Mixing Murder with “Democracy” in a Mixed Up Week of Another Canadian “Election”

Mixing Murder with “Democracy” in a Mixed Up Week of Another Canadian “Election”
(by Don MacAlpine, May 16, 2011 version)

[Note... Primarily written as a blog meant as a post-election warning to those who continue to breach our Canadian and international laws, what follows should also be of interest to the citizen concerned about peaceful protection of our rights. And the advancement of democracy. Nevertheless, I trust that concerned citizens will read it and pass its thoughts onto others... Don MacAlpine, Nipigon, Ontario, Canada...]

What does a 29 years-old, third wife, witnessing the final saga in the life of Osama Bin Laden, have to do with a Canadian election? And, are we becoming like the passive Dutch of WWII, waiting for someone else to save us from anarchy?

It was well past Canada’s election day of May 2 before I actually watched videos of Americans celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden. In fact, I would not have known that Bin Laden had been assassinated had a friend not emailed me scathing commentary about the incident on the morning of the Canadian election. That friend dared to ask where the independent judicial orders had come from. He asked this well before the debate about that murder accelerated. That Bin Laden had been without a gun. That little effort had been put into having the man arrested instead of being seemingly summarily executed.

[Footnote of May 16... I watched a hastily prepared "documentary" about the "hunt for Bin Laden" on the Discovery Channel, 10 pm on May 15. The commentator shown from the NBC affiliate made the statement that the mission of May 1 became solely a hunt and kill mission, with never any intent to have Bin Laden captured.]

Therefore, I suppose, I should understand. I suppose I should understand American comedian, Jon Stewart, sidelining his May 2 program’s scheduled skewering of rich man Donald Trump. Rich man Trump was only momentarily flashed on Stewart’s The Daily Show’s May 2 screens. Trump was caught showing his obvious distaste for the joke that was made of him at a national press gallery event. After all, the democracy of, the freedom of, greed should make the making of a wannabe President, like former Canadian-connected Trump, right? After all, Trump married Ivana after meeting her in Canada at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. This shallow marital equation should give us the right to make him Canadian?

Such shallow status, after all, condemns anyone connected to Osama Bin Laden.
The rightness of the rich man’s right rises above all other things “democratic”. Bin Laden suffered for this scowling hypocrisy. Trump scowled, brows furrowed deeply, a traitor to the democratic concept that not even he should be above recrimination or derision.

If the murder is through bombs and bullets, is it made any more condemnable than the mass murder by starvation? Evidently we are to accept the frowns of the modern princes of America. They tell us to eat cake. Meanwhile, silence should prevail? Those distant from the privileged in North America should suffer because of the arrogance achieved because the rich have gained greater positions? Or even in the nations of North America, we should accept this stupidity and be forever silent?

Maybe I should forgive Jon Stewart for his celebratory rant. Maybe even independent-minded I should stay silent to how appalled I felt as Stewart animated his May 2 speechifying. Stewart bounced about with such enthusiasm over Bin Laden’s death. This escalated to the extent that he eventually said that he would have gladly been the one to ‘off’ Bin Laden. Evidently, even to normally charismatic and humourously pensive American Stewart, this is “justice” in our modern world. Apparently, it can be justified, by an American, who claims to be proud of his Jewish roots while embracing the rest of the world, by then slipping in the prerequisite “qualifications” that will make this great celebration “right”.

Stewart made certain that he slipped in accolades for “those Arabs”. He congratulated the Arabian world. The reign by Bin Laden had ended while the “young Arabians” of Tunisia and Libya and on and on “sought democracy” in their streets.

On May 9, I asked myself “Maybe ‘democracy’ is ‘celebratory assassination’? After all, there was much dancing in the streets in some nations when Mussolini and his mistress were slaughtered as the Nazis were overwhelmed in Italy during the waning months of WWII. But, if ‘democracy’ is Presidents giving the order to murder without trial, why did the world hold trials for Nazi leaders in Nuremberg? Why then drag Saddam Hussein out of a bunker to be tried and then abused by those who hated him, in a show trial?

Why then assassinate Bin Laden instead of arresting him?”

My friend had already asked this question to Canadian “leaders” well before I watched these reruns on May 9. So, perhaps the writing gods purposely threw wrenches into my progress in writing this blog/email. It was the internal debates and frustration that led me to still be editing and re-writing this on May 12. Ironies appear in my daily world.

On May 12, I just happened to turn on the CBC radio as I prepared a coffee to set down to the day’s editing. Writing is sometimes such hard work. Listening to the rot that prevails in today’s world via our media is often the last thing I want to do on any day, recently. So, I wonder what it was that led me to the 9 in the morning broadcast on The Current?

Anna Marie Tremonti was talking to Benjamin Ferencz (http://www.benferencz.org ). Now over 91 years of age, he served in the American army in World War II. Speaking wisely, he related how he was conscripted to gather evidence from European concentration camps. He was an American prosecutor at the Nazi war crimes’ trials in Nuremberg.

Ferencz spoke like my 94 year old father. While some deride age in human beings, both of these aged men still speak with great wisdom, in my estimation. Ferencz answered Tremonti’s questions with conviction and clarity. He had written a letter to the New York Times in which he said: “... Jubilation over the death of the most hunted mass murderer is understandable, but was it really justifiable self-defense, or was it premeditated illegal assassination? ... The Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler’s worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail. Secret nonjudicial decisions based on political or military considerations undermine democracy. The public is entitled to know the complete truth. ...” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/l04binladen.html) . He reiterated to Anna Marie that people, like the Nazi Goring, were not summarily executed when they were found.

