4 a 5 Q e Quiet’ vs Quietus | n their Big Business-promoted bid for “majority” gov- ernment, L. B. Pearson and his Liberal salesmen have voiced their preference for a “quiet” election campaign. What they mean by “quiet” is to keep all issues on which they are highly vulnerable and suspect off the hust- ings. They would prefer not to have their unspoken appro- val of U.S. aggression in Vietnam, Latin America, the Congo and elsewhere held up to public scorn on the hust- ings. Similarly their desire to keep mum on their long re- cord of selling Canada short to U.S. monopoly; and for gawd’s sake let’s be discreetly “quiet’”” about the two- nation ingredients of a new Constitution for Canada. Too much free and open debate on that can lose us votes and seats in La Belle Province. So please, gentlemen, a “quiet” election. Tory “differences” with the Liberals, (that is on the surface) are strong noise producers. Dief will be loud and eloquent on Liberal graft and corruption and “sins of om- mission” in government. What the Libs didn’t do that the Tories would have done, etc and etc. But on the US. ‘bomb-throwers in Vietnam; on U.S. nuclear warheads and Bomarcs in Canada, on the constitutional ‘ equality ofa French and English two-nation Canada, Dief also wel- comes the “quiet” Pearson so earnestly craves. t This urgency for “quiet” should fool no one. Preten- tious “differences” between the two parties of Big Busi-. ness serves as a Cloak to hide their common identity and purpose. Both seek a “majority” mandate from the people, in order to apply “get tough” policies — upon the people. — a majority for either, Big Business wins— the people ose. New Democratic Party (NDP), Communist or other progressive-minded candidates have a big job to do; to see to it that this Liberal Tory yearning for “quiet” is broken by raising those issues vital to Canada’s peace, develop- ment and sovereign independence. To break through this “quiet” atmosphere of Liberal Tory betrayal of Canada with the election of an ever- increasing block of progressive MP’s, capable of putting the “balance-of-power”’ quietus on the “quiet”? majority aspirants. SE Tom “Do you think it would help him win a majority if he changed his name to William Lyon McKenz CBC-TV ‘free speech’ According to the CBC masterminds who determine what the public will see and hear on CBC-TV and radio, Communist Party candidates in the present federal elec- tion campaign “do not qualify’ for CBC-TV and radio free time. ' Admitting that “it is difficult (for the CBC) to define what constitutes a substantial body of opinion”, its “rule” on this score enables the CBC to act as an arbitrary cen- sorship on what and who the public may see and hear. Whether Canadians chose to agree or disagree with the Communist viewpoint on the vital issues facing people in this federal election, they have the inalienable right to hear these views and to make their own choice. The CBC denial of free time to Communist candidates also denies the electorate that right. In sharp contrast to this dictatorial gag rule on the Communist viewpoint, is the recent expose of the Liberals seeking to effect a ‘‘gentlemen’s agreement”’ with numer- ous TV broadcasters on the filming and recording of Lib- eral speeches and personages, so that these can be funnel- ed out to various TV stations to be re-run, in order to give the electorate a double dose of Liberal guff. Later on, such stations to be rewarded with “the credit deserved”. Gag-rule for one party, the monopoly of an alleged media of public information for the other; no wonder the _ Fowler Commission report recommends the replacement of CBC-TV and radio masterminds with the creation of a Canadian Broadcasting Authority. domination and control of beer outlets, virtue of “state-monopoly” con= tract regulations, have their taps arbitrarily turned off in an oasis of foaming suds, andits beverage dispensers walking the streets, A hotelman may wish to change the brewer and the brand of the suds he retails, but under LCB ruling he can only do this on two An easy contender with those Worth Confronted by the hideous of my country’s actions in Vietnam, its intrusions in the affairs of t people of Latin America, of Kored, China, of its part in the rehabili of the Nazi Wehrmacht, how can any American discuss in dispass ly general terms the need of ped earth? 3 Yes, we people want it, need Need it as all living creatures and cling to life. And we—yes, we! people of America and citizens what is termed a Democracy, Peace within our hands, to give withoid. Faced with this responsibilit is one loyalty, and only one, for' and every one of us; it is to Ped for that is loyalty to life itself . - —ROCKWELL K! New World Review, July, 19 To refuse to include the National eration Front of the rebel forces’ Vietnam in negotiations would bes ilar to King George Ill, years ag® ' sisting he would negotiate with French ally, (Lafayette. Ed.) but® with General George Washington rebel American forces. —SEN. GEORGE McGOVE! $. Dak. in U.S. Farm News, July, 1997 * Professor K. Sinclair told a T puna audience that South Vietnam W not, in fact, a ‘‘police state’’ (for would mean some control). He defin it as a “‘juntacracy’’. ‘‘One junta 5° ceeding another in rapid succes each measuring a greater lack of § port among the populace than its decessor.’”’ —PEOPLE’S VOICE, A New Zealand, August, 4, | “et The greatest lesson of Dien Phu is that in the present world dition, if a people — however they may be — rise up in unity, P' a correct political line, and fight “lutely for independence and p® they have all possibilities to 4 the most cruel aggressive army 9" imperialists and colonialists. The '¢* lution for liberation of nations certainly be victorious. —General Vio Nguyen GiaP New York WORKER, Sept. 29, '65. the ears of the conspiring B Barons and their LEB “S34 + lite,” who have the public “ a barrel” in more ways than Another and very impo reason for the government’S McEWEN he lengthening beer drouth ‘now being imposed upon the people of this great “free enter- prise” province, is providing among other things, some startl- ing illustrations of the intricate workings of what Communists and other students of political econo- my describe as “state monopoly capitalism,” This “SMC” for short, ex- ~ presses that close and happy (for them) affinity in which govern- ment and Big Business monopoly join in unholy matrimony for the purpose of putting a bearhug price squeeze on John Q, Public; a price squeeze that can cover anything and everything “from soup to nuts,” In this specific instance the “SMC” hammerlock is on the workingman’s beer, Having the B.C, beer market tightly bottled up, with of course the active agreement and assist- ance of the Bennett government, the “Big Five” breweries now strikebound, are all seemingly joined in a conspiracy not to negotiate a new union contract with their employees, except at their own time, convenience and purpose, To this beer baron combine such irritants as. the provisions of the Combines Act, statutory labor legislation and suchlike, doesn’t mean a damn thing, They just shut off the tap, keep their wage contract negotiators out of the way, thumb their noses at the public inconvenience, and maintain a Sphinx-like silence while they scheme new price hikes, The role of the “state,” (to wit, the Socred government) in this beer monopoly domination is a decisive one—for the Beer Batons, The “state” with its Liquor Control Board (LCB) and apliant monopoly - orientated attorney- general provides “legal” sanc- tions and safeguards to monopoly stipulated days in every calendar year: on January 1 and on June 1, Should he miss either of these days, he is stuck with both brew- er and brand by virtue of govern- ment-beer monopoly diktat. _ An illustration of how this operates against the hotelmen and against the public is best seen in the Prince George fiasco, The Tartan Brewing Company of that northern city is not involved in this beer strike, nor are its products declared “hot” by the. Brewery Workers Union, Tartan . could supply the bulk of the beer needs of Vancouver, the Island - and most of the Lower Mainland hotels with beer supplies, But a Socred attorney-general gives out with a loud “No,” Any beer from Tartan must be sold by LCB stores, This while hundreds of beverage dispensers, jobless be- cause of this monopoly refusal to negotiate, are “pounding the sidewalk,” Even in Prince George itself, the home of Tartan beer, only one of its many hotels with a Tartan contract can keep its beer parlor open, The others by Russians who are always pictured as saying “Nyet,” Bonner says “No” to anything and everything calculated to ease or break the grip of the beer monopoly in B,C, ure to act in any way calcul to induce the beer monopoly to the negotiating table in 0 to effect a settlement of strike, is the matter of elee “slush” funds, in which the? and “hard” liquor magnates known to be the most *gener® contributors, When the Communist Party, together with a number of unions and other public bodies suggested the government “take over” and. operate the big breweries in the In Socred parlance there interests, and for the benefit of be something to the old adage the public, financially and other- “not biting the hand that wide, Mr. Bonner gave out with you,” but when it is the a resounding series of “No, no, that is getting “bit” by:2 no—the government isn’t taking monopoly holdup, that indie over anything.” Sweet music to the need to house-clean both. Qi Alhiea: MUL eMC Editor — TOM McEWEN Associate Editor — MAURICE RUSH Circulation Manager — JERRY SHACK Published weekly at | Ford Bldg., Mezzanine No. 3, 193 E, Hastings St. aelcncuie a i ‘ates: ‘Canada, $5.00 one year; $2.75 for six months. Novih and Séuth America and Commonwealth countries, $6.00 one year. All other countries, $7. ,one year. Authorized as second class mail by the Port Office Departments Ottawa, and for payment of postage in cash.