not allowed to be raised as an issue.  (p. 106, Dying to Please You.)

And so, for the Indigenous Peoples, Dying to Please You. recommends they come to grips with the domination of our lives by capitalism (p. 138).  But, surely, a real solution will only come about when all Canadians come to grips with Capitalism and reconstruct 'the present system', excluding the power and the tools of Capitalism.

Education in our time as The Circle Game points out, is, in fact, training to accept the Capitalist Status Quo.  We have probably gone backwards.  In the 1950s and 1960s debates about Capitalism were fairly common on university campuses.  And the Communist Party of Canada was visible and was dumping on (and educating about) Capitalism.  Marxist Study Groups were fairly common.  Now Canadian university campuses are firmly and richly in the hands of the Capitalist State, as is every legislative body and almost every visible Political Party in the country.

One of the very best ways to protect Capitalism is to establish as Absolute Truth that any examination of, and/or any reference to Marxist Thought can only come from filthy, vile, near-mad, immoral, humanity-hating, gross, vile, anti-community, self-seekers (when, in fact, the description may, rather, describe perfectly almost any serious Capitalist.)

None of that bodes well for the real condition of Canada's indigenous peoples OR for the indoctrinated population standing, apparently helpless, in the face of on-going extermination on-going genocide.

What a strange and sorry tale to tell about Canada on the occasion of its 152nd Birthday Party.  The greed of its Capitalist Class, the existence of  barely disguised Capitalist government, added to the ignorance of non-Indigenous Canadians (and even many of the Indigenous) delivers a continuing condition of oppression, gross misunderstanding, and genocide.

Come the Revolution as people used to say, things will change!  But the Revolution seems farther and farther away.  Except one of the characteristics of Revolution, we are told, is that often, unexpectedly, the chain of consent snaps and the community is in revolutionary change almost as a result of what seemed to be the unnoticed nature of the society.  Hope, as Alexander Pope wrote, "hope springs eternal in the human breast."

  Contact: Robin Mathews

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

The Birthday Of A Giant Colony: What's To Celebrate? July 1, 2019. Robin Mathews

Everywhere. There are symbols of Canada's Colonial Status.  Everywhere.  One on-going symbol, of course, is the life of the wholly dedicated Globe and Mail: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand. Rule No. 1: Never tell the truth about Canada. [The Globe and Mail is representative.]

There is, however, more pressingly at the moment another example to deal with.  It goes by the short name: Meng Wanzou, Chief Financial Officer of China's Huawei Technologies.

Meng Wanzou was arrested in Vancouver on December 1, 2018, at the request of U.S. authorities as a first step undertaken to fulfill the terms of an Extradition Treaty that Canada has with the USA. (China, apparently, has similar treaties with many foreign countries.)

What has followed?  A total Colonial farce and tragedy has followed: Xi Jinping, the (in fact) autocratic leader of China has (like a spoiled child) refused to speak with Canada's Prime Minister. China has imposed ridiculous sanctions on Canadian agricultural products destined for China.  And much worse China has seized and is holding, under torture conditions, Canadian citizens as revenge!

That last tells all anyone needs to know about China. Whatever else may be good about China, it is a Rogue Nation (like Saudi Arabia) where The Rule of Law is a farce and the whim of the powerful can erase the Human Rights of anyone the Powerful choose to target!

Grinding salt into the Canadian wound (and never mentioned by a single commentator in the Canadian Mainstream Press and Media) the Actions inspired by Chinese anger are wholly the responsibility of U.S. actors.

Get it all clear in mind.  Canada [observing The Rule of Law] acted on a U.S. request to detain Meng Wanzou, Chief Financial Officer of China's Huawei Technologies.  Canada acted to fulfill terms it has in a treaty with the U.S.A.  China should, if it believes it has been wronged, be attacking the U.S.A in every way it sees fit for the Meng Wanzou incident.  On its part, U.S. authorities should be demanding of China "in the loudest voices" that it end all sanctions against Canada: loudly, persistently, and at the highest levels of power.

