Review

‘Not appropriate’?

W rxo0uT precedent in Cana
dian labor history, the key “‘rec-
ommendation” in the Norris re-
port on the Seafarers International
Union (SIU), now tabled in the
_ House of Commons, proposes the

setting up of a government-ap-
pointed “trusteeship” for all Cana-
dian seafaring unions.

Already some preliminary steps
for the implementation of this dic -
tatorial “trusteeship” are evident.
One of these is the shocking fact
that Canadian Labor Congress
(CLC) top brass have voiced “ap-
proval.” Federal Labor Minister
MacEachern reported in Parlia-
ment that he had “discussions”

with CLC national leaders, but
that such discussions must be re-
garded as “confidential” since it
was “not appropriate to report the
attitude taken at the meeting by
the officers of the Congress.”’

Thus in their divided unions
Canadian seamen are to be “‘sav-
ed” from the racketeering tyranny
of SIU dictator Hal Banks, by a
“trusteeship” leash with CLC ap-

EDITORIAL PAGE

‘proval. No wonder the Minister

put emphasis on the need of being
“confidential”?

Had the shipowners, the King

Liberal government, the RCMP,

TLC-CLC brass and the Courts
not given the SIU and Banks their
full support in the job of smash-
ing the Canadian Seamens Union, :
Canada’s seafaring men backed by
Canadian labor, could have settled
with Banks themselves long ago.
But that wasn’t what the Shipping
Federation and its Liberal govern-
ment wanted. They wanted a Can -
adian union smashed, and they
picked the SIU and Hal Banks to
do their dirty work.

Nowin their desire to dump
Banks the stage-is set for an
equally reprehensible policy; that
of a dictatorial government-de-
signed “‘trusteeship.” But it is “not:
appropriate” to mention that the
CLC top leadership are also co-
designers in this monstrous denial
of a seamen’s union to run its own
affairs?

Editorial comments...

eS Durinc the course of the
_ UF&AWU strike the commercial
press, radio and other media of
public misinformation did a bang-
up job on the fishermen’s union
and its leadership. Misrepresenta-
tion, distortion of fact and the
common smear put on a bigger

- “run” than the elusive salmon.

Not to be outdone civic “health”

authorities got into the picture to -
_ give the UF&AWU fish sales a
malevolent eye. Never was so
touching concern for the public
“health” displayed at City Hall.
By some strange alchemy of “free
enterprise,” a fisherman selling his
‘own fish to a neighbor at reason -
able prices became an “offense”
against our “health” ordnances?
Made one wonder whether it
was the loss of a license fee or the
state of our health after a sump-
tuous dinner of succulent sockeye
at producer-consumer prices with
the free-enterpriser excluded from
the table which disturbed City
Hall most? ;

Around a few of the UF&AWU
salmon sales we conducted our own
“gallup poll,’ and one UF&AWU
patron pretty well summed it up —
for the whole; “It’s tough for the
fishermen, but the only time

EE —- ot
Pacific Tribune
"GCcHI¢C Iribune
Editor — TOM. WEN
Agsecjate Editor—MAURICE RUSE
Business, Mgr.—_OXANA BIGELOW
‘Published weekly at: - 5
Room & — 426 Main Street
=. Vancouver 4, B.C..
Fhone MUtual 58-5288
Subscription Rates;
Canadian and Commonwealth coun:
tries (except Australia); $4.00 ong
year. Australia, United States a
all other countries: $5.00 oneyear:

‘working people can afford to eat

sockeye is when the fishermen are
on strike. You just can’t eat sal-

mon with a packer’s price-tag on
at

All of which adds up to a time-
ly subject for students of home

economics and community
“health.”

T HE Bennett “take-over” of
the BC Electric in August of 1961
had the approval of all parties in
the B.C. Legislature and of the
public generally. 2

True, there was some political
bickering about the “fairness” of
the price paid to the BCE coupon-'
clippers, but the concensus of pub-
lic opinion was that the BCE had
got its full “pound of flesh ’ from a
long-suffering customer — the
public.

The Socred take-over served a
dual political purpose; it beat CCF
propaganda about “public owner-
ship” to the punch, and has serv-
ed as a valuable pawn in highly
questionable Socred power
policies.

At no time in the Bennett
scheme of things was the BCE
take-over, then or now, intended
to supply the consuming public
with cheaper power and transit
services. The “‘benefits’’ of a pub-
licly-owned BCE have remained
strictly monopoly-Socred benefits.

Now comes the ruling of Mr.
Justice Lett of the B.C. Supreme
Court that the BCE takeover is
“ultra vires,” “‘illegal’’? and so
forth, with an additional $21-mil-
lion demanded on the original

price paid. But, and for the tax- °

paying consumer an important
“but”; “values” having gone up
in the interim, (on unearned
“dividends” to be counted) prob-
ably another $21-million or more
may be added before B.C. Power
‘Corporation and its BCE mono-

BCE ‘rides again’

Comment.