The reason we should be concerned is what then transpired on the same radio program. An “educating lawyer” from Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, Michael Newton, was subsequently interviewed. Newton was, according to the CBC’s The Current’s web page “... the international law advisor to the Iraqi High Tribunal in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein. And he has negotiated war crimes parameters for the International Criminal Court. ...”. This in itself reveals the arrogance of the USA in all of this. This is because we know that Hussein’s trial was held in the nation where he was hated. That was a trial directed only by American lawyers with a vested interest in seeing the man murdered in apparent retribution. Or to hide the idiocy of a war started on the basis of “weapons of mass destruction”, which were never found.

Hussein’s was no “international trial”, no matter what the Americans may say.
We might also want to think on the fact that Tennessee was one of those states where racism was allowed to prevail despite the lessons to 1945 and the subsequent international law of 1948. That law was to compel that this base indecency of human nature, racism, ended immediately. It did not in more parts of the world than just the southern USA. But Tennessee carries a racist history after 1948 that should make the rest of us cringe.

We might then want to cringe at what became Newton’s thesis. His 'thesis' should lead us to ask which apple tree these empowered people fall out of. Worse, why does our media then assign any accreditation to what becomes pervasive and repetitive nonsense from our so-called “legal professionals”?

Newton went on record, as a “legal expert”, to say that Bin Laden’s assassination was justified primarily for this reason: ... The world was already educated to how bad the man was. ... "Common sense"... remember this phrase as you read further into this blog. This lawyer's stupidity is equivalent to us saying that, once the media has published the details of any crime, the alleged perpetrator should simply be thrown into jail. Or executed. Ah, the good ol’ Wild, Wild West!

I was appalled to hear this teacher of law telling the world that the trials of Nuremberg were needed to educate the world to what had happened in Europe; And, the trial of Saddam was needed to educate the people of Iraq to Saddam Hussein's atrocities; And the trials at international courts were needed to educate the people in the Serbian and Croatian conflicts as to the wrongs of the perpetrators like Milosevic in that part of our world.

But, because an American “legal expert” tells us that the world was already educated to Bin Laden’s history, America was justified in executing the man? Since when did America become the policing agency for our world? Since when did America become the epitome of Iraqi, Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian dictators and the American mafia, whose “political leaders” determined who would live and die, without trial?

Trials are not opportunities to reveal the facts of any case to the world? Our courts have become “instruments of education” at the whim of these “legal experts”?
The harshest question is when the likes of supposedly highly moral Jon Stewart and other members of our media start to ask why Canadians and Americans should not be throwing the corruption out of our “leaderships”, as we are expecting from those “young Arabs”.

Now, Jon Stewart might have gained some credibility with his “qualifications” for young Arabia if our modern democracies could demonstrate that they had fulfilled the lessons of WWII. Instead the example set at the end of WWII in international courts deteriorated to this. Under America’s “lead” by 2001, for crying out loud.

Saddam Hussein was first publicly judged as a man who had led international incidents of terrorism and internal slaughter. He was not given a trial in an international court. His became a show trial of inevitable retribution. Iraqis desecrated Hussein’s carcass in a way that was not allowed with Nazis by 1946. Then, on May 2, 2011, Americans danced in the streets like many wild Italians and others did after Mussolini was gutted and rendered, without a real trial.

How often must we purposely repeat these reminders? And this one especially: Those trials in Nuremberg included German lawyers who had been promoted by the Nazis to become “judges”. We should all remember that as we fawn over the words of “legal experts” who rationalize injustice with blatant stupidity.

What should scare the hell out of us is that this question remains unanswered. What motivated and then allowed Mr. Bin Laden to get to the level of murder that he is alleged to have perpetrated? And what is it that will stop the American Presidents, of now or of our future, to decide that someone, who dares to challenge their policies with words, needs to be stopped before they indeed become “terrorists”? Since when did America become the self assigned policing state for our globe? Since when did the starvation of criticism and the suppression, or omission, of processes getting to the whole truth and nothing but the truth become any lesser an evil in nations calling themselves “democratic”?

Jon Stewart celebrates what on May 2, saying that America is on its way back to greatness because one man has been murdered? Stewart forgets what American song writer Griffin House says in his song I Remember (It’s Happening Again) from his Flying Upside Down album “... they teach us history so we can learn from our mistakes ...”. America forgets the lessons from Nuremberg. That was a war, by the way, that Americans were reluctant to enter until well after scores of Canadians had been sacrificed on the shores of France, yet again. 1942. The town was “Dieppe”, in case someone has forgotten the name of that European shore-town.

What does it take to remind all that Americans entered Iraq first, to find Saddam, based on lies? What does it take, as long-time American protest singer Jackson Browne says in his Lives in the Balance, when we are told, again and again “... how the USA stands for freedom, and we’ve come to the aid of a friend... but who are the ones we call our friends, these governments killing their own, or the people who finally can’t take anymore, and they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone ...”?

Does the celebration in America become reflective of history or repetitive of history? Does Jon Stewart step back and ask what leads to a level of frustration that leads to murderers gaining more credibility than peaceful change? Does the debate about the role of the legal promises of democracy, that have been run rough shod by the rich and the partisan, get exposed? Is the change in demeanor of television’s heroic man of business, Donald Trump, exposed as he continues seeking power through “the vote”? Is there internal navel gazing to ask why the voters in North America now treat the vote and the principles of law and “justice” with disdain? Or, do we allow what transpired in North America by May 2 to slide into obscurity in a repeat of history, not into constructive challenge because of history?

