LONDON — The Queen’s Speech —
Which ought to be called Mrs. Thatcher’s
Speech as the Queen has nothing to do
with the writing of it — came as no sur-
Prise. But it did come as a slap in the face
{0 the British working class.

The first three specific statements in it
Were all ones on which the point of view
of the Government — which it intends to
Carry out relentlessly — is opposed by
the majority of this country’s people.

Saying that ‘her’ Government were
determined to sustain Britain’s contri-

ution to western defence’, she reiter-
ated Thatcher’s commitment to Trident.

This £10,000 million-plus nuclear-
Missile submarine project is opposed
€ven by a significant section of the Con-
Servative Party and the military
stablishment.

_Next came support for the NATO de-
Cision on the deployment of ground-
launched Cruise missiles throughout
Western Europe before the end of this
year — also opposed by a majority in
Britain,

Third came a continued commitment
to the EEC — with the usual reservation
about fighting for Britain’s corner —
While most British people support with-
drawal from the Brussels bureaucratic
Organization.

But if the Queen’s script-writer had the
effrontery to place these minority opin-
ions, to be imposed on our people against
their will, in the forefront of her speech,
Labor’s right-wing leaders can have lit-
tle cause for complaint.

Labor Must Fight

Those complaints will doubtless be
made during the debate on the speech in
the House of Commons — and justified
complaints they are. But we might not be
faced with this Government at all had not
Labor’s fight fudged the issues of peace
and EEC withdrawal instead of cam-
paigning on them.

What followed these introductory re-
marks was equally predictable, and
equally unwelcome.

Privatization

More selling-off of publicly-owned as-
sets — with a special mention for British
Telecom; new powers for the police and
a new Prevention of Terrorism Act; a
‘commitment to the Falkland Islands and
Gibraltar’. :

London is picked out as a particular
target: there is to be a ‘re-organization’ of
its public transport (presumably to pre-
vent any more unwelcome fare re-

ductions). ;
Local democracy is to be further hit by

| Queen’s speech — Thatcher's threat

News Analysis

measures ‘to curb excessive rate in-
creases” by specific councils (Labor
ones, of course) and to provide a ‘general
power’ over rates for national govern-
ment.

This is designed to prevent councils -

from protecting local populations against
the worst of the attacks on them from
Whitehall.

There is to be ‘wider parental choice’
over education — for those with the
money — and patients are ‘to get the best
value for money spent on the National
Health Service.’ In other words, the
Government doesn’t plan to spend one
penny more on health.

The ‘right’ to buy council houses is to
be extended — which will also increase
the waiting time to rent one, and proba-
bly remove the possibility altogether.

Unions Attacked
There will also be ‘policies to promote
economic prosperity and reduce un-
employment’, although there was no sign
of them in the speech. The announced
plans for ‘democratization’ of the unions

are not intended to improve their ability
to fight for either prosperity or jobs.

And even if you accept Britain’s nght
to rule the Six Counties of Northern Ire-
land — which this paper doesn’t —
there’s little hope of any aid to the un-
employed there, the highest in the ‘Uni-
ted Kingdom’.

The ‘highest priority’ there will not be
any aid to an oppressed and suffering
people, but ‘law and order’.

It was a predictable speech and a rot-
ten speech.

— The New Worker

AND MY GOVERNMENT WILL
3) BE INTRODUCING
ene) LEGISLATION 70 TURN

i
‘
i

Canadian Jewish Congress and the Cruise

_ The following article appeared in UJPO News, bulle-
tin of the United Jewish People’s Order, in its June,
1983 issue:

* * *

The plenary session of the Canadian Jewish Con-
gress held in Montreal in May was, according to pre-
Congress propaganda, a gathering to mark a depar-
ture from narrow ‘“‘Jewish concerns”’ to a broadening
Of the aims and purposes of the congress to the em-
bracing of all Canadian concerns.

The congress sessions were held at a time when the
World is beginning to realize fully the menace of pre-
Sent atomic arsenals and the dangerously escalating
Planning for more weapons of mass destruction. It is
this realization of the potential nuclear holocaust that

as sent countless thousands the world over into the
Streets demanding a halt to the nuclear insanity.

Among the many voices heard one may quote
Rabbi Robert Gordis who in his keynote address to
the 83rd Rabbinical Assembly, recently held in Dal-
las, declared: oe

“We are now facing the greatest moral crisis in
the history of Western civilization and the final
denigration of human life lies in the nuclear race
and the threat of nuclear annihilation.”’

Let it be said at the outset that insofar as the strug-

= to 100 Jews marched under the banner of the

halom Committee in Vancouver's 80,000-strong

Peace march April 23. Formed on an ad-hoc basis, the

r alom Committee at the march was comprised of

®Presentatives of the Peretz School, Ichud Habonim,

sated Jewish People’s Order, the Forum for Peace in
© Middle East and Chavurat Shalom.