poly coupon-clippers are fully
.“satisfied’’?
This court ruling invokes the.
British North America Act (BNA)
and federal-provincial ‘“‘jurisdic-
tion”; the “right” of a province to
take over any monopoly or corpor-
ation if that entity even so much
as operates a corner grocery store
or dangles a foot of wire outside ©
provincial boundaries?
On such an interpretation of
BNA “jurisdiction” the public
ownership or ‘take-over of any
big monopoly enterprise can be
“legally” blocked, and/or the pub -
lic thoroughly skinned if such
take-over is given “legal” sanction?
The people of B.C., and partic-
ularly in those areas served by the ~
BCE, were overwhelmingly in
their support of the takeover. —
They still are, but on the grounds, —
then as now, that they and not the
B.C. Power Corporation octopus
be the prime beneficiaries?
Hence, the Lett ruling that the
takeover was “illegal” in no way —
lessons public approval of that fait
accompli. What it does however,
aside from being a political mon-
keywrench tossed into a highly
dubious Socred power policy is, —
to assure that the people of B.C.
will again be gouged anything ©
from $21 to $50-million to “pay”
for a public utility already well
paid for—and up until now provid-
ing no tangible benefits in reduced
costs or improved services to the
taxpayers paying the shot? ;
Public ownership, YES, but for
the sole benefit of the public.

= em
McEwen

e are indebted to a “PT” read.
W.: for sending us a copy of.
the British Sunday Times Weekly
Review containing a feature art-
icle on “The Cliveden Set.” The
author of this article is a scion of
the notorious Astor family, owners
of Cliveden since 1893 and, among
other: things, owners of Britain’s,
two leading newspapers, The Ob-
server and The Times.

(It may be added that the prolific
offspring from this millionaire As-
tor rabbit-warren are most popu-
larly known in Britain as ‘The Ob-
server Astors” and “The Times
Astors’’).

While space does not permit a
full recap of “The Cliveden Set” as
‘related by Michael Astor, who hap-
pens to be the offspring of that

cy Astor, one fact stands out like
a highly inflamed thumb; viz, that
Cliveden and its exclusive ‘Set’

seat of government in Britain?
There all the reactionary Tory
intrigues, conspiracies; betrayals,
those ‘ideologies’ designed to
_ stimulate anti-Soviet hate and pro-
Nazi sympathies, found a made-to-
order incubater at Cliveden. The
class plots and scheming of its de-
" generate “nobility” fanned out far

“noble” harridan Viscountess Nan- '

was (and probably still is) the real —

London’s famed Old Bailey, one |

and wide, spreading moral disease,

~ aggression and death to millions.

It was in Cliveden that the Mun-
ich betrayal of Czechoslovakia was
hatched; where Hitler and Musso-
lini were “recognized” as the best
antidote to Communism, where
anti-Soviet conspiracies were cook-
ed up, and where colonial empires
embracing millions of human be-
ings were carved and divided, with

less sentiment than a butler serv-

ing up a ham.

Hitler’s generals knew whereof
they spoke when they said “we
have good friends in England.”
They had—the “Cliveden Set.”

But Cliveden was more than an
exclusive Tory sanctuary for the
incubation of international conspir-
acies and intrigues. With two lead-
ing daily newspapers at its dispo-
sal reaching millions of readers,
Cliveden was also the centre of a
vast propaganda agency, an acad-
emy specializing in the calculated
“respectable” lie; an academy of
the prostitute pen guided by one_

_ all-compelling interest — the class

interests of “The Cliveden Set” and

what their kind represented.

It is therefore not Surprising (or
at least it shouldn’t be) that “The
Cliveden Set” which held Tory in-
trigue, conspiracy and betrayal to
be synonomous with “good govern-
ment”; who had _ turned ‘stately
Cliveden into an exclusive seat of:
Political prostitution, had now
reacheg bottom, a la the Profumo- —
Ward degeneracy and moral pros-
titution? _ e

Reading the press on the unfold-
ing of the Dr. Stephen Ward trial in

‘entourage may emerge once again,

fected, as Britain’s most ‘“‘respect-

“happy to know that the CBC has

- the World.

_Payh? fi Stone atid

feels the need of a bath. No wonder

the trial judge Justice Sir Archi-

bald Marshall felt compelled to ob-

serve that in this case the world

sees Britain as ‘‘a sink of iniquity’.

That is putting it mildly. What His —
Lordship doesn’t seem to’ “see”
however, and what the commercial

press has diligently sought to bury

in its salacious detailing of a “re-

spectable’” Tory-operated whore-

house, is that the vile degeneracy

and decadence of “The Cliveden

Set” in political, moral and physi-

cal prostitution, is the decadence

of a ruling class, already dead, but

unhappily, unburied.

The osteopath Dr. Stephen Ward
who divided his time between
bone-setting, portrait painting
(even including British royalty in
his artistry) and procuring glamor-
ized whores for Cliveden habitu-
ees, is not the master criminal in
this sordid Tory mess.

. That “honour” by right of tra-
dition, history and class caste, be-
longs to “The Cliveden Set”. The
whore-monger Ward is the “fall
guy” who takes the ‘‘rap” (alive or |
dead) so that Cliveden and its Tory |

judicially white-washed and disin- — E

able” citizenry? .
Canada’s taxpayers wont be too

offered the Keeler whore $5,000
dollars to appear in its News-Maga-
zine TV program. The whore turn-
ed it down because she has a $54,-
000-dollar contract with News of ©

Who said prostitution doesn’t

~ tt a aes 3 fsa <
ee ee ee