The harsh reality is that Osama Bin Laden cannot be brought back to life to ensure that “justice” became a true measure for the global community, not an excuse for dancing in the streets of an “America” that thinks itself great. The reality can become that even Jon Stewart will start to assess if his behaviour was appropriate when ominous signs exist.

Even his “democracy” is far from being legal in the rules of conduct set down in international laws by 1948.

So, in a mixed -up week of another illegal Canadian federal election, if we cared about the international laws that Americans no longer seem to care about, we might all want to muse on this. What happens when the legal promise of “democracy” becomes that even “our vote” is trumped by big money for the sake of appearances? And what are Jon Stewart and all other citizens “of democracy” doing to make certain that there is never any need for the desperate to turn to tyrants for hope when “democracies” have become shallow hypocrisies?

Stewart, and all of us, need to think more deeply about those ominous signs coming out of our own “democracies”. We are still reeling under the ramifications of dishonesty in business that started to reveal itself in 2007. If we think that one murder of one tyrant is about to change that reality, then the murder of innocent citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations should have already ended this economic crisis. After all, innocents died so that the recruited and indoctrinated disciples of Bin Laden would die. Sadly, the news rooms are still full of acknowledgements that Osama’s death will not end “the threats of terrorism”.

Might this be because we are unable to prove that our “democracies” are indeed respecting the legal promises of 1948?

The real challenge comes from the signals that came during and after another election in a farce of “democracy”. Canada’s 2011 “election” was any thing but legal under the promises of 1948 and then Canada’s own constitution of 1982. That constitution was supposedly modelled after that ground-breaking promise of 1948. Ironically, that ground-breaking legal promise of 1948 was constructed from the American constitutional promise of 1776.

What was the back bone to all of this clamour about democracy being best for citizens of our world after 1776, re-vamped in 1948, internationally? That we are all equals under the law. That the vote is an important instrument to ensure that our “leaders” are indeed “leaders”. That our leaders, who achieve power via our vote, will be forced to respect the base interests of all citizens. This is to be achieved by rules set out in our constitutions and international laws. Our "leaders" are to be forced to do so by completely independent and impartial institutions of justice.

However, on May 2, 2011, Jon Stewart’s program focussed first in on the prominent hair and nose of Donald Trump. That image and the subsequent celebratory focus on an all-important murder from the day before pre-empted the Canadian election. Some irony in that, is there not? Bad hair, from a Trump card who bonked and married a Canadian Czech, and murder Trump any and all discussions about real democracy. This is what makes “good television” in the eyes of the media magnates.

A little ironic, is it not, that one week later Canada’s CTV is engaging American ‘retired CIA experts’ as pictures are shown of Osama watching videos of himself, in his deeply-aged, grey beard. The focus on CTV is that Bin Laden’s image used in public was one of a dye job for his beard and hair. It is laughable that “our” media focuses in on Bin Laden’s shallowness about “image” in nations where the pundits point out that “image” is what creates presidencies.

The focus on ‘image’ continues while the real farce builds. And, yes, the farce builds because the same reporters rush to point out that Osama’s 29 year old “third wife” is the one who has led American ‘intelligence’ to the suggestion that Osama had another compound in the hinterland farms of Pakistan. The Americans express outrage that Pakistanis did not know who lived on the farm and in the compound in a Pakistani military town. Meanwhile, the same media show this local ignorance again and again in their own telling of stories in Canada and America.

The mass murderers in these nations are someone whom neighbours sometimes view as reclusive and unknown and sometimes even kind and gentle. In Canada and America, this is normal. In Pakistan, because it is a fugitive who hides in his compound and lets the kids out, rarely, to the corner store or to play with neighbours, the judgement is stupidly harsh.

Oh, this life of Bin Laden is so distasteful! At least it seems to be in the “Canadian and American” premise of “democracy”! After all, “democracy” is about “common sense”, is it not? If a man should feel the need for multiple partners to fulfill his sexuality, why should not a woman be equal? An old, bearded man dyes his hair to hide the grey and bonks 29-years-old somethings, without a divorce, for crying out loud! This would not be allowed in Canada or America, where monogamy is the law! After all, the image that we are fed, about a continuing war into Afghanistan that bleeds into adjacent Pakistan, is that the women are trampled human beings in that part of the world. This then justifies mass bombings at weddings and other civilian places.

We will save the women from sexism in other nations. We will build the random bombs in nations where racism prevailed, and prevails, despite 1948. Is there not some irony in the fact that Jon Stewart admits to another learned guest on May 2 that his appearance has been overshadowed by this philandering murderer’s murder?

Stewart’s final guest on his May 2 evening show was a lawyer. Philip K. Howard had written a book entitled The Death of Common Sense. Wow, it takes a lawyer to tell us that our nations are being ‘suffocated’ by lawyers!

What we all might want to think about is that, on the same day that I finally went to Stewart’s May 2 video clip, I received an email from an independent thinking Canadian friend of mine. If the reader of this email (or blog) goes to my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca web page, the one “About the Law”, then you will find extracts of the 1948 international law. Canada and the United States and 46 other “democracies” signed onto it in that year. These nations then began to blatantly ignore that law. You will have to read, struggle through, my posted Part 6 “fine print” posted at my book’s site, http://JustBusinessTheBook.com (and, yes, it is undergoing intense editing to change its hastily-written flaws). There, you will come to understand, especially if you read the whole book, how lawyers became the epitome of slime three years after the trials at Nuremberg began to march along.

