June 14, 1983 – Kesler & betrayal of separatism

Alberta Report
11648 – 142 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
ATTN Ted Byfield

Dear Sir:

Your editorial of May 16, 1983 is full of amusing irony. The Sky-train, the candy factory, the bankers moving east, the Crowsnest Pass treachery, and the reluctance of eastern-oriented Tory leadership candidates to concern themselves with the West, is true.

The real reason is a significant betrayal by one Gordon Kesler of the very reason I founded the Western Canada Concept in the first place. Gordon Kesler and those who do not wish separatism have betrayed Western Canada more than any Eastern Liberal.

The Western Canada Concept and separatism were not rejected in the last Alberta election so much as the waffling, politicking and power trips of Gordon Kesler and a few others in the party. The delegates in Red Deer in July of 1982 were very clear in putting separatism into the objects of the constitution of the party, by paragraph 2A.

The party and its principles, that Independence is necessary, were what made Gordon Kesler and Olds-Didsbury a significant event. It was only the reality of our separation stand (subject always to a referendum) which made us national and international news. The Principles of W.C.C. are as valid as ever.

As founder of the W.C.C. I intend to be speaking in Alberta in July and I will be seeking to support and encourage those who believe in separation. The future in Confederation for vassal dukes like Lougheed and Bennett lies only in the economic betrayal of their people to the rapacious power-hungry exploitation of Eastern Canada. Those vassals hold out false hope to the West for negotiation.

The evidence is not so much new as repetitive. The export tax on oil in the beginning, the NEP, FIRA, tariffs, loans to foreign purchasers of eastern manufacturers, subsidization of Canadair-type patronage and innumerable examples are merely variations on the inherent corruption of the Canadian political establishment.

If they can't buy a bright young, politically-astute person off, they usually scare them off. I, for my own part, will be neither, and will stand for separation through a referendum in each province of Western Canada, loud and clear as I have since 1975, and I seek some support from those who wish good government for the West.

If the West is to protect freedom and any right to dissent, can we rely on the oligarchy in central Canada politically and their servants the new Canadian Intelligence Security police to apply its unlawful ministrations fairly to those of us who disagree with this corrupt system?

I challenge any person of integrity and good will to supply me with one good reason for remaining in this country of such little regard for fundamental rights and freedoms, or democracy. Even if the alternative was such a state of poverty (which it isn't), I would say choose poverty. Can any sensible person maintain the West would be less prosperous out of Canada, than in it? I challenge them to come with me to debate the issue as sensible people, Mr. Kesler, or any person of political office, and justify being in Canada, before the people. If the Premier or his ministers are for Canadian Unity, I challenge any of them to explain why.

The following agenda is my commitment to the people of Alberta; I shall be lucky to meet my expenses for telling Albertans of the vision Independence could bring. Could you tell me one salaried elected official who will do so much for the people, or anyone else?

July 8, Friday, EDMONTON, Terrace Inn, 7:30 p.m.
July 26, Tuesday, MEDICINE HAT, Westlander Inn, 7:30 p.m.
July 27, Wednesday, LETHBRIDGE, El Rancho Motor Inn, 7:30 p.m.
July 28, Saturday, CALGARY, Crowchild Inn, 7:30 p.m.

Yours truly,
Doug Christie

 

August 8, 1983 – Crow Rate abolition

To the Editor:

Re: The Federal policy of Mr. Pepin to abolish the Crow and subsidize the railroads

The West is really the only victim of the Pepin plan. The railroads will benefit and so will the Pools who lobbied Quebec pork and beef producers when the first plan was to subsidize the farmers. The Pools saw this as a threat to their many small elevators with farmers trucking to more central points to save freight costs. So they (the Pools) went to Quebec and told their farm community they were about to lose cheap feed grains if the first Pepin plan was accepted. Mr. Pepin has now admitted he gave in to the Quebec farm lobby and will make sure that Western pork and beef producers will never compete with the East in the traditional markets of Quebec sad Ontario. This means the Pools and the federal government worked hand-in-glove to hurt Western industry while appeasing the voters of Quebec.