But that, alas, isn't how Colonialism works. Canada accepts the blame for the U.S. action as a good Colonial Servant and takes all the sanctions as if Canada is at fault.  The U.S. pretends that Canada is at fault as a normal Imperial Master should do.  And - in a fit of generosity - the U.S. president hints he might intercede with the Chinese dictator-for-life, Xi Jinping on Canada's behalf and express regret that China is holding Canadian citizens as hostages under torture conditions.

Very, very few Canadians see the picture: a perfect Colonial Picture.  The U.S. creates an International Conflict and dumps the responsibility onto its forelock-tugging Colony Canada.  The injured nation, China, not wanting yet another conflict with the U.S.A., is happy to continue the fakery by taking a number of steps to punish Canada.

Canadians have underscored for them the world they will have to live in as long as they accept a role as Colonial Servants To The USA.  The story is not new.  One of Canada's first major English-language poets, (1860-1943) Charles G. D. Roberts, wrote against Canadian colonialism: How long the ignoble sloth, how long The trust in greatness not thine own?

Every leader of every federal political party in Canada has taken the Colonial Oath: I swear I will never speak or act in any way to change Canada's role as a dependent servant of the U.S.A. and U.S. Imperial Policy. If that means allowing Canadian citizens to be jailed falsely and kept in torture conditions, I will accept all that on behalf of the greater power and privilege of the U.S.A., So Help Me God!  [Notice that not one of them says: this is the doing of the U.S.A. Why are we taking the flak and punishment for the U.S.A.? Why are they not shouting that in the House of Commons and elsewhere? You know the answer.]

Quietly, we may all observe that the Globe and Mail [the Globe and Mail is representative] does nothing, ever, to expose the truths of Canada's colonialism.  That is the long, rich tradition of the Globe and Mail.  In the famous 1891 Election the great, great grandfather of the Globe and Mail, called The Toronto Globe, worked like a beaver to help elect a government dedicated to the integration of Canada into the U.S.A. (and lost, despite all its dedicated, even dishonest - efforts).

Why doesn't the Globe and Mail tell you [the Globe and Mail is representative] what I tell you here?  Because Canada's Mainstream Press and Media is a Colonial Press and Media serving the Imperial Master.  And so it feeds you what a Colonial population is always fed: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.

 Contact: Robin Mathews


China maintains extradition treaties with 40 nations. Among them are:

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Collaboration: A New (but very old) Name For Selling-Out (Canadians). Robin Mathews

Collaboration: A New (but very old)  Name For Selling-Out (Canadians).

              (by Robin Mathews  June  2019)

Sheri Meyerhoffer, we all remember, has been appointed to be Canada's Watchdog on Human Rights abuses by overseas Corporations. Canadians don't normally see or learn that the behaviour of many Canadian Corporations operating overseas is sometimes astonishingly bad.

Out of sight Canadian Corporations, it is alleged, sometimes make undocumented agreements with corrupt regimes, exploit defenceless workers, pollute unregulated environments, bribe (as required) abuse populations, communities, the environment and Canadian law.  Some of the activity has been exposed and described in work by Yves Engler.

Sheri Meyerhoffer has expressed the desire to work as Canada's new Watchdog on international corporate responsibility collaboratively with the corporations involved.

We are all conscious that the Cabinet of Justin Trudeau wanted Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to work collaboratively with SNC Lavalin, allowing it a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in what is called a Remediation Process, so that SNC Lavalin could slip away from the criminal charges it faces for corruption in Libya and (some believe) could buy its way out of criminal charges.

Remediation, the Oxford English Dictionary records, simply means remedying.  Deferred Prosecution Agreements are undertaken in a remediation process. What “readers may ask “is remedied by Deferred Prosecution Agreements?  The answer, of course, is the illness giant Canadian corporations fall into when a CEO or other top officers are named criminal and placed behind bars.

The legislation to create Remediation Processes in Canadian law came as a process involving 89 (yes, eighty-nine) meetings of SNC Lavalin and highly-placed Liberal government actors.  As a result the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau passed a law buried in a piece of Omnibus Legislation to permit Canadian Corporations “in effect“ to dodge criminal law as written and to enter Deferred Prosecution Agreements in which criminal charges are stayed, the Corporation pays a large sum of money (a bribe?), and promises to improve its behaviour.