What even Jon Stewart needs to think about is this: when does ‘education’ become indoctrination? After all, I watched Stewart blathering on with another “legal expert”, “trained in the law”, who explained that America’s law makers had made the law theirs and hence impossible to change. Apparently what happened in 1949 in America is acceptable because “legal experts” tell us “this must be”? After all, the law of 1948 promised us that racism and sexism and partisan exclusions and all other forms of discrimination would end in 48 “democratic nations” in 1949.

Instead, in America and Canada, it took race riots and two decades of marching to end the simplest, most visible discrimination of segregation based on colour of skin.

If such base injustice can last so long, even Stewart needs to be challenged as to why he buys into the indoctrinations by the indoctrinated “legal professionals”. Stewart, and all other readers of this communication, might want to think about how this is enabled. What my Canadian friend noted in his email commentary, about Canada’s latest “elected dictatorship”, is relevant.

My friend took note of this gem, recorded in Canada’s Supremest of Courts, again and again: " ... The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protections of the rights to which they are entitled." - A.G. Nova Scotia and A.G. Canada [1951] SCR 31 at p. 34...”. This 1951 extraction is oft quoted into Canada’s courts. I quoted it into courts starting in 2003.

What we should remember is what happened after 1951. The indoctrination, that even Jon Stewart falls hook, line and sinker for, plays too much into why we have lost credibility in our “democracies”. We need to muse on why tyrants and violence seem our only recourse to ‘change’. Might it be that we allow the nonsense of lawyers to prevail over “common sense”? We need to muse on why our structures for peaceful change, namely our voting systems, are now sessions for cynicism in our nations. We seem united only when some politician is successful at making someone else our enemy and, hence, the culprit for our own sad failures.

Our constitutions are “laws”. Our law of 1948 became an international constitution. Even lawyers, promoted to Canada’s supremest of courts by 1951, allowed that the law should never become the property of any one sector of society. So, why have we, even the supposedly educated Jon Stewart, fallen into the trap that “the law” is now the sole property of “the legal expert”, the lawyer?

Why do we forget that Nuremberg became a trial for lawyers? These were people who were promoted by Nazi partisans so that “new laws” could eliminate the basic common sense that prevailed in our world, even before 1939. There was no right imbued in any society for anyone to murder anyone simply because they were different. Instead, the base naivete shown by even Stewart becomes that, if a new law is made by lawyers and enforced by partisan courts, then we must accept this, even into 2011.

Do we assign this parameter of behaviour in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt? Do we expect responsible citizenry to stand up against those who tell us that they are the law when we know that they are gross violators of the laws of human decency?
If we listen to the common man and common sense, we just might become brave young Arabs in our own small worlds. We just might return to seeking truly democratic leaders instead of settling for the pompous priests of the likes of rich men like Trump and indeed a President named Obama.

The reader might want to think about what my wise Canadian friend said in an email to Parliamentarians after the Canadian election. He is not trained as a lawyer, but, like me, forced by circumstances created by lawyers and their political friends, he has read too many laws. Therefore, while talking about how the latest ‘elected dictatorship’ in Canada is still beholden to all citizens and our constitution, my friend makes this wise observation: “... it is only by the mere fact of the parliamentary convention created by politicians within the party system's guise of "responsible government", that we are forced to endure the notions of "minority" and "majority government" -- the latter of which puts everyone opposed to a Government's agenda (as now most of Canada is in regards to Harper's take on "free trade" and the tar sands and... ) in the role of a starving Oliver Twist, empty bowl in hand, before a miserly Mr. Bumble. Don't know about you, but I don't put much stock in making prayer and/or supplication to those who've been profiting from our undoing. Similarly, I don't put much stock in "leaders" who do. ...”.

For those who do not fully understand what is being said here, you might want to go to the relevant parts of my book. There I discuss the illegalities behind Canada’s (and America’s) “electoral” systems, but especially my experiences in Canada’s. Let me summarize why, yes, electoral corruption has corrupted our democracies. But only because partisan corrupted courts protect corrupted voting systems.

In 1997, the rawly created Canadian Action Party tried to recruit me. In 1997, they fielded 58 candidates in Canada’s federal election. My book makes a record of the behind the scenes fiascoes that led me to stay away from party politics. What is relevant is this consideration.

By 2004, I had discovered the depth of partisan appointments to Canada’s courts. I was warning even the Canadian Action Party’s newest “leader”, Connie Fogal, to think carefully. Fogal, another indoctrinated lawyer, was leading that Party into the financial duress of challenging Canada’s newest electoral rules in Canada’s courts. Having run in three elections with over 50 candidates in Canada’s federal elections of 1997, 2000 and 2004, that fledgling party was publicly claiming financial election fatigue. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats, and even Canada’s separatist Bloc Quebecois Party of Quebec, were conveniently draining taxed coffers to filter taxed money back into their campaign coffers. Fogal’s party was protesting that this redirection of taxes was unfair. Her party declined because of a declining ability to retain enough finances to generate propaganda of their own.

I warned lawyer Fogal that she was appearing in front of “judges” with partisan backgrounds. I warned Fogal and her friends that these “judges” were saying, again and again, in response to my own civil arguments in Canada’s supremest of courts, that “the government” must be allowed to make whatever new laws they needed to. Fogal and her band of the indoctrinated lost because lawyers are indoctrinated to believe that partisan judges are above reproach.

