Utah mine head tells probe:
‘assume we will get permit’

Has the U.S. -owned Utah

Mining Company at Port Hardy

spent millions to develop its
mining site for export of copper
to Japan with the understanding
that they will get the permit they
seek from the provincial govern-
ment to dump 9.3 million gallons
of waste daily into Rupert Inlet?
This emerged as the key

sors to date.

he renewed U.S. bombing raids over North Vietnam

— on the specious pretext of ‘‘rescuing U-S. prison-

ers of war, (POWs) ‘‘to free them from the ‘‘torture’’ aud
indignities of their captors, is by far and away the most
ridiculous excuse yet advanced by the Nixon-Pentagon aggres-

Aside from elevating their ‘“‘credibility gap’’ to a new high,

question at the one-day hearing
in Port Hardy last Wednesday
which remained unanswered
and which caused embar-
rassment to hearing officials,
company bigwigs and govern-
ment representatives.

The issue emerged when one of
the four witnesses allowed by
pollution controller William

“‘rescued’’ no POW’s in the

it is also recorded that they
compounds raided for the good and sufficient reason that none
were there. Obviously Pentagon “‘intelligence’’ is as low as its
credibility.

Since these recent bombing raids over North Vietnam,
Nixon and his murder incorporated crew have had much to say
about ‘humane treatment”’ for U.S. prisoners in Vietnam. Its

of U.S. prisoners-of-war.

brain-washed kept press and news media -have also been
making the welkin ring with their sob-sister wails for the plight

But on the issue of ‘“‘humane treatment’’ for the countless
thousands of Vietnamese, military or civilian, the world
already knows how little has been accorded that heroic and
long-suffering people by the U.S. aggressors and their criminal
accomplices in Ottawa, London, Sidney and numerous other
world capitols. For the Vietnamese, ‘“‘humane treatment”
meant napalm bombs, personalized bombs, a veritable round-
the-clock rain of fire and steel from U.S. bombers. No
crocodile tears about ‘‘humane treatment”’ there. Only for U.S.
armed bandits— caught in the acts of their banditry.

There are however some points of international law
related to this POW pretext for upping U.S. aggression in
Vietnam.

The Hague and Geneva convention on the treatment and
concern for prisoners-of-war (all ranks specified) are well and
clearly defined — an obligation of all civilized (?) warring
nations, (a contradiction there, but skip it for the moment) to
observe the humane protocols of these conventions.

This only applies however to those nations where’a state of.
war has been declared by the offending or offended nation.

Without such a declaration, armed aggression, as is the
case of the U.S. and its accomplices in Vietnam (North and
South) becomes open banditry of the most ruthless and
criminal form.

Hence those engaged in such banditry and taken prisoner
by the nation defending itself from such aggression, are not
POW’s as defined by international protocol, but a mass of
armed banditry, who have no more claim to “humane
treatment” than would be accorded a mad dog.

The Vietnamese people are a deeply humane people who
have suffered and are still suffering deep and grievious wounds
at the hands of U.S. aggressors, yet still manage to place a
greater hope and trust in humanity than their tormentors have
shown so far.

It is also noteworthy to recall that the U.S. Establishment
of the Hague and Geneva Treaty era, were not signatories to
these conventions, just as at later conventions outlawing
chemical and bacterialogical warfare. U.S. representatives
promised to uphold all such conventions, but did not append
their signatures, thus leaving to U-S. ‘‘free”’ to violate any and
all— when it didn’t suit their long-range of aggressive ‘‘empire
building’ in Africa, Asia, Latin America, or elsewhere.

In the growing struggle for peace and peaceful co-
existence between peoples and nations, the common man can
always feel a deep humanity towards his unfortunate
fellowman caught in the devastation of disastrous war. But he
cannot and will never feel the same about armed banditry —
even when its its master conspirators seek ‘‘humane
treatment” for their indoctrinated killers.

The Czech village of Liddice shocked the conscience of the
world nearly a quarter of a century ago. The Mai Lais of
Vietnam are a grim reminder that the savagery of the Hitler
era still lives, the only difference being that instead of an ‘‘Iron
Cross’’ its top killers are rewarded with a Congressional
‘medal of honor”’ for their combat flights in guest of ‘“‘humane
treatment’’. ;

Another Nuremberg is long overdue — with the real
criminals in the dock.

are epee sel oat

PACIFIG TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1970 —PAGE 2

© 357A8-—-ONCT 1b) ABBAS

aT DY 3
ey

aan "ROE ~~ 8

Venables to appear before the
hearing began to ask a series of
questions. Mrs. Elaine Price of
Duncan asked the embarrassing
questions.

First, she wanted to know how
much had been spent by the
company up to now in devel-
oping the property. Venables
hastily consulted with his staff of
government lawyers and ruled
the question “irrelevant.”

Mrs. Price then asked what
would happen if the various con-
tracts estimated at about $30
million for the mine were not
given. Again Venables answered
that this is a ‘‘borderline
question.’’ He wouldn’t allow it
to be answered on the grounds
that the pollution control board’s
jurisdiction is to consider
permits on the discharged waste
and not on construction of the
mine.

