_ BRITISH COLUMBIA

A-G writ signals intent of Bills 19, 20

By HARRY RANKIN

The injunction which Attorney-Gen-
eral Brian Smith is seeking against the
B.C. Federation of Labor and the B.C.
Teachers Federation has no precedent in
Canadian history. It is an effort to legally
ban and silence all criticism of, and
Opposition to, any and all policies intro-
duced or implemented by the Social
Credit government.

The statement circulated by the attor-
ney general to explain his application for
the injunction is even worse in the ludi-
crous and false charges it makes against
the labor movement of B.C.

Let me give you some examples.

The attorney general brands the one
day work stoppage in protest against
Bills 19 and 20 as “unlawful,” a “conspi-
racy,” ‘an offence against the state,” an
attempt to “subvert the democratically-
elected will of the people by force” and
an effort “to subvert democratic process
of the legislature.”

The one day protest by labor has not
been declared unlawful by any court.
Any statement by an attorney general
does not make it so. He is simply using
his high position to pass judgement and
find people guilty even before a trial.

To brand the one day stoppage a
“conspiracy” has even more sinister
implications. Conspiracy in law is a very
serious offence, punishable by severe
penalties. Again, the attorney general is
using his high position to present his
personal opinion as law.

The attorney-general also accuses
trade union leaders of “trying to move
the making of laws out of the legislature
and into the streets.” The inference here
is that if the people of B.C. gather in

protest in any» street-demonstration:

against any legislation introduced by the
Social Credit government, they are sub-
verting the democratic process.

‘It is an attempt to subvert the
democratic process, to silence all
opposition and outlaw all protest’

— Harry Rankin

That also is dangerous nonsense. It is
not only our right, but our duty to pro-
test what we consider bad for the pro-
vince. The streets do not belong to the
Social Credit government. They belong
to the people. They are not Social Credit
property. They are public property.

The one-day work stoppage was a
protest only against Bills 19 and
20 — nothing else. It was directed only
at anti-labor legislation, the aim of which
is to deunionize B.C., and destroy the
whole trade union movement.

It was not an attempt to overthrow the
government. It did not even raise the
demand that Vander Zalm resign. There-
fore, to call it an offence against the state
or an effort to subvert the democratic
process of government is simply danger-
ous nonsense.

To charge that the work stoppage was
an attempt to subvert the government by
force is even more far-fetched. No force
was involved in the work stoppage and
no effort was made to stop people
(including Premier Bill Vander Zalm)
from crossing picket lines.

The injunction takes the issue of force

--even further. The term “‘force,’’ as it is

used in politics and governmental
change, usually means drastic measures
such as revolution, use of arms and phys-

‘Gov't tactic won't divert campaign’ — Gerow

Continued from page 1

of collective agreements, intimidation, pick-

ting, strikes by private as well as public

“mployees, general strikes, as well as the

Wrongful inducement of same, as a means

Of accomplishing a governmental change in
€ province, including:

(b) resisting legislative change, showing

er Majesty has been misled or mistaken in

€f measures, pointing out errors in the
80vernment of the province, procuring
a'teration of any matter of government, or
Otherwise interfering with, intimidating or
SUDVerting the democratic and constitu-
Yonal law making process in the province.
in his press conference announcing the
Wnt, Smith told reporters that the govern-
Ment’s application for the injunction was
~8sed on “allegations of conspiracy and
intimidation.
a ‘This work stoppage is an offence
oe St the state, not just the government
-+>” he said. “It is an attempt, by unlawful
ea to intimidate the legislative pro-
Elsewhere, he stated: “The statements
ti ade by the spokesmen of the B.C. Federa-
© of Labor illustrate that the federation
nd its supporters are using their power in
Vacs to coerce the constitutional
leoiq ty Of the government and of the
Sislature of this province.”

'8nificantly, the government waited
ae the very morning of the strike to
~ Ounce the application for the writ
fe which suggested that the cabinet

hoped the strike would reveal weak-
In the labor movement.

When that tactic failed in the face of
massive support for the one-day strike, the
cabinet hoped at least to tie the labor
movement up in the courts fighting the
injunction application, giving the govern-
ment time to proceed with the legislation. In
fact, government lawyer Jack Giles did not

file the writ in B.C. Supreme Court until

June 3.
At a press conference June 1, B.C. Fed

officers Georgetti and Andstein pointed out
that the injunction application was based on
the definition of “seditious conspiracy” laid
down in the Criminal Code, a charge which
Georgetti called “totally without merit.