And the politicians in power use their propaganda to promote that the citizen is too stupid to listen to our history.

Even during an election in 2011.

Will Jon Stewart and others think about this?

I refused to vote in this election. I registered why at my blog and in emails to politicians and others. I knew friends who also did not vote. One subsequently expressed some guilt about this.

After all, a friend of hers was a volunteer driver for one of Canada’s big three political parties. This friend had picked up an elderly lady of Ukrainian descent, a supposedly “responsible voter” in Canada’s Thunder Bay. This lady, of Ukrainian history, expressed anger and disgust at any Canadian who did not vote in 2011.

This, this elderly lady said, as she rode in a car sponsored by a big Canadian party, rich enough from our taxes to recruit “volunteers” to make the elderly feel good about themselves, was because of history. She was from the Ukraine where the vote had been denied.

This becomes the base for the stupidity of our modern hypocrisy and indoctrination. Why do I dare to say that? Because my ex was from an Ukrainian heritage. I know this base history.

First, the Ukraine was overrun by Nazis who said that anyone who aligned with them would be justly rewarded with imposed slavery. All others would be executed. Then the Ukraine was overrun by communists who said that their political party would be the only one that would be legally allowed for any citizen who wanted to vote.

So, will the likes of Jon Stewart educate themselves to the truth behind Canada and America’s pretence at “democracy”? Or, will they subvert their responsibilities to the indoctrinated and a continuing indoctrination? Nazis and communists allowed “a vote” at various stages of their histories. Because we “have the vote”, we are “democracies”? The hypocrisy of this is revealed after Canada’s 2011 election when I talked to my parents. I did that on the same day that I was musing about my friend’s email. And that Uke lady.

I am following up Mother’s Day in Canada with a call to my parents. The conversation somehow gets to the election held one week previous. My mother confesses that she and my 94-year old father voted “Conservative”. I am shocked, I tell her. I wonder why she would vote for these modern Nazis, I say. She becomes defensive. They have voted based on the local candidates. They are old. They had some problems getting old age supplements redirected in the previous year. The local Liberal provincial parliament representative was not helpful at all. After bureaucrats told them that they would have to wait two months to get money they were desperate for, the Conservative federal parliamentarian leapt into action. My parents' supplement arrived in 6 days time. Why would they not vote for this Conservative man?

The worst commentary from her became “What credible options did we have?”

Despite our “freedoms”, our ballots have become constricted options where the citizens see only big political parties as their options. The citizens see it as their obligation to tick off one box on their ballot. They do so, even if they do not like the options. They do so, especially if they see that they might personally gain or are rewarding those who helped them gain.

All of this commentary comes after I receive mid-election-campaining e-mails from “Independent” candidates. I had first met these people over the internet after the 2006 federal election. Eduard Hiebert and Tim Hickey exchange emails after Hiebert sends emails out noting how unfair Canada’s 2011 electoral system is.

But, you see, those who survived World Wars and fled to Canada to escape pogroms will not ask why they have listened only to the propaganda on Canadian airwaves, about political parties. Propaganda, that the responsible citizen should vote, is spouted by the partisan-implicated Canadian media well before the “official” election announcement is made. The old Ukrainian lady and even my father, who trained to lay down his life in a war where only the Nazi partisan was allowed, will not ask why the independent candidate is not speaking in advertisements at the same time that Liberal and Conservative and New Democratic Party advertisements appear. These big party ads appear before an election is called. The elderly people will not make the connection.

Their taxed dollars are first taken away so that they are redistributed to those who make new rules in our nations as to who will be allowed to have voice in our nations and when. Our taxes are then paid to “our free media” so that “voice” will be made by those with money.

Unfortunately, Hiebert and Hickey perpetuate the propaganda. After all, if their names make a ballot, then all must be good in our “democracies”? It does not matter that these big political parties drain the coffers of our taxes to make propaganda that leads that old Ukrainian lady and my war-surviving parents to think that, if they have an option to listen to these three, big, political parties shout that they are better than all others, all must be well. It must be because, in Canada and America, we get to listen to at least 2 big political parties, rich enough to advertise that they are our best and only “credible” option!

Who cares how illegal it becomes when this propaganda hides the truth. The constitutional obligations of equality have been suppressed for the easy propaganda that, if we do not vote, “we” are irresponsible. Vote without thinking. Like those good communists did for the only-allowed political party of propaganda in that old Ukraine.

The stupidity of this is too readily illustrated to an even greater depth in Canada on May 2, 2011. This is because the Canadian media is full of this report.

A lady named Brosseau has been elected in the province of Quebec. In an apparent backlash against all other options, the people of Quebec vote for Jack Layton. He is ‘New Democrat’. At least he is not Conservative. At least he is not Liberal. At least he is not Bloc Quebecois. So, the simpleton voters vote for Ms. Brosseau. She, after all, is listed as the New Democratic Party’s potential representative for these citizens.

She is sitting in New Democratic Party headquarters in some Ontario city. She is just returned from a gambling junket to America’s Las Vegas. She is astonished to see that the official results make her the elected representative for a Quebec electoral riding. The Canadian media is full of reporting that she has never once stepped on the geography of this part of Canada. Its citizenry has now put her into Canada’s Parliament, simply because her name is associated with Jack Layton’s New Democrats.

