«K

Take the lid off

NDP charges of corruption and
graft in B.C.’s Socred government
lend credence to a wdespread pub-
lic opinion that the Bennett govern-
ment, unlike Ceasar’s wife, is not
altogether above suspicion, despite
emphatic denials by leading Soc-
red ministers.

The old adage about “events
casting their shadows before”,
now in reverse, are casting their
“shadows” backwards, bringing
vividly to mind the Sommers forest
license graft and scandal; and be-
fore that the petty grafting and
“piggy-bank” looting by former
Vancouver police chief Mulligan.
Both events long kept under pro-
tective wraps by Socred attorney-
general Bonner, until public indig-
nation forced them out in the
open and into the courts.

Against this unsavory back-
ground, it would be reasonable to
assume that the Bennett govern-
ment would have been ready and
anxious to comply with the NDP
demand for a royal commission
to investigate such chages. In-
stead, the government attempts
to palm off these charges as “anti-

Socred” political sniping and re-
fers its “investigation” to a Soc-
red-loaded government accounts
committee?

This Socred anxiety to clamp
the lid on, regardless of the valid-
ity or otherwise of NDP charges,
has an old familiar odor about it.
Socred Attorney-Gen. Bonner just
couldn’t “do a thing” to put the
police grafter Mulligan where he
properly belonged, and as for the
Sommers case, the A-G sat on the
lid for well nigh on two years until
the stench of that odorifrous mess
literally blew him off.

It is ‘searcely likely Premier
Bennett will heed the advice of
this journal, but we tender it any-
way—gratis: Get a non-partisan
or an all-partisan commission on
the job as speedily as possible, with
full'powers to determine if, when,
how, and by whom the public trea-
sury is being looted?

In the face of such charges as
the NDP has tabled, plus an un-
Savory Socred background in mat-
ters of grafting public officials,
the public demand nothing less
than a thorough investigation—
without whitewash,

Editorial comment...

Fesstered on the front page ofthe
February 1 edition of the
“Lumber Worker”, Tony Gar-
grave, MLA (NDP-MacKenzie)
unburdened himself of the follow-
ing in the B.C. Legislature, intend-
ed as a “reply” to a Socred charge
that the NDP was “fanning the
flames of class conflict”.
“Such is the policy of the Com-
munist Party in B.C. and we have
seen the Coalition Party in the
past and the Social Credit Party
now cooperate with the Communist
_ Party in B.C. to undermine the
trade union movement and the
New Democratic Party”.

Makes working people wonder
what brand of political epsoms
salts Tony uses to relieve himself
of that mess of slanderous coldwar
bilge. Whatever the brand, it is an
ill-service to both the trade union
movement and the NDP.

* * *

The current outbreak of anti-
Semitism seen in the wanton
smashing of parked cars, threaten-
ing phone calls, smearing property,
with the word “Jew” points up the
_ need of special action on the part
- of the government.

These nazi-like actions, coupled
with the hoisting of a Nazi flag
at the B.C. Legislature, cannot be

Pacific Tribune

Editor — TOM McEWEN
Associate Editor—MAURICE RUSE
“NBusiness Mgr.—OXANA BIGELOW
Published weekly at:
Room 6 — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.

Phone MUtual 5-5288
Subscription Rates:
Canadian and Commonwealth coun-
tries (except Australia): $4.00 one
year. Australia, United States and
all other countries: $5.00 one year.

Authorized as second class raail by
the Post Office Department, Ottawa
and for payment of postage in éash.

passed over as unrelated incidents:
or the work of isolated hooligan-
ism. They follow the sinister pat-
tern of resurgent fascism, and
should not be treated with silence
and unconcern.

EDITORIAL PAGE

Avoid ‘sh

getisarions of a “breakaway” by
B.C. locals of the International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Workers (AFL-CIO) in a
bid for “autonomy” and the right
of Canadian;trade unions to run
their own affairs, should be stud-
ied with serious concern by all sec-
tions of organized labor.

Locals of the IBPSW contem-
plating such a move are Crofton,
Woodfibre and Prince Rupert.

While the struggle of Canad-
ian affiliates of international un-
ions for full autonomy and inde-
pendence is eminently correct,
history provides many costly ex-
amples to indicate that secessionist
splits and “breakaways” is not the
road to autonomy.

Particularly is this so in the

present period of concerted and
ruthless monopoly-govenment’ at-

tacks upon hard-won labor. stand-.

ards, and when the most pressing
need of the hour is for greater
labor unity, coordination and sol-
idarity.

The arguments supporting Can-
adian trade union autonomy are
legion; a U.S.-resident internation-
al union burocracy that treats
its Canadian affiliates in much the
Same manner as the U.S. trusts and
the Pentagon treat Canada—as
a “poor relative” to be ordered
around at will.

Since more and more Canadian

trade union delgates are being

barred at the U.S. cold war border
from attending international con-
ventions, unions in this country

ort cuts’

have little or no say in the for
ulation of policies affecting their
respective membership. More
over, when Canadian locals take
action to defend wage standards
and working conditions, action
which may not be to the liking of

ocracy,
revoke local charters, set
“trusteeships”, take over and
“freeze” union finances, admin-
ister collective agreements,

all but destroy the local
affected.

