«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