So, old lady from the Ukraine and even my parents, who was the responsible voter in this election? The citizens who showed up to vote on the basis of their self-interests having been served, like my parents? Does it matter what the same Conservatives now elected or appointed to Canada’s Senate (read about Bob Runciman and that former Ontario copper named Julian Fantino in my book) did to our constitution and even their own son starting in 2002? Or are the irresponsible really the voters of Quebec who acted like the Germans before 1936 and voted for a man they thought would best serve their interests? Because they saw no other options.

A commune heist is still a commune heist when the communist is still someone in the same house saying that the citizen has enough choices while the citizen despises the commune heists no matter the brand name of the jesters. Or simply votes for the commune heist, not realizing that the commune has been already heisted.

Who was the ‘eligible voter’ who was irresponsible? Yes, those who stay silent to all of this are culpable in the measure of responsible behaviour. However, the truly responsible ones are the ones who dared to register with the Elections Commissioner, politicians and all others that this federal election was an illegal farce in 2011, because our constitution had been completely violated... Since 1982. ... And it was illegal because our elected have engaged their lawyer friends who made our laws and our courts theirs and their partisan friends all powerful.

The “citizen”, who merely marked a ballot, is irresponsible. The citizen who marked while not caring about why they had limited options and heard little else beyond voices from the commune of partisan pretentiousness is as irresponsible. The citizen who then voted willingly but unwittingly for someone that 75% of the rest of citizenry did not want to vote for is no hero in our “democratic” nations.

If we apply the common sense that comes out of Iraq and Tunisia and other Arabian nations, the common sense is set in those nations. IF we were truly responsible citizens, we would refuse to legitimize the systems that our “leaders” have corrupted with the help of corrupting “legal professionals”.

It all comes back to recognizing our history and starting to respect the law of 1948 that came out of that history. Let us use “independent thinking” as an example.
Independent thinking? If our constitution calls us all equals, why do we buy into the precept that, if it is not a political party or an association of some kind, then the citizen who speaks independently bears no condition of equality?

I do not know the conditions of electoral eligibility in the United States of America. I do know that, in 2008, I drove through the State of Michigan and listened to candidates for “judges” using paid advertisements. These hid their sponsored affiliations with Democrats or Republicans. I do know that, in Canada, I faced lawyers and “judges” who had original loyalties registered with the limited partisan affiliations of Liberals or Conservatives and rarely New Democrats. I do know that, in 2006, when I first encountered Hiebert and Hickey, I began to argue that it was ludicrous that even independent thinkers had to form “associations” for democracy to be served.

“Independent Thinkers”? History? Bin Laden? A little bit of irony in Canada’s history.

One of the first, registered “officially independent thinkers” in Canada’s federal electoral history was Manitoba’s Louis Riel. To educate the likes of Jon Stewart and others, Riel became a rebel. He was eventually forced to take up the gun to try to defend the rights of his Metis nation. Acclaimed as an independent in 1873, the democratic voice of Riel was overwhelmed by the arrogance of party dictatorships. Riel was eventually hung by federal government. It was not until recently that Riel became recognized as a real Canadian leader whom big political parties had wanted suppressed as a threat to their omnipotence.

Do we really know the whole story of Bin Laden and why he felt compelled to undertake violence to promote and protect the perceived rights of his people? Worse, do we ensure that we have truly democratic institutions that will allow the truth to be exposed and dealt with? My personal experience is that we do not.

In 2006, I started to engage independent thinkers in an attempt to bring accountability to our constitution back into Canada’s electoral system. In reviewing the history of this part of our political spectrum, the following interesting aspects arise. The numbers I now present are quick counts and rough ratios.

Since Canada’s inception in 1867, the number of candidates applying to represent Canadians as an elected “Independent” was relatively insignificant. Fewer than 10 candidates appear as independents in most earlier elections. Ironically, after battling partisans in WWII, this number surged to 68 candidates in Canada’s 1945 post-war June election. The number fell back down to relative insignificance, near 10% of the total number of Parliamentarians, until after 1972.

By 1972, separation was being hotly debated in Canada’s Province of Quebec. Creeping back up over 50, the number of independent candidates spiked at (about) 71 in 1984. That was the first full federal election in Canada after Canada’s “we are all equals!” constitution arrived in 1982.

What becomes disturbing and ironic is that, by 1993, the credibility of Canada’s three federal parties was in question. Not only did the satirical Rhinoceros Party come uncomfortably close to unseating some of the major party candidates. About 122 Independent candidates were also officially registered in that election. Consider that, in 2011, only 155 of Canada’s 308 seats are required to grant a “governing majority” under the new rules made by ruling partisans. It was clear, in 1993, that the major political party’s of Canada faced a serious threat from persons who did not buy into the concept that only the big political parties should rule us.

When I was asked to consider running in the 1997 federal election, I began to discover that our federal parties had changed “taxed financing eligibility” rules to “percentage of votes achieved” ratios. This made it nearly impossible for fledgling political parties to get established with any voice. After all, new parties, like the Canadian Action Party that tried to recruit me in 1997, first drained their coffers fighting the already established advertising by Canada’s big 3 political parties. Then the new rules set by these big political parties ensured that the new political party would be exempted from access to four years of taxation. Meanwhile, the big political party continued to campaign with renewed coffers replenished by taxed dollars.