PHOTO — CANADIAN JEWISH OUTLOOK

gle for peace is concerned, the record of the Canadian
Jewish community and its spokesmen (with the
honorable exception of the United Jewish Peoples’
Order) is one of shameful neglect.

For many months now, the Catholic Bishops of
Canada, the Protestant churches, academics and
trade unionists, members of Parliament and men and
women and especially youth in all walks of life have
raised their voices against nuclear proliferation.

To our shame, in the Jewish community, be it in
statements of Congress leaders, in the Congress-sup-
ported Canadian Jewish News, or in the supplement
to that paper, the Congress publication **Viewpoint’’,
the issue of war and peace, the global menace of the
nuclear holocaust was completely ignored.

On the eve of the Congress it was left to the religi-
ous department of the Canadian Jewish Congress to
prepare resolutions on disarmament. One may ask:
Where were the high profile lawyers, entrepreneurs
and other official Congress spokesmen?

All credit should be given to the religious group in
Congress who declared that continued indifference to
the issue is a ‘fatal mistake leading to world
destruction’.

The Rabbinical group ventured an explanation for
the neglect of the issue of the defence of peace when
they stated:

“The crucial question for most Jews in the.arms
reduction question is — Does it affect us directly?
There is a tendency to feel that this is not really a
Jewishissue. Many believe that any weakness mili-
tarily on the part of the West can hurt Israel.”’

I could quote other ‘‘responsible’’ Jewish opinion
to show that the Jewish Establishment consider that
any opposition to the Reagan sabre-rattling, any dis-
agreement to the plans for the Pershing-2, the Cruise
or the MX may cause difficulties in U.S.-Israel
relations, ;

The resolution submitted to the plenary session by
the Religious Group in the Congress is a departure to
be greeted. It is our hope that the good resolution will
be followed by implementation, that it will result in
Congress and Jewish community active participation
in the growing Canadian movement against nuclear
proliferation. Pes :

The adopted resolution states in part:

“As Jews we are deeply concerned with the
ominous threat which the nuclear arms race poses
to the survival of humanity. At a time when the
superpowers possess strength enough to wipe hu-
manity off the earth, it is the height of folly to
develop ever deadlier weapons.

“Wt is our sacred duty not to allow familiarity
with the nuclear threat to lead to indifference to-
ward the ever increasing dangers of nuclear war. It

News Backgrounder

is our religious and moral duty to speak out when
humanity’s survival is at stake. We must raise our
voices against those experts who believe the myth
that a nuclear war is winnable. We must convey
our sense of urgency concerning the need to help
bring about a mutual verifiable reduction of nuc-
lear arms.”

To our great regrets the spirit of this fine resolution
failed to permeate the debate on the resolution to stop
the projected tests of the deadly Cruise missile on
Canadian territory, the weapon which surely repre-
sents ‘‘the height of-folly to develop ever deadlier
weapons’’.

Well, what happened to the great Canadian issue to
allow or forbid the Pentagon to test the Cruise missile

over Alberta (where we are told frankly that the ter-

raine closely resembles that of the USSR)?

We cannot do better in answer to this question than
to quote the column by the past president of the
Canadian Jewish Congress, Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut,

which appeared in the Canadian Jewish News, May

26:

“The debate hardly touched on the crucial ques-
tion: is nuclear proliferation more or less risky than
giving support to Soviet objectives? And what does
Judaism have to say on the matter, if anything?
Also the rules of debate prevented the Assembly
from giving truly meaningful consideration. Only
three speakers from each side were allowed two
minutes each to present their views. When the vote
came, the opinions of the delegates was clear, they
wanted no truck with the recommendations of the
Resolutions Committee (to ban the tests —-Ed.)
and, instead, chose to support Mr. Trudeau's
policy.”’ 2
It is gratifying that the decision to ‘“‘support Mr.

Trudeau’s policy’’ was adopted by a very narrow vote
(some papers reported it as 105 for, 101 against).

It was a shameful demonstration of Congress poli-
cies. The Establishment, in planning this huge gather-
ing, provided ample time for long speeches by visiting
dignitaries, for special luncheons and banquets, yet
for a burning Canadian issue, to test the Cruise in
Canada or not to test, the organizers could spare only
a total of 12 minutes ‘‘for a democratic consideration”’
of the issue.

Canadian Jewry must now speak. It must make it
clear to our fellow Canadians that we are against the
folly of new and deadlier weapons and that Canada
will not be a partner to Reagan’s plans for a “‘winna-
ble’’ nuclear war. :

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 8, 1983—Page 5