Mr. Berntson, when he was Minister of Agriculture, was very annoyed at this, and put a full-page ad in the Western Producer, complaining. He cried, “Why are the Western farmers being tossed on the compost heap by the federal Liberals?” The answer is simple: 95 seats in Ontario, 75 in Quebec and the election is over, federally, before a single ballot is counted west of the lake head. The Liberals win without the West and they can always count on fifth columnists like the Pools to serve their interests as a token western support when they need it. After all, the West has its Hazen-Argues and Jack Horners.

The answer is really simple: Separate, form our own nation where agriculture will be a significant voice with a regionally-elected Senate. It would be a wealthy nation of forestry, fishery, mining, agriculture, a petroleum-exporting nation of 6 million English-speaking people.

If you don't, you Westerners will eat a lot more “crow.” And Brian Mulroney from Montreal won't even pull the feathers off.

Yours truly,

Douglas Christie
Founder, Western Canada Concept

 

August 11, 1983 – BC Government can't defend BC within Confederation

To the Editor,

The restraint program of Bill Bennett comes as a major shock to the so-far limitless power of government workers unions. Ever increasing wages, reducing work loads, more holidays, more staff, more programs, and more “social concern” are becoming a thing of the past. The response of the B.C. Federation of Labour and its strongest member, the B.C.G.E.U., is predictable and selfish. They are unable to face the same facts of life as the rest of us in the private sector.

As the Leader of a political party, it is a responsible matter to comment on a sensitive issue such as the restraint program. I do so with consideration both for the long term interests of government workers and with concern for individuals in the private sector.

Governments simply cannot be “Big Brother” better than the individual. Social justice, concern for the poor, and activity for the handicapped cannot be done by government as well as it can by families and individuals in society. Bureaucracy has grown to unmanageable proportions as we ask government to take over our individual responsibilities. Now we realize we can't pay government as much as the bureaucracy demands. The government has grown into an enormous arrogant force which is a burden on the backs of the people who pay the taxes. Those insulated, secure and largely overpaid government workers don't want to face the reality of reduced expectations and reduced bureaucracy.

The Premier's claim is quite right that restraint was an issue in the election campaign. The individual voters affirmed his position in that regard. I must recognize therefore that the government of British Columbia has a mandate to impose restraint and I do. I support the government's position on restraint.

The major regret however which I have in this present situation is that the government does not restrain the real drain of our wealth, the government in Ottawa. The Premier did not have a mandate to agree with the Trudeau Constitution with its entrenched equalization. I ask the Premier: Do you realize the cost of equalization? Do you realize that if you did not equalize with Eastern Canada you would not have to cut back the expectations of British Columbians one penny?

If the Province of B.C. did not have to equalize (that is, pay Ottawa to bribe the East) the Premier would save more than the entire restraint program upon which he is now embarked!

But rather than analyze the real reason for the problem, Mr. Bennett agreed to the Constitution without a mandate, approved of equalization and so must undertake to restrain British Columbians while feeding the frivolous and wasteful appetite of Ottawa. Bilingualism, eastern handouts, the Canadair rip-off, the bankruptcy of the Canada pension plan through loans to Ontario, the National Energy policy and tariffs to protect Ontario and Quebec industry — all this robs the people of B.C. But this, Mr. Bennett meekly accepts as inevitable.

What of the N.D.P? They lost the election because they have no solution. I give the Socreds this much: restraint of B.C. government workers is part of the solution, but let's restrain Ottawa too. Let’s stop equalization payments until we have 5% unemployed or even unemployment as low as any of the provinces we are equalizing with.

The N.D.P. was seeking to make more work. They said that more government workers is the answer. Hire more and tax the rich to pay. Who is rich? Who can afford it?

The N.D.P. now have only one reaction. They get their union bully boys to raise a huge throng of protesters. They ridiculed the Western Canada Concept’s desires for referendum, initiative and recall, as did the Socred party in the last election. Our party was the only party who would give the voters a referendum to recall an M.L.A. if 15% of electors signed a petition for a recall. That would mean as the politicians could fire the civil servants, the people could fire the politicians. The Socreds said no. The N.D.P. said no.

Now the N.D.P. are resorting to a form of mob rule. Whoever can get most people into the streets to make the most noise will make the laws. That is what happens when you don't have referendum, initiative and recall.

All I can say is I hope these words and these times cause people to think of a new political vision which the Western Canada Concept represents in a new and democratic nation of Western Canada.