We need to keep firmly in mind that Deferred Prosecution Agreements with criminally-acting Corporations permit them to escape criminal charges in a modality that is not open to Canadians generally.  The Liberal government, in short, has created Law For The Rich, separate from Law For All Others. [That “in the past“ has been considered grounds for Revolution!]

Sheri Meyerhoffer has had very wide experience in a number of foreign countries around the world.  She was Project Director for the Canadian Bar Association.  She should know better than to work collaboratively with Canadian Corporations accused of violating Human Rights among far-off, poverty-stricken, defenceless populations.  We remember that Chrystia Freeland (Canada's Foreign Minister) worked collaboratively among the 14 nations of the Lima Group backing the U.S. attempt, criminally, to overthrow the legitimate government of Venezuela.

[Those with memories that reach back to the closing year of Liberation from the Nazi Occupation of Europe remember vividly the ugliest word that could be used by the liberated to describe any of their own was the one word: Collaborator.]

Others are becoming alarmed at the apparent overthrow of the Rule of Law by the present Canadian government.  As a part of the process, the Canadian government has written into the terms of Sheri Meyerhoffer's appointment, apparently, that she may hear complaints from giant Canadian corporations that they have been unfairly alleged to have abused Human Rights.

With the stroke of that collaborative pen, the Watchdog has been turned into a potential advocate for giant corporations alleged to have engaged in wrong-doing.  That can only be described as the Deep State in action.  The Deep State, we remember, is made up of unseen forces of great wealth and great economic power which sit down with visible government (in this case, the government of Canada) to create laws for the forces of great wealth and economic power alone, as well as rules and procedures that benefit them and, which, in effect, remove them from the (common) Rule of Law.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability alleges the government of Canada is setting up processes to turn the tables on vulnerable complainants in poor countries [Mike Blanchfield, Corporate watchdog rule under criticism, Vancouver Sun, June 11, 2019, B1]. The advocacy group Above Ground spokesperson Karyn Keenan adds (in the same article) that the unexpected provision goes against the spirit of an ombudsperson's office. 

What we have been seeing since the Jody Wilson-Raybould matter is evidence of the Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau working on behalf of huge (often Liberal contributing) Corporations to remove impediments to criminal behaviour by placing the Corporations outside the Rule of Law to which other Canadians are held accountable. In addition, the Liberal government appears, now, to be providing large Corporations with an advocate who, collaboratively, may be in a position to undertake Canadian government-approved harassment of powerless people who allege they are victims of Human Rights abuses!

The only thing Sheri Meyerhoffer can do in the face of what seem to be such insupportable conditions of employment is to resign her position publicly and to denounce, loudly, the terms of her appointment.

Contact: Robin Mathews

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Half Truth, No Truth, and Sleight-of-Hand at the Globe and Mail. Robin Mathews

(The Globe and Mail is representative) 

Part Two. (by Robin Mathews, June 2019)

Fair minded-people admit enormous tensions and disagreements have been caused (outside as well as inside the United Kingdom) by the Brexit vote of 2016 to take Britain out of the European Union. People wishing to maintain a fair perspective have to look very closely at what the European Union really is and the choices it makes. And they have to try, as well, to understand the arguments for and against membership in the Union that are made in Britain. What is the real situation in both places?

One might expect a two-page spread in The Globe and Mail (or a Special Supplement) giving both sides of the story so that readers in Canada might make, impartially, some kind of assessment even if they don't take sides finally.

But The Globe and Mail (The Globe and Mail is representative) doesn't do that. The Globe and Mail supports - with Eric Reguly, Doug Saunders,        the Eds., etc. etc.- (without explaining why) the present structure of the European Union and breathes contempt (without explaining why) for Brexit and all who sympathize with the Brexiteers and strongly criticize the power of the administrators of the European Union. As a result of their flagrant prejudice writers for the Globe and Mail will be considered by many to misreport the identity, the power, the purpose of the EU and the motives of those in the leave (the Brexit) camp. Half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand at the Globe and Mail.