Hense the need of full Canad
ian trade union autonomy an
independence is no longer in ques
tion. It is here and it is urgent.

Autonomy fought for on the
sterling principal of. labor unit
for “cooperation ever—dominatio
never” with the international
membership, will hold “Canadian
labor ranks intact and up to fight:
ing strength. Any “autonomy” |
gained by secession, splits 0
“breakaways”, simply means two
Waring unions in a given industr}
instead of one — a situation in
which the bosses, aided by the pro- |
fessionallabor fakers, are the solé |
beneficiaries. ;

Chopping up a_ long-establishd
union is a poor substitute for —
genuine trade union democracy |
and unity, whether done from the
“inside” by the members them-
selves, or by “outside” raiders ;
and dictatorial disrupters. In both
cases the enemies of labor pro
gress are the chief gainers. ;

Tom
McEwen

“debate” somewhat along
the lines of the old loaded poser;
“do you still beat your wife?”
Only in this case it was a couple
of young chaps just out of their
teens, set up to debate whether the
young folks of today were above
or below the ‘moral’ standards
of teenagers a generation ago?

Just how Junior is to determine
whether his ‘‘moral”’
better or worse than Pop’s at a
similar age is something of a
chore. ‘Statistics’? don’t help much,
and Pop, even in his most virtu-
ous mocd, isn’t likely to unburden
all the shenanigans of his youthful
years. ‘

It may be said however, that
the age known as the “Victorian”
era”, the most highly ‘‘moral” in
all its outward appearances, but
behind this ‘moral’ curtain, the
most pretentious, hypocritical, las-
civious, filthy and smutty era in
all our vaunted civilization. Sex
-and debauchery was well hidden
under a vast canopy of multiple
petticoats, crinolines and other
male and female frumpery. But
the percapita production of illegit-
imate offspring, venerial disease
and lewd depravity far exceeded
today’s ratio.

In. the well-to-do families of the
Victorian era the ‘misbegotten”
were well hidden behing a thick
veil of hypocritical obscurity and

A recent TV program featured
a

conduct is .

kant, while the poor “unwed”
were lampooned, hounded and per-
secuted for their ‘loose morals”
by church and state alike. One need
only refer to the brilliant satires
of Robbie Burns on the “morals”
of the upper crust, or to Tom John-
son’s book The Scots Noble Fam-
ilies, which inter alia as the law-
yers say, shows that the bulk of
the scions of these same ‘noble”’
families were invariably ‘‘begot-
ten” out of wedlock.

A couple of generations later,
well steeped in this traditional
“morality” we set about teaching
fathers and sons all the arts of
killing in two world wars. We
spent millions of dollars and bil-
lions of man-hours instructing —
youth how to become proficient

killers. To kill “Huns” and nazis en
masse was our highest achiev-

- ment of patriotic “‘morality’’?

And of course, the German and
all other youth designated as the
“enemy” had like instructions—to
kill proficiently and in bulk. The
moral depravity which turned
German youth into death-oven
stokers was not inherent—but a
foul ideologjcal imposition, today
highly valued by nuclear maniacs
in their ‘overkill’ madness.

All of which poses an intriguing
question, which shouldn’t be sanc-
timoniously thrown at the youth
of today; how much of this tradi-
tional immorality and its sanc,
tioned legalized killing rubs off
onto the social fabric of this age?

Even the politician of this mo-
ment, shouting himself hoarse for
nuclear arms in Canada, adds his
quota to this ultimate of immoral -
horror—the H-bomb. Statistics on
the growing incidence of juvenile
delinquency and crime may _pro-
vide a partial answer to some, but

by no stretch of the. imaginatjon
the final one. Nor is it likely to
be found as long as clerical, liter-_
ary, judicial and similar pundits
“moralize’”’ on the “decadence” of
the youth of today, mainly as a
cover up for their own dereliction |
of responsiblity.

When one reads of Canadian
children, boys ond girls of 14 and
Canadian penitentiaries, and that
15-years of age incarcerated in
in the steady increase of our pen-
itentiary population (now nearing
8,000). the highest group percentage
is among youngsters of 16-years
and under, it requires more than
a battery of ‘eminent’? psychia-
trists, psychologists and _ other
“Jearned” yahoos to ‘‘explain”’ that _
tragedy away. To blame youth for
this moral decay is like trying to
blame a newborn baby for being
‘born?

By and large the youth of to-
day, compared with their ancestors
of this and previous generations,
are morally clean, open, frank and
healthy in mind and body, virtues
unknown in the Victorian era, and
deplorably missing in succeeding |
generations.
But as we said, a periodic yak-
kity-yak “déploring’. youthful be-
haviour, be it biological, philoso-
phical or what have you, always
serves as a good cover-up for adult —
failing.
Hense our mature advice to youth
(which it doesn’t need anyway), |
when faced with this loaded ques-
tion about youthful ‘morals’? can
reply without faltering,—‘‘Why you —
old croakers, we’re half-way uP
Mount Olympus, while you’re still -
moralizing at the bottom on how |
to keep up the pretense of being

what you aren't”.

“March 8, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 4