Referendum, initiative and recall is the only way for people to become responsible, thinking and active political participants in their destiny, rather than the emotionally manipulated pawns we are today. When we start to think and read what Canada has been and is, we will then realize how much better Western Canada can become.

Yours truly,

Doug Christie Leader, W.C.C. of B.C.

 

August 16, 1983 – BC's deficit – why it can't be fixed in Canada

To the Editor:

British Columbia has the biggest deficit in its history. In the face of this reality, short of Independence where we could print our own money in B.C., the government has three sources of funds.

Firstly, taxation which will break the back of the private sector workers. This method is further exhausted when you realize that falling revenues are the result of a stagnant economy where there is little capital in the private sector for growth and hence little possibility that the private sector can afford more taxation without increasing depression.

Secondly, the government may borrow more money by floating bonds or treasury bills and hence pass the debt on to future taxpayers in the hope that things will get better. This method has two problems to it. One, the credit rating of B.C may fall, requiring higher interest rates which will affect the private sector adversely, and slow growth. Secondly, the economy cannot improve while looming tax increases are merely delayed to pay the debt.

Thirdly, the government may reduce the civil service and cut spending, thereby reducing taxes. This in my opinion (short of Independence and printing our own money) is the only feasible alternative.

So the extreme left which has grown enormously powerful in the affluent times of the recent past, are horrified. They say “the legislation” is very bad. They never define what legislation they mean.

There are 27 bills before the house. They deal with various tax increases and spending cuts. The N.D.P. lost the election and now want to stop the legislature. So what is new?

A Bishop (who was never elected to anything) of the church (which doesn't pay taxes) says that tax increases should have been placed on the rich, in essence. He incites a form of violence by subtly hinting at angry people.

Why is it, Bishop, that in our own Church on Vancouver Island, we don't hire enough priests to celebrate mass on every Sunday, in every church, but you criticize the government's restraint program?

The Bishop says the poor are suffering from the restraint measures. Do the poor have guaranteed jobs? Government workers do. Tenure is being removed from government workers. So what? Who else has tenure? In the real world you have tenure until your job is no longer in demand. In the government service you are impervious to economic reality and better paid than the private sector most of the time. How will maintenance of tenure for government workers help the poor? What we really have is mob rule by the Unions. They don't speak for the poor, and neither does the Bishop of Victoria.

The legislation in an economic necessity for the survival of the province of British Columbia and the tax payers who live here. The sooner the left stop their filibuster and blanket condemnation and make some realistic concessions to the present state of the economy, the sooner sanity will prevail and the poor can begin to benefit from economic recovery.

The fact is the left has become so powerful and so entrenched that they aren't worried about elections. They are now seeking rule by the mob and the media. Sensationalism is the order of the day and common sense flies out where Bishops fearlessly tread.

Yours truly,

Douglas Christie

 

December 5, 1983 – Open Letter to Newfoundlanders about leaving Confederation

An Open Letter to Newfoundlanders:

The people of Newfoundland, I hear, have a choice other than surrender to the dictates of the central government. There is now a separatist party in Newfoundland, and by george, you had better support it before they do to Newfoundland what they have already done to Alberta! As the Founder of the Western Canada Concept, I always realized the people of the Maritimes had many similar historic grievances in Confederation. In my speeches, I always have said, “as the Maritimes are now, we will become and as we are now, the Maritimes once were.” Soon the West will be reduced again to vassal states of the family compact of Upper Canada.

Mr. Peckford, like Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Bennett of B.C. always uphold Confederation in hope of a fair deal. We have learned over and over again the only good deal in Canada is good for Ontario and Quebec. Canada is Ont/Bec. There never has been and never will be a change in Canada. To hope while you are robbed that the robber will refund your money is folly.

The Brian Mulroneys and Pierre Trudeaus of this world have one objective and one only: power. They want lots of it. They'll say nice things to the West and nice things to the Maritimes when they want votes, but when the real turkey is talked, it only matters what the 95 seats of Ontario want, and the 75 seats of Quebec want. They really count. That is why French is such a good Canadian thing and Mr. Crosbie even as a Conservative has to get on his knees at a leadership convention and say he'll learn French tomorrow. It really doesn't matter how you vote, Conservative, Liberal or even N.D.P., the fact is Ontario and largely Quebec call all the Canadian shots. We in the West and you in the East will never win in Confederation. They will make us beggars in our own land.