By 2006, when I explored running as an Independent, I understood how the “new rules” excluded independent voice. In 2006, there were 88 Independent candidates. This was, in part, spurred by the appearance of once party members of the Liberal and Conservative factions who publicly stated that being independent was more important than being servile to the big political parties. Hope arose for those thinking like independents. However, by 2008, with the trotting across Canada’s Parliamentary floors (read the book or the blog at my book’s site for the partisan horse-trading stories on Brison, Turner, Emerson, Comuzzi and so forth, without a vote), it was publicly acknowledged that even the elected independent in Parliament was discriminated against.

So, Ms. Ukrainian and my parents stay silent to the implications of that base fact. The few elected Independents that did exist in 2008 disappeared in the 2011 election. After all, why would a fatigued citizen vote for anyone labelled as “independent” when Garth Turner, a once “journalist”, and Joe Comuzzi, a once lawyer, said by 2008 that the label “independent” purposely removed them from any opportunity to make voice ‘for their citizens’ in our Parliaments.

So, Canada’s citizens stayed silent to the obvious discrimination that this implies. No one questioned the repeat of history where partisans illegally changed the rules of governance so that they prospered and other voices were shut out.
How did this happen? Because, as in the commune Ukraine, the commune's of elected Big Party members and their partisan lawyers and their appointed partisan-implicated judges all said that there were enough political parties. Therefore, the propaganda conveniently became that it was the citizen who was irresponsible if they did not vote.

This is why a 29 year old beleaguered lady in the breeding stables of Osama Bin Laden is relevant to the mixed up politics of North America in May 2011.

Sorry. I have been in too many court rooms since 2002. Read the book. Contrary to what Canada’s “legal profession” tells us (and I suspect that the same applies to Americans), “justice” is not what our lawyers have made it: a plethora of rules that belies any common sense. Canada’s laws state that, no matter what the judge and the lawyer may tell us, “justice” is to be seen as something that any citizen would see as just. Not just the lawyers.

So, yes, Jon Stewart should start to ask lawyers why we should view them with any more credibility than the judges and lawyers and bureaucrats in places like Tunisia and Libya and Egypt. There, citizens have finally stood up to say that the institutions of those nations no longer have any credibility because they have lost all common sense and any sense of what justice really is. The question becomes what it takes for citizens in supposedly real “democracies” to demand the same from their corrupted and corrupting “leaders”.

Instead of standing up for our constitution, my try in 2006 to arouse independent thinkers into independent action deteriorated into a debate of people seeking political alliances. They wanted to gain the taxed dollars allowed by “those rules”. “Those rules”, I warn again, were passed by partisan lawyers and then protected by partisan judges.

I wonder if this complicit submissiveness is what happened in those nations that Jon Stewart applauds in the Arabian part of our world? Did the independent thinkers in those nations bow to the rules of those who broke the laws of democratic considerations? Or did they simply stand together to say “enough of this!”? The public record is that they defied the “new laws” of their “leaders” so that principles of real justice could be exposed. The risk becomes that they have no geography in our world that can really demonstrate that they know what justice and democracy really are. America is rapidly proving that it is no example to these “emerging democracies”.

Not only do our big political parties hope for voter fatigue so that they retain power. Our big, partisan-linked “legal professionals” spout off that we must “respect the law”. So, yes, the dilemma is exposed, yes, in relation to that 29-something wife of Bin Laden’s.

Common sense would tell us that, if Bin Laden’s nations of refuge were truly democratic, his wives would be equals. Common sense tells us that the women of places like Afghanistan and other places should not suffer criminal assaults simply because they are women. Common sense tells us that, if these situations were occurring in North America, the principal means of stopping these violations of rights should not be that the victim would be forced to protect their rights after a criminal assault had begun. The rules of common sense tell us that the primary role of our courts should be to protect constitutional rights through civil courts, before the citizen is criminally abused.

Common sense also tells us that, if the principal is that religious intolerance should not be a factor in the grievances of such oppressed women, then the woman should not be forced to appear before a judge who is appointed by the religious order that made the new rules to take away a woman's rights.

So, why do Canadians, and Americans, stay silent to the fact that the public record is that even George Bush became a President in 2000 because partisan judges ruled the courts? Why do Canadians stay silent and dumb to the fact that police in Canada pay into partisan parties that promise more police powers, even as our rights to our democratic institutions are diminished by the same partisans?

The unfortunate lessons from our history are that civil rights are the last thing that our courts and politicians have any motive to protect and uphold. After all, bloody murder gained more attention than two decades of civil oppression, after 1948. It was not until the civil oppression started desperate riots and ground wars with internal soldiers in both Canada and America that suddenly constitutional civil rights to racial equality gained any “common sense”. This should have happened in the courts of all democracies. These courts should have been protecting those rights the minute the 1948 law was passed

In obvious matters related to racism, First Nations in Canada face the same dilemma for over 2 centuries now. Civil courts do not solve breaches of treaties. It is not until First Nation activists build blockades that civil rights become something to consider. So, yes, we bear no greater credibility in Afghanistan and other nations because of our own illegal situations in our own courts and other democratic institutions.

This did not all happen through the failure of the citizenry. Indeed, the record is that the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt petitioned her Presidential husband during World War II to end the USA’s racial segregation. Unfortunately, the partisans entrenched into our institutions of democracy were keen on retaining power, not on retaining credibility to international promises. The lawyers let the common sense from WWII fail us all. Read Part 6 of my book, especially, to understand this.