“I find it totally irresponsible that the
attorney-general would launch such a
serious action through the media, even
before the writ was filed or the persons
named in the writ were informed,” he said.

Andstein. called the process “outrage-
ous,” noting that Smith was attempting to
use a civil injunction process based on alle-
gations of criminal acts.

That point was emphasized in Berger’s
motion to have the case thrown out, in
which he stated that the attorney-general
was attempting “to apply the law of sedition
in civil court.”

y Berger also argued that the A-G was, by
seeking the application, attempting to res-
train lawful political dissent and was
“engaged in an assault on fundamental
freedoms so complete that it ought not to be
countenanced in a free and democratic

society.”

Although most lawyers suggested that
the application would not hold up in court,

ical violence against people and prop-
erty.

The Criminal Code of Canada does
not define force, leaving this to the
courts.

But the attorney-general has, in his
injunction, given an entirely new defini-
tion to the word. He asserts that force
includes work stoppages, breaking union
contracts, intimidation, picketing and
strikes, “resisting legislative change,”
and showing that government “has been
misled or mistaken.”

In other words, if any citizen of B.C.
expresses any disagreement with any
action of the Social Credit government,
that person is automatically guilty of
attempting to overthrow the government
by force.

The injunction could even prevent the
New Democrat MLAs in the legislature
from registering their opposition to any
government bills, because that would be
“resisting legislative change.” Ifthe NDP
advocates “government change” by
throwing out Social Credit at election
time and electing an NDP government,
that could also be banned as an attempt
to change government by the unlawful
use of force. Any such efforts could be
classed as “intimidation” or part of a
labor “conspiracy.”

f3 sits

tion for injunction ‘outrageous’.

the writ itself still represents the govern-
ment’s clear intention of suppressing demo-
cratic rights in its effort to push the
legislation through.

HEU secretary-business manager Jack
Gerow warned that the government was
attempting to “silence any opposition to
government policies by dragging unions
and their leaders through the courts.”

But “labor will not stand idly by and
allow the government to muzzle freedom of
speech,” he declared. “It is our right and
obligation in a democracy to speak out and
we intend to continue to do so.”

Gerow also warned that the government

This injunction is a clear indication of
how Bills 19 and 20 will be used. In fact,
government spokesmen frankly state
that the injunction is being sought
because Bill 19 has not yet been passed.

Bills 19 and 20 and this injunction are
not only an attack on the trade union
movement. They are an attack on demo-
cracy itself.

They are an attempt to subvert the
democratic process in B.C., to silence all
opposition, to outlaw all protest and to
establish a one-party authoritarian state
in B.C. based on the model of the corpo-
rate state introduced by Italy’s fascist
leader Benito Mussolini and recently by
dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

Why are Vander Zalm and the Social
Credit government so blatantly trying to
destroy democratic and trade union
rights in B.C.? The only people who
would benefit would be the big corpora-
tions. Without unions, wages could be
cut to Third World levels, social pro-
grams eliminated, work hours increased
and safety regulations on the job elimi-
nated.

Profits would skyrocket and that is
exactly what the big corporations which
control our economy want. They put
Vander Zalm into office, they financed
his party and now he is delivering what
they want.

Repressive legislation designed to des-
troy unions and democracy has never
worked, and it won’t work in B.C. The -
working people of B.C. fought long and
hard to establish their unions and to win
decent wages and conditions on the job.

Our young men and women gave their
lives in the struggle against fascism in
World War II. We’re not about to give
up our democratic liberties now. The
struggle against Bills 19 and 20 will goon -
until they are withdrawn and trade union
and democratic rights restored in our
province.

GEORGETTI (I), ANDSTEIN AT NEWS CONFERENCE ... government's applica-

was seeking to divert the public’s attention
away from “the real issue — the opposition
to Bill 19 and 20.

“This attempt to throttle public discus-
sion is indicative of a desperate government
that lacks public support,” he said, adding
that the HEU would continue its fight
against the anti-labor legislation.

Georgetti declared Monday that the fed-
eration’s program of action of action
— including the current work to rule
campaign — would not be changed bv the
writ.

“Our protest and plan of action will con-
tinue as it was laid down,” he said.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 3, 1987 e 5