So to the people of Newfoundland, I say strong heart and brave battle for Independence, and may we pull together in opposite directions before Ottawa has drained every drop of our God-given land and heritage. May we be better friends and equals in our own countries with one language, one nation and one government again true to us and serving no other foreign interests. Our friends in the U.S. and Britain will know us and like us better as we really are, not smeared with maple syrup.

When Governor Musgrave in 1869 left Newfoundland he had not persuaded your ancestors to join the fraudulent little club called Canada. When he left Newfoundland, unsuccessful in his mission, he came to British Columbia and bribed and coerced us into Confederation, without a vote. We look to the wisdom of Newfoundlanders to lead the way out of this Federal fiscal disaster called Canada, as you had the wisdom to reject Musgrave's schemes. To Newfoundland, brightest and best, last in and first out of the cesspool of Canada! You could do it again by a referendum. Fifty-one percent was all it took! This time, do it right, stand proud and free for Newfoundland.

Yours truly,

Douglas Christie
Leader and Founder
Western Canada Concept

 

December 6, 1983 – Canagrex & the destruction of Saskatchewan

To the Editor:

The thinking people of Saskatchewan must now be persuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt of the intentions of the federal government. It is simple. To reduce the agricultural community of Saskatchewan to the abject poverty that they previously did the oil industry of Alberta by the National Energy Policy. Thereby Ottawa can do with Canagrex what it did with PetroCanada. Buy up at rock bottom prices all the economic cripples that Ottawa's policy has made of the farmers of Saskatchewan.

To those who say the abolition of the Crow Rate was designed to give the railways the incentive to develop a grain-handling capability to carry Western produce to the seaboard, I ask these questions: Since when has any government hand-out to the railways, either in grants of land at Confederation, or by subsidies and preferential freight rates, ever guaranteed a commitment of continuing service from the railways in the past? Why did the federal government and the provinces build thousands of hopper cars at public expense? What did we ever get for that? Why did the railways get promises of double-tracking at public expense which Mr. Trudeau promised the West in the last federal election? What happened to the billions of dollars the Liberals promised in the last election in Western development funds? What is going to happen to all these great promises of the Ottawa government when they seek to have Western Canadian farmers pay more for carriage of their grain? Nothing.! Those promises are Eastern hot air to keep Westerners on the string for another hundred years of Eastern treachery.

In the Ukraine in the 1930's the government forced collective farming by violence; Canada in the 80's will accomplish that by policy.

The National Energy Policy has been an economic disaster for Alberta and a Conservative Mr. Lougheed, grandson of a CPR land lawyer, gives loans to Quebec to keep Canada together before he will loan to Albertans at subsidized rates. The abolition of the Crow Rate will make a disaster zone out of Saskatchewan and make collective farming, rental from government of land, and salaries for farmers the norm when the full effects are felt, and Grant Devine, out-bidding the socialists for the privilege of being a sellout to the East is no better than Premier Lougheed for his attitude of surrender to Eastern control and Ottawa dictates. He will be a good Canadian till the people of Saskatchewan are all Canagrex employees. He no doubt, like Mr. Lougheed, will seek a mandate from the people of Saskatchewan to negotiate with Ottawa.

The only mandate an intelligent person would give a government of Saskatchewan would be a mandate to separate and form a new nation of the West, where our values, our goals, our dreams and our language would not be trampled underfoot by a government elected in Eastern Canada before the polls close in Manitoba or West.

The federal government is now doing in Canada what the Volstad Act did in the United States. There they advanced monies on loan to farmers to buy land, they then sold grain short and called in the loans, bankrupted the farmers and took their land. The five major banks of Canada with the collaboration of the government they control, are using debt as an instrument of control. They have written the Bank Act, specifically Section 178 to give all power to the lender to seize and sell and still sue for a deficiency. The banks were major beneficiaries of guaranteed loans which government kept at guaranteed rates through Farm Credit Corporation. When the farmers had borrowed the money at fixed rates, the federal government then floated the rates and the farmers interest costs doubled. The result is bankruptcy. The monetarists planned it that way. The solution is to escape Canadian law by Independence. Repudiate Canada's corrupt debt. We would write our own Bank Act with rights for borrowers and trade with foreign producers free from debt. Economic and political independence, or debt slavery; separate or surrender.