Put very, very briefly there is a full-scale, on-going, battle-to-the-death struggle in the EU between the Reactionary/Big Capitalist/Globalizing forces and those working for a fully democratic, population-centered, humanitarian Community. The extremes are mirrored, now, in France. Ill-organized but persistent the (peoples) Yellow Vest Movement is calling for a re-shaping of power and a redistribution of wealth in France.  At the same time, the French president, Emmanuel Macron - (intending to move into a key power position in the EU if he can manipulate well) - wholly a servant of plutocratic France is advocating the privatization of everything that can be privatized in France.

In addition, the bureaucratic and appointed top officers of the European Union, now, are in favour of and advocate the privatization of everything.

Almost boringly we have learned that making public utilities and services private makes them (1) less efficient, (2) more expensive, and (3) technologically backward. We have learned, also, that giving private corporations greater freedom of movement without severe and close regulation results in full-scale (often gigantic) corruption.  In France, the privatization of some airports (pushed earlier by Macron) has made travel more costly and has robbed the French State of millions of euros annually. Privatization of SNCF (French Railroads) has turned them into basket-case, for profit, service-limited disasters. Out-of-the-way, hard-to-reach destinations in France that desperately need train connection are cut off as unprofitable to operate. (The same with Thatcherite-begun-privatization of once world-famous, efficient, British Railways falling off the tracks now as Britons look on.)

If we begin at the beginning, we see that the foundational movements to create some kind of a European Union were not primarily movements for a union of peoples living in peace and prosperity together as Europeans. No. The major 1950's actions were economic steps taken to make more efficient, more profitable, more stable private corporations. The glorious language of social harmony and the end of inter-European Wars was secondary and still is, many believe. The European Economic Community idea predated anything else.

For the sake of brevity we can leap forward to 2004 when a European Constitution was written, passed in Rome but required ratification in some countries by Referendum. There were no peoples gatherings to find out what populations thought a Constitution for Europe should contain. The Constitution was written by bureaucrats.  It ended being probably the longest Constitution ever written, coming in at three volumes! (without consultation with any of the peoples of Europe or gatherings of citizens ! !)

One would think that the EU bureaucracy would have placed copies of the proposed Constitution everywhere possible: banks, schools, universities, libraries, etc. in the countries requiring referendum. But NO. Copies were hard to find. Strange. It was almost as if the EU bureaucracy was trying to prevent citizens from knowing what was in the three volumes ! ! In France, many sought out copies. And though the Mainstream Press and Media in France [half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand] strongly backed the Constitution without explaining it Le Monde diplomatique and many French who cared set to work to tell the French what was really in the proposed Constitution.

It was defeated in France. The Truth was out. In Holland the same process followed: the people were told what was in the proposed Constitution. It was defeated in Holland. The next referendum was to be in Britain. Instead, the Constitution was withdrawn. (No one at the Globe and Mail tells that story: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand at the Globe and Mail.)

Upon the failure of the passage of the European Constitution, one might think the bureaucrats in Brussels would have placed copies of it all around the world ... so that people could see what was nobly attempted for the people of Europe and foolishly rejected by them. That doesn't seem to have happened. Try to find a copy. (Good luck.) INSTEAD, the Eurocrats took from the failed Constitution things they wanted, put them into a Treaty, went to Portugal and passed 'The Treaty of Lisbon' and began declaring that the Constitution of the European Union is contained in - and is summed up by - the treaties entered into by the governments of the nations making up the Union.

Brexit is coming about because a majority of Britons voted for it. Anti-Brexiteers report the majority was fooled, was stupid, conned was led (Doug Saunders) by people of rootlessness and privilege (Sat. June 1/19/p.01) They are that majority - (like Italy's Matteo Salvini says Eric Reguly) populists a curse word from the likes of Reguly, meaning nationalists who are sharply critical of EU governance (not to be confused with government) and are usually named viciously anti-immigration, etc.].

