~ onscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscrip- C tion .”’ That choice sample of Establishment double- talk, said to have originated with the high-priest of Liberalism, the late and unlamented W.L. Mackenzie King — a master at the art, could be, and is applied to no end of issues vexing the common people by today’s powers-that-be. It is a brand of double-talk evasiveness, primarily aimed at creating additional confusion in a situation, or upon an issue where confusion is a prime characteristic. A few examples; President Nixon of these United States resorts to this same vintage of studied confusion almost every hour on the hour. ‘‘Peace is necessary,”’ orates Tricky Dicky, “‘but not necessarily peace.”’ With all the hullabaloo around the current publication of U.S. ‘‘top secret’? documents on Vietnam, and with a “credibility gap’’ as wide as the poles such double-talk becomes obvious, even to a blind man, in the U.S. and elsewhere. And just to clinch his ‘‘not necessarily peace’’ part of it, a Canadian member of the International Control Com- mission (ICC), was the lad picked by the Pentagon — and approved by the Liberal Pearson government, to transmit that fact to the government of the Republic of North Vietnam. As a Canadian member of the ICC, as authorized by the Geneva Agreement, his job was to facilitate peace in Vietnam to the utmost. Instead, this agent-provocateur and Canadian stooge for U.S. imperialism chose to do the opposite— to make sure it was “‘not necessarily peace”’ for the people of Vietnam and Indochina. “‘A new constitution if necessary, but not necessarily a new constitution’” purred Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, but after a week in Victoria B.C. with nothing to show for it save a few old BNA remnants woven into an alleged ““Charter’’, (which Quebec shot down in no time flat), shrugged his Ga llic shoulders and averred the whole business was “‘not necessarily a new constitution.”’ The B.C. taxpayers haven't got the bill from “‘host”’ Bennett for this constitutional bull session yet— but they will. As for Quebec, aspiring for sovereign independence within a two-nation State, it found less than nothing in the projected “‘Charter’’— if such a calculation is possible. “Welfare if necessary, but not necessarily welfare’ — except to those adduced ‘‘worthy’’, pontificates a loud- mouthed apostle of a Social Credit hierarchy. Such tubthumping sentiment is loudly echoed by ‘‘foot-in-mouth”’ Tom Terrific Campbell of Vancouver and similar Establishment ilk. These pontifs of ‘‘free enterprise’’ and monopoly giveaways orate loudly anent no welfare for “bums”’, ‘‘deadbeats’’, “‘hippies’’, etc., etc., bearing down heavily on their ‘‘not necessarily welfare’’ string, but are curiously silent on the real welfare recipients — the big monopolies, real estate sharks, et al, who collect millions in comparison to the few thousands handed out in the name of ‘“‘welfare’’ to those who really need a helping hand over a poverty hurdle, when deprived of the inalienable right to work and earn a livelihood for themselves. “Tax reduction if necessary, but not necessarily tax reduction’ — the Bensonian formula, which provides a vast field of opportunity for Establishment double-talk, but damn little in the way of tax reductions, or transferring the nation’s tax burdens on the shoulders of those most able to pay, i.e. — the big trusts, monopolies, bankers, financial institutions, etc., etc. For them at least a Benson Budget is invariably a pleasant event, since a tax reduction is always ‘‘necessary’’, whereas the common citizen, carrying the tax load that should right- fully be paid by the monopolies on top of his own, gets the full weight of that ‘‘not necessarily a tax reduction.” Many more illustrations of this type of Establishment double-talk could be cited; suffice it to say that in these modern times no capitalist government, provincial or federal would long survive if deprived of the versatile weapons of double-talk, the varied use of the moth-eaten cliche, or as the USA has recently raised to a high eminence — the ‘‘credibility gap”. Whether on matters of social, economic, political or what have you, those who constitute the main core of our Establishments, don’t lie deliberately; there are laws to control and restrict that danger, and which in some rare cases, have been evoked against ministerial, or other parliamentary offenders. Nowadays all such people don’t have to lie— all they have to do is study the art of double-talk which facilitates “‘stretching”’ or playing fast and loose with the truth. That way you can become a “‘great stateman’’ like W.L: Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, or Richard Nixon? “The truth if necessary, but no necessarily the truth” provides a wide field for double-talk. eee ce are ou siiljAY > PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1971—PAGE 2 NPA has not heard fant word : from the public says Rankin our Seasons battle not ove By ALD. HARRY RANKIN For the majority of property owners to vote YES on the Four Seasons money bylaw in face of the barrage of propaganda is nothing less than remarkable. It indicates that