I urge the people of Saskatchewan to appreciate the valiant efforts of that handful of patriots who in the last election fought for a new vision of Western Canada, out-numbered and overwhelmed by the slick Eastern ad campaigns of the two major parties The Western Canada Concept and Ray Bailey had the courage to say separate or surrender. History will record they offered the high road, the straight road and the right road for Western Canada. I hope they will never surrender!

Yours truly

Doug Christie, Leader and Founder of W.C.C. of B.C.

 

December 22, 1983 – Correcting an error in the Times Colonist

The Editor

Times-Colonist
2621 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Your coverage of the trial of Christie and Paterson v. Lynn was unfortunately very erroneous and has left the impression publicly that both Legal Aid and the client paid. This, I suppose, is the result of the fact that your reporter did not attend the first half of the trial where Legal Aid through the Director, Steve Owen, testified that the lawyers’ advice to Legal Aid was adequate at the time and the funds would be repaid.

The fact is that the issue was should a man who has $20,000 pay for his defence or should Legal Aid pay for it. Not both. We say he should pay, not Legal Aid. We are obtaining for Legal Aid all the money they have paid. This will be done at our expense, and did not cost Legal Aid one penny to collect. We did this to protect the public purse and recover our agreed fee.

You have led many people to the impression we collected Legal Aid, plus our agreed fees. We did not.

Please print this letter with as much prominence as you did the erroneous article.

Thank you.

Yours truly,
D.H. Christie

 

1984 – On the Alberta government decision to prosecute Jim Keegstra

January 13, 1984

To the Editor:

Lord Randolph Churchill once said, “Properly informed, trust the people.” The government of Alberta seems bent now on deciding how the people will be informed and by whom. The prosecution of Jim Keegstra is a very dangerous precedent.

If Mr. Keegstra is right in what he says then there is certainly a right in the people to hear it. If he is wrong, then with freedom to speak in the hands of his opponents, they can refute with evidence and reason the arguments he makes. The point is how can we decide whether he is right or wrong when the government makes it a crime to state his point of view.

The basic principle of natural justice and the traditions of free speech are in grave jeopardy in Alberta when the government under pressure from certain interest groups with their own prejudices decides to stifle their opponents by law. Throughout history we have tolerated many diverse radical and sometimes wrong views. The majority for that matter is not always right. We have burned witches, tortured heretics, believed the world was flat and crucified Christ, all with the sanction of the Government and the majority of the day. Are we to step back into the Dark Ages and begin to try people for their opinions or are the Tory thought police of Alberta really just following the dictates of George Orwell's “1984?”

When I studied political science in university, some professors used to extol the Marxist system and say the Soviet Union was a virtual Utopia of progress. Some suggested that the allegations of mass murders by communists in the thirties were.-western propaganda. I am not asking nor do I request they be prosecuted, but if I had, would not everyone shout “McCarthyism” and make sure that I was held up to ridicule for suggesting they have no right to express their views.

The fact is, we generally tolerate as we should, the expression of any opinions however wrong they-may be. The new hate legislation introduced by Mr. Kaplan is obviously loaded with prejudice of Mr. Kaplan's own and that of-his party, and it seems the Lougheed government is again doing Ottawa's bidding in this prosecution. The fact that I speak the truth and that may engender anger, hatred or disgust in my readers, of a group of people be they Easterners, Liberals, or whomever, is now to be enough to hound me out of a job, an elected office, and now to start prosecution. What a farce is freedom of speech!

We seem to have the freedom to say what is socially acceptable to the government. How is that different from any oppressive regime? The Soviet Union has as much freedom, as did Nazi Germany, for that matter.

Not for me, a Western Canadian: I want the freedom to hear from Jim Keegstra, read what he writes, and hear all other points of view, too, if I choose. This case is ample evidence of the dangers of censorship and is a great battle between a little man and a big government machine.

These views I dare to express to all the world, a free man in a once-free country even though my name be censored out of history by the official press.