The Italians, told by the EU bureaucrats to receive all refugees that arrive off the Mediterranean from ugly, U.S. and NATO and Israel faked wars finally said NO and became, of course, hard-Right anti-immigration populists. Britain, too, has been accused of being viciously anti-immigration. None of the Doug Saunders/Eric Reguly kinds of commentators will admit for a moment (1) that immigration can be (when in floods) seriously disruptive. Or that (2) the sources and causes of the floods of refugees should be identified AND the people who cause the problem should be named and taxed. They wont say that employers across Europe want cheap labour from anywhere. Italy didn't cause the huge, barbaric, monstrously destructive wars the U.S. (and Israel, with NATO) instigated in the Middle East.

The Regulys and Saunders of this world (half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand) will - not for a second - entertain the notion that across Europe the Corporations fighting for control of the Union want floods of cheap labour to drive down costs. Nor will they admit that in both France and Italy the economic calamity driving huge unemployment happened during Left governments working hand-in-glove with the European Union's unelected administrators! And the collaborators in Greece who agreed to the sell-off everything there but the stones of the Parthenon in order to lower debt and please the priesthood of the EU were in fact seen as a hard Left government!

France leapt out of the frying pan into the fire; France went from a pretend Left government [The Socialist Party of France] to the bare-knuckled, newly-formed Right movement of Emmanuel Macron called, for short, En Marche, and described as Centrist and liberal (?) by the Mainstream Press and Media.

Eric Reguly admits that the Centre Left government of Matteo Renzi (before the present populist coalition) was a failure (Sat., June1/18,B4). Salvini wants to level tax rates and, in effect, lower the age of retirement. Reguly's sleight-of-hand calls for deep reforms, like taking the scalpel to Italy's soul-crushing bureaucracy without a word about doing the same to Italy's Capitalist Class. Absolutely typical. Reguly doesn't call on Italy's Capitalist Class to do anything. Before Matteo Renzi's Centre Left government was thrown out, it agreed that Corporations in Italy could pay nothing to new workers for three months while they learned the job.

Brexiteers say that the British people must make the laws for Britain; that the EU Commissioners (with one title or another) are not directly accountable to democratic voters; that laws (or other kinds of stricture) made to suit one country may not suit another country; that the present European Union works hand in glove with Big Corporate Globalization to the detriment of national populations; that the taxed cost to Britons of membership in the EU is too high and would be better spent at home.

Yanis Varoufakis, Greek Finance Minister during the meltdown (who resigned in protest), ran recently for the European Parliament, in Germany, as part of a group seeking to bring Democracy to the European Union ! [A bold idea!!] The man who went toe-to-toe with the heavies of the European Union operation in an attempt to stop Greece from being (as it has been) shredded and left destitute seemed to learn something fundamental about the Union: that it is a big Globalization factory not run for the people of Europe. It is, in fact, not democratic .... The European Parliament, in fact, is occasionally praised for seizing an initiative and gaining a little democratic power (readers surely might ask from whom?).

Maybe the Brexiteers have a real cause.

 Contact: Robin Mathews

Monday, June 3, 2019

The Tree and Me were 'planted' in the 1940's. We are but a shadow now, of 'ourselves'

This morning's walk in Capilano River Regional Park ...
                I found a tree in the woods that looks just like me


January 19, 2019
Just a walk in the same park: Cleveland Dam

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

"The penalty of $25.00 is an inducement to the possessor to consume the liquor as rapidly as he knows that if only charged with being drunk he escapes with a fine of $5.00 only."

1913 to 1916

Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia (Canada), White, Nathaniel Whitworth, 1837-1917., McKenna, J. A. J. (James Andrew Joseph), 1862-1919., Carmichael, Saumanez, Shaw, J. P., MacDowall, D. H. (Day Hort), 1850-1927, McBride, Richard, Sir, 1870-1917


Page 28 of 30

....... Frequently at meetings of the different Indian Bands the question of fines imposed on Indians under the clauses of the Indian act relating to liquor have been discussed, and Mr. George Jay, Police Magistrate for the County of Victoria and also Stipendiary Magistrate for the County of Victoria, which includes the several Indian Reservations situate in Saanich, Esquimalt and Sooke Districts, has made the following statement and suggestion to the Commission:-

"Under the terms of the Indian Act, Sec. 137,"an Indian who is found in a state of intoxication is liable to a fine of not less than $5.00.  In those cases in which an Indian is found in possession of an intoxicant it is usually confined to a bottle of whiskey or gin, and sometimes only a small flask.