most people were either not taken in by the guff that was passed around or they were prepared to accept a tax increase rather than see the entrance to Stanley Park despoiled by the real estate speculators and developers. Had the tenants been allowed to vote, there is little doubt that a 60 percent majority would have voted YES. The majority of those who voted NO did so out of a fear of a tax increase on their homes. The unfortunate fact is, however, that if the Four Seasons project goes ahead, their taxes as a direct result will go up a lot more than $6.25 a year. By the time the city builds new multi-million dollar _ traffic approaches to handle the thousands of cars brought to the area by the hotel-apartment complex, our tax bills will take a real boost. When the results of the vote were announced on Wednesday evening, June 23, Mayor Tom Campbell finally admitted that the wording of the money bylaw was confusing due to the way it was worded. But in typical Campbell double talk fashion, he went on: to say that this was not the fault of City Council, and that the Vancouver City Charter required the bylaw to be worded in the way it was. This is so utterly untrue that one can’t help but wonder how a mayor could say it with a straight face. The phoney figure of $9 million was inserted into the money bylaw by the NPA majority on Council. The threat of a $6.25 a year tax increase was manu- factured and circulated by the NPA, and Mayor Tom Campbell was a part of all of these fabri cations. It should be clear to all by now that the NPA has been doing the job for the Four Seasons specu- lators, and their predecessors, right from the,beginning, even to the point of checking Four Seasons ads before they were submitted to the press. The NPA majority on Council had the task of deliverying the goods for the real estate speculators one way or another. The 51.5 percent YES vote was in effect a vote of non-confidence in the NPA. Mayor Campbell says that it’s all a storm ina tea cup and by the time the next civic election rolls around the people will have forgotten all about it. If I’m any judge of the temper of the people, Mayor Campbell and his NPA majority are in for an _ unpleasant surprise. The fact is that the Four Seasons battle is far from over. There’s still the courh™ consider. 4 The whole deal be Council and the Four Se view of the vote and thel the majority of people will now have to be? tiated. I’m sure the his NPA majority 0M” have not yet heard the l@ from citizens oppose?” project. There is a growiNé among our citizens environment must from the real estate trial violators. T electoral parties, like that serve the real est@ and the rich are des defeat. We will yet City Council in vane ; will put the needs 0” ahead of the selfish intel private developers. early decision is expected. At the concluding session exorbitant profiteering were made by opposing par was raised in a submission by the NDP that a rate reduc tion be? ; Citizens call for rapid trafsl The Citizens Committee for Public Transit predicts that by spring and summer, 1972, funds will be approved for the Georgia Viaduct-401 freeway, and for the Third Crossing on Burrard Inlet — unless the people stop the moves! ; The committee was set up in May following a conference of labor and community organiza- tions. The purpose is to build a unified voice for rapid transit and to do something about the developing transportation crisis. Vancouver, Burnaby, the North Shore, Richmond and Coquitlam are represented on the body, which is contacting various organizations and groups in all the areas to make further plans to fight for a rational rapid transit system. The committee has met several times and has. prepared a campaign to inform citizens of the plans for the freeway in the East End; the total effects of the proposed third crossing of Burrard Inlet, and the many alternate systems of rapid transit that are possible. The citizens committee is calling a one-day, delegates con- ference of all interested organi- zations and individuals. The forcus of the conference would | be ‘“‘How can we best move people?’’ They plan a public campaign to stop the East End freeway and the proposed third crossing over Burrard Inlet. see page 12 Anti-freeway rally People in every. area of Greater Vancouver are dis- gusted with the lack of action on the part of authorities where rapid transit is concerned. This week a half dozen community and ratepayers groups sponsored a meeting in the Grandview Community Centre to which mayor and aldermen were invited. > East End people see and want no part of what more freeways will do to their community life and to their property. This week when Mayor d “officially” ore tangle known a2 | ¢ pl million Georgia V! i appeared beat demanding rapl d mo ploc traffic. In the at least has shown CF sont # gence to set a pret rne transit is cont auiey province is no but Tory Ontarl0- at Legislation a! son public transpoTl) oad? if equal footing wl Aineee : a b iven first Te Ste The legislature. bik to roposes] no icent inane of 50 yee it operating deficit will transit systemS, "sal percent of the ee constructing nea other rapid transit 2 tions to existing 0nf"