Her opportunity came again to
return to this subject when Utah
Mine representative Robert
Wheaton- presented the
company’s case for the pollution
permit. Mrs. Price asked him:
“Is it fair to presume that Utah
started its operation assuming it
would get a permit?’’ Wheaton
answered: ‘‘Yes, that is fair to
assume.”

The hearing was limited by
pollution controller Venables to
four opposition witnesses, three
of them individuals, with
advisers, totalling seven people.
On the other side were seven
representatives and experts to
represent the multi-million dol-
lar U.S. corporation,

Although more than 150 objec-
tions were filed by individuals
and groups, all but the four
picked by Venables were allowed
to appear at the hearing, which
has been strongly condemned by
anti-pollution groups as ‘a
farce.”’

The hearing at Port Hardy was
conducted as a court, with
chairman Venables sitting as a
judge. Each witness was sworn
in by a lawyer from the attorney
generals department and had to
respond to: ‘“‘Do you swear the
evidence you shall give to this
hearing shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the
truth?’’

Obviously the court-like
atmosphere, with legal
procedures such as those
described above, were aimed at
intimidating persons and
severely restricting the scope of
such hearing.

After one day’s deliberations
chairman William Venables
adjourned the _ hearing
indefinitely. without any
announcement as to what
happens next. On Tuesday of this
week, December 8, a hearing is
to be held in Victoria into an
appeal by the Richmond Anti-Pol-

lution Association against the
hearings in Port Hardy.

Anti-pollution groups, in-
cluding the Society for Pollution
and Environmental Control,
(SPEC), have raised strong
objection the hearing. They have
demanded that the hearing be
open to the public and that it be
held in a more accessible place
such as Victoria. Before the Port
Hardy hearing SPEC threatened
to take Venables’ pollution
control board to court.

According to SPEC spokes-
man Venables sidestepped the
threat of legal action by giving

See UTAH, pg. 12 refreshments. needs of citizens.
f oft canal ina 7 wo Ivisosug ints ea ne Bas fares Sages come A
91012 AGE IV-GD 29) Too"h, : lnottolint tanto got nen 2 VOSS 7 ae

& SN
Went |
=

City council agendas
should be changed

By ALD. HARRY RANKIN ——Council’s actions.

During our recent civic
election campaign, some candi-
dates took aim at city
commissioner Gerald Sutton
Brown, charging that he, rather
than City Council, was really
running City Hall. In my opinion,
these candidates were firing at
the wrong target.

The two appointed city com-
missioners, Gerald Sutton
Brown and Lorne Ryan, do in
fact, have far too much to say in
what Council takes up and when,
and also in Council’s decisions.
But that isn’t the fault of the city
commissioners.

My reason for saying this isn’t
so much to defend the city com-
missioners as it is to place the
responsibility where it lies. On
many occasions, I find myself in
opposition to the recommend-
ations of our two city com-
missioners. Gerald Sutton
Brown and Lorne Ryan are
efficient and capable administra-

tors — for this NPA dominated
City Council. Their thinking is in
tune with the NPA and the Estab-
lishment it represents.
Naturally their recommenda-
tions also follow this pattern.

But it is the elected Council
and not its appointed civil
servants who are responsible for

Social aids
Vietnam kids

When Bill Rathie was mayor, a
report was prepared for Council
proposing that Council’s agenda
should be prepared by a
committee consisting of the
mayor, two aldermen and the
two commissioners. That report
was filed and forgotten. The
result is that Sutton Brown, as
the senior commissioner,
continues to prepare Council
agendas.

Preparing Council agendas
isn’t a simple matter. It includes
deciding what should be brought
before Council and when. This
involves the whole question of
priorities. Important issues like
housing, holding down taxes on
homes, pollution control, tenant
rights, etc. don’t receive the
attention they should because
they. are not given priority on
Council agendas. Preparing
agendas also includes recom-
mendations as to what action
Council should take on the
various and many issues before
it.

Our NPA mayor and Council
have declined to _ take
responsibility for preparing
Council agendas.

One reason is that it involves a
lot of work. Mayor Campbell has
never suffered from overwork on
Council business — travel takes
up too much of his time. Nor do
other NPA aldermen seem
anxious to take on extra work or
responsibility.

Our NPA Council likes the
present arrangement. It has the
added advantage for them that if
Council decisions meet with
public disfavor, some of the
blame can always be passed on
to the commissioners.

I believe that the NPA is
failing its responsibilities. when
it leaves the preparation of
Council agendas (which is a
policy matter that shouldn’t be
decided by civil servants) to the
commissioners. Lhope that

One way to help the
children of Vietnam and have
a good time in the bargain is
to attend the ‘‘Ring-a-ring-a-
raffle party’’ sponsored by
the Childrens Committee of
Canadian Aid for Vietnam
Civilians on Friday, Dec. 18.

Being held at the YWCA
Coronation Room starting at
3 p.m., the social evening
will feature the latest film
from Vietnam along with
‘musical entertainment,

: : concerned citizen organ anizations
dancing, sale of home cooking will vemond that New
and a white elephant table. Year Council accepts its

Refreshments will be served. }-
Total cost for the evening of
fun will be 35 cents for

responsibilities and appoints its
own members to prepare Council
agendas, giving priority.to the