The penalty of $25.00 is an inducement to the possessor to consume the liquor as rapidly as he knows that if only charged with being drunk he escapes with a fine of $5.00 only.

The penalty of $25.00 was fixed by Statute some years ago at a time when it was a practice amongst a certain class to supply large quantities of liquor to Indians in remote Reservations.

With regard to fines for being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it frequently happens that an Indian appears in the Police Court at the same time as white men charged with the same offence.  The practice for many years here has been in the case of those other than Indians to impose a fine of $2.00 for a first offence and a slightly increased fine in the case to the second or subsequent offence, but with regard to the Indians a Magistrate has no alternative but to impose the minimum fine of $5.00, which must to the Indian appear to be a marked discrimination against him.

I would respectfully recommend that the Indian Act be amended with regard to the penalties for those offences by allowing Magistrates wider discretion and by eliminating the provisions as to minimum fines, thus leaving it to the judgment of the Magistrate dealing with the offence to impose such fine as may in his opinion be proper, not exceeding, of course, the maximum fine provided in the Act.

I may add that I have resided at Victoria for the past 45 years and have had much experience of the habits of the Indians of the southern portion of Vancouver Island and the Islands of the Gulf.

Your Commission are of the opinion that, were these suggestions followed, it would tend to remove from the Indian the feeling that he is looked down on with contempt and his race deemed unworthy of being treated in a manner similar to other British subjects in His Majesty's Dominions, and that the greater latitude allowed Magistrates in their discretion, would have a tendency to elevate rather than debase the Indian."

And of course, the politicians chose to keep it just the way it was, because they hadn't finished plundering the First Nation People and their possessions.

Friday, May 10, 2019

Half Truth, No Truth, And Sleight-Of-Hand At The Globe and Mail. - Robin Mathews

(The Globe and Mail is representative.)
(by Robin Mathews, May 2019)

 The air fills, this month, with journalistic awards, for doing what journalists, approvingly, do within the acceptable activity of journalists: half-truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.  Of course, some of them live hair-raising hours, which lifts them to wide attention and holds off the question: What Evil Are They Serving?  All the journalists, for instance, covering the The Rape of the Middle East (2003 onwards) who did not (do not) condemn the USA, NATO, and every supporting force were (are) frauds, liars, active evil-doers. 

Most upsetting to the (innumerable) spokespeople writing on their behalf is the number of journalists being murdered in our time. (And good people must agree.  Even fools creating propaganda for evil masters of The Deep State do not deserve to be murdered.  Though what they do deserve is hard to say.)

The Globe and Mail even had (Saturday, May 4/19) an eight-page Supplement under the banner: FREE THE PRESS.  (Let us remark that in the last hours before the 2016 federal election "the Harper Conservatives having done all they could to destroy fair elections in Canada" the Globe and Mail editorialists trumpeted the need to return Stephen Harper to power. FREE THE PRESS, indeed!)

Deeply regrettable is the murder of journalists around the world, especially since many of them really believe they are serving a force dedicated to freedom, liberty, justice, and peace for ordinary men and women and children.  Just think of the journalists paid to be and lying about the situation in Venezuela!  Just think of their intense desire to destroy a government targeted by the U.S. Deep State backed by the lackeys in NATO backed with enthusiasm by Canada's collaborating Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, whose grandfather also collaborated [in his case with the Nazis] creating, perhaps, a role model for his granddaughter.

How do Canadians deal with the lying journalists on Venezuela?  By silencing them?  Or, how else ...?  Not by calling upon Trivia specialists Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer.  Not by calling upon collaborator Chrystia Freeland.