So, we have a decision to make. Do we set an example to generations to come or do we continue to allow those who rule us to perpetuate the illegalities against us?
My position is that I will not allow the common sense of our constitutions, our history and our international laws, which came out of that history, to continue to be defied and defiled. So, yes, while I work on re-editing my book into something that is acceptable to the masses, I make these small stands. As a common sense citizen.

I refuse to participate in an election that has been made illegal by violations of international law, starting in 1949, and of Canada’s constitution, since 1982. I send copy of this communication to those who are responsible. I warn them that, in time, they will be forced to resign or to face Criminal charges.

The problem is not my parents nor that naive Ukrainian lady nor the gullible people in a riding in Quebec. They are not violating our laws when they exercise the vote. That does not remove the culpability of those persons of elected or judicial or appointed bureaucratic positions. The illegal fact remains that the partisan judges in our courts have taken away all of our options. They have made their partisan friends our only option for “leadership” every four years. BUT, as Nuremberg demonstrates, the eager bureaucrat or soldier or police man, who is warned to stop allowing the illegal, becomes as culpable as those who direct them. Especially if they continue to participate in the illegal actions.

It is our right to make daily voice about the problems we see to expose the options that we have for our representative voices. It is the legally compelled obligation of completely impartial courts to protect those rights.

So, when a provincial government, saying that it is controlled by Liberals, sends me illegal harassment in the middle of a federal election, warning me to file “2008 corporation tax reports”, I also enclose print off of this document. It goes to provincial officials. This is because the record is that I warned them and our “institutions of justice”, starting in 2003. I continue to write to these arrogant people and warn them of the depth of corruption exposed in my book. I warn them, and their bureaucrats, with every attempt they make to harass and intimidate, via taxed dollars.

The illegalities leading to my illegal arrest of 2004 remain unresolved because our courts have become the property of lawyers, not of the original law. Unlike what exists in those Arabian nations that Stewart holds much hope for, in Canada, this activity by our “leaders” is punishable under our laws. It is their illegal manipulation that has made our courts, our laws and our democratic institutions irrelevant.

So, when another eager temporary bureaucrat shows up at my door, do I accept that I must do as “the government” says I must? I do not. A young university student assures me one week after our election that she does not care if I fill out Canada’s Short Form Census. Then she says that if I do not, I could face a $1,000 fine or 6 months in jail.

In nations that have bankrupted the rule of law, do we allow “the bureaucrat” and “the government” to intimidate and harass when the base rights of democracy are illegally denied? Or, do we take the stance of brave young Arabians to say that we will not accept any of the rules from tyrants to prevail while real justice and democracy are denied?

I refused the Census. The young student received the Rare Book #95 of my book Just Business. She protested that she was a mere University student with no time to read my tome. I told her to take her book to her supervisors. This essay now goes to the newly elected, learned head of Canada’s census bureaucracy.

Ironically, it now comes down to this.

On the last evening of editing this essay, an old bureaucratic work associate appeared in my back yard. Curious as to what I was doing that night, our conversation eventually wandered over to his daughters. At least one of them used to enter my basement to play with my daughter’s dolls years ago. One is now entering University in the next year.

I told him that I no longer recognize these girls. They used to be fair and blonde. They are now dark-haired. He admonished me. He had been fair-haired as a child. His hair darkened as his teen-aged hormones kicked in. Eventually the suggestion became that this was probably a genetic trait from his family’s relatively pure Dutch heritage.

Like most people, this man is a nice man. However, he is a professional forester whose personal actions will gain him some criticism in my second book. Others have referred to him as somewhat of a “wuss” when it comes to uncomfortable, but responsible, decision making. These are the types that make things good for the politicians only. These kinds of bureaucrats are favoured by politicians. I suppose that he is on his way to a comfortable retirement. This complacent compliance, after all, a good bureaucrat makes!

But it is the despicable denial of our history that should concern us in these places.

He mused that this genetic trait of blonde versus black-haired Dutch persons had a history in the overrunning of the Dutch nation. He made the mistake of musing that his forbearers’ home lands had been relatively stable in recent centuries. They had not warred, he mused.

Immediately, visions of my father in 1942 training uniform arose. Immediately, the documentaries showing Canadians being mowed down on Dutch soil in 1945, as that nation was liberated, came to my mind. And so I gently scolded him by saying that, no, the Dutch had simply let others fight their battles to save them from anarchy.

That evening encounter, on a Friday of May 13 that some would call unlucky, happened after another CBC program aired an interview with another young Egyptian. A man who had lost an eye in the demonstrations that led to hope, this man showed some more naivete. He arrived in near bankrupt America to solicit financial and moral support to create new economy in a newly emerging “democracy”. This may be naivete for the uninitiated. It is stupidity for those of us who have sent our generations into WWII to stop the control of democratic institutions by the self-serving partisan.

This young man showed some wisdom when he said that he sought honest economy for the people of his nation. He quoted the citizens of Egypt who said that they did not want to steal so that they did not starve. So, why is it that we assign any hope when our options become the dishonest business from the likes of Donald Trump, who claim that “democracy” is simply the right to their greed while others starve?

What role does this “democratic” idiocy have in the creation of desperate anarchists like Bin Laden? What lessons have we learned from Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake!”?

Stupid leaders lead to stupidly violent revolutions so that people do not starve.

The question, for Jon Stewart and others, becomes when responsible citizens start to stand in peaceful demonstration in North America to end the illegal anarchy that has hijacked our democracies. Do we take on the bravery of those young Arabians whom we applaud? Or do we become passive Dutch men and women, hoping that someone else will arrive to save us?

Have we learned anything from our history?