Doug Saunders, eager Globe and Mailer, trumpets the falsehood that The silencing of journalists is an attempt to silence us all.  Wholesale Hogwash! !  It might just be that the silencing of all Globe and Mail journalists would provide an opening for some truth to be told in Canada.

The Globe and Mail refuses (obviously) to examine, investigate, and report on the people who faked 31 (thirty-one) criminal charges against MikeDuffy (2016)Why?  The Globe and Mail refuses to examine and report upon the real criminals exposed by two higher Canadian courts in the entrapment of innocents and the created falsehood of an Islamic Terrorist Event at the B.C. Legislature grounds (2013 and after to December 2018). Why?  The Globe and Mail will not even glance at what is thought to be, by some serious people, the hoaxed Islamic terrorist event (Oct. 22, 2014) at the Ottawa Cenotaph and the Parliament Buildings there.  Why?

The Globe and Mail will not follow up on the Saskatchewan Robo-Call scandal of the Conservative Party which paid a fine of $78,000.00 (which most Canadians know 
nothing whatever about.).  Why?

The Globe and Mail will not investigate and report upon the fact (revealed by Bruce Clark) that the Canadian higher courts base indigenous claim judgements on a false reading of the Constitution and, especially, The RoyalProclamation of 1763, creating an on-going and pernicious misuse of the Rule of Law. Why?

Okay, you say, but look how the Globe and Mail supported Jody Wilson-Raybould, former Attorney General of Canada, in her battle against top Liberals, the prime minister, and SNC-Lavalin!!  The answer just might be that the Canadian Deep State wants the corrupt and corrupting Conservatives (Stephen Harper's buddies) back in power.  Supporting Jody Wilson-Raybould was, perhaps, for the Globe and Mail, campaigning for the Party of Corruption to get it back into power as soon as possible.  Scheer madness, perhaps. But.....

The Globe and Mail had a full-page editorial supporting the evil misreading of Venezuela (fomented by U.S. government) urging that the U.S-trained and readied Upstart who declared himself the leader of Venezuela should be recognized and placed into power.  (And, if he is not, it is okay that every punishment that can be dealt to the people of Venezuela should be visited upon them for failing to support the takeover of the country by U.S. Oligarchs wishing to control global fossil fuel deposits.)

Consider that on a different canvas, the Globe and Mail will not touch one of the most engrossing and exciting debates of this generation: the real meaning of the 9/11, 2001, destruction of the Trade Towers in New York City preceding and preparing for the endlessly, murderously destructive, wholly falsely undertaken Rape of the Middle East from 2003, continuing to our own day now, and beyond.  Why won't the Globe and Mail enter that central and on-going discussion and debate?  Because Modern Mainstream Journalism is in the hands of those who operate The Deep State; and their modern journalists follow the credo: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.

Doug Saunders writes in FREE THE PRESS that the new, angry populist politics targets Elites and the mainstream media as enemies of the people.  Not intending to do so, Doug Saunders stumbles upon the truth.  For a brief second he sees. We may believe in imagination (only) he walks in the Paris streets with The Yellow Vest.  He sits (in imagination only) in the briefing room with Nicolas Maduro's military officers.  He converses (in imagination only) with the two unfortunate Canadians entrapped by the RCMP, accused, charged, jailed, mistreated and then cast into the street when the Victoria fake Islamic Terrorist Event blew up in the face of its RCMP creators!  He converses (in imagination) with Bruce Clark about the on-going, false precedent-finding of higher court judges on questions of justice for indigenous people.

Doug Saunders and the whole team at the Globe and Mail [the Globe and Mail is representative] imagine themselves working for democracy, justice, and the Rule of Law.  They imagine.  In their imaginations they want to FREE THE PRESS.  In their imaginations.

But they don't act to free the Press.  They prefer that some of them will be shot in the back as foreign correspondents in some far-off places than for all of them to be shot, face-on, through the heart, for certain - all of them - in the Publisher's Office, right at home if they try to do something like honest journalism in a country that does not countenance honest journalism from anybody it can control only countenancing the credo of modern Canadian journalists: half truth, no truth, and sleight-of-hand.

Contact: Robin Mathews