Douglas Christie

 

January 27, 1984 – On censorship by the Canada Elections Act

To the Editor:

The National Citizens Coalition is right — the new Elections Act of Canada effectively precludes independent free speech during the election on the platform of any party. This is so because only advertising approved by the party may be circulated. It will curtail anyone talking about the party or the election unless they are approved by one of the three or four participants. For this reason the three Canadian parties in Ottawa all agreed to support the bill in October, 1983.

This is a typically Canadian solution: eliminate any real controversy. Give the illusion of debate while completely controlling the substance. In Ottawa they have a totally superior attitude to the people governed, whom they regard as too stupid to be uncontrolled, during elections. So the Conservatives, Liberals, and N.D.P. (all cosy friends) agreed on a comfortable Canadian solution. Make real competition impossible. The same Parliament who gives so many advantages to the five major banks has now endowed us with the three major parties, themselves.

Of course it is arranged in the near future that the N.D.P. so long a mere shadow of the Liberals will disappear to give us just two parties, opposite sides of the same coin, the so-called Liberals and Conservatives, and the coin of course Ontario and Quebec.

Yes, the National Citizens Coalition is right in all they have described. In fact I see no reason with this legislation why letters to the editor advocating one party or one candidate should be allowed either. According to Marc du Hamel, the Chief Electoral Officer speaking in Calgary, you can speak about the issues as long as you don't name a party or a candidate. How many letters to the editor do that? What about editorial columns which say one party or another stinks, and names the candidate? How is that not unauthorized advertising?

Well of course those of us beyond the pale of the approved parties know how controlled the editorial writers usually are in the subtle intricacies of the media game. At least the major papers are well centralized in control.

Unfortunately the National Citizens Coalition have been right, but only partly right in their description of the dangers of this legislation, so blithely supported by Mulroney's seals, Trudeau's robots and Broadbent's yes-men. In fact, it is worse.

But the National Citizens Coalition is wrong in its prescription of the medicine. They say in effect, take two aspirin and go to bed: Write your M.P., raise hell, send us money so we can raise hell. Good luck. You might as well appeal to the Judge who already held you in contempt!

The Ottawa government has given us one more ample demonstration of its complete corruption. It is a bastion of patronage, a home of arrogance and conceit, a comfortable pensioned paradise for any Conservative, Liberal or Socialist who wants to live free on the public purse and trains their tongue to say as little as possible in a nice voice.

The real and only solution for the people of Western Canada is to separate from this bastion of privilege which everyday entrenches its selfish power and to build a new nation of Western Canada — powerful, prosperous and free, where referendum, initiative and recall in our own constitution, written in English will give power to the people and equal rights for all.

Awake, Western Canada!

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

May 8, 1984 – Premier Bennett adopts a plank in the WCC platform: free trade

To the Editor:

The four Western Premiers met Monday, May 7th in Kelowna, B.C. Premier Bennett has made a remarkable statement which adopts one of the central planks in the W.C.C. platform. He says that he is in favour of freer trade and opposed to the huge tariff barriers of Ottawa which create reactive trade restrictions and non-tariff barriers against export of our products. A remarkable discovery which the Western Canada Concept has been advocating since 1975.

The problem, once understood, is simple. Ottawa, to protect for example, textile manufacturers in Eastern Canada, imposes a tax on imported textiles in the form of a customs and excise duty which adds to the purchase price by 40%. This protects a bunch of profiteers in Montreal and Toronto who use low paid, largely unskilled help.

In a typically socialist reaction, Premier Howard Pawley said he would not be in favour of freer trade because he wanted to protect the low-paid textile workers of Winnipeg. It is a sad comment on N.D.P. thinking that they would want to keep people in low-paying manufacturing jobs rather than higher paid retail and distribution jobs, of foreign manufactured goods. However, one can easily see why, when one realizes that the N.D.P. draw all their votes from poorer people and need the constant presence of poverty to found their economic theories. Without poor people, socialism loses its appeal. If each person owns their own property — which could happen with reduced costs through freer trade — there is far less incentive to allow government to tax it away from the people and socialism, as an idea, would die out with the N.D.P.

But both the Pawley reaction and the Bennett pious hope are weak in one obvious area. Tariffs and international trade are federal jurisdiction. Mr. Bennett said he will press whatever government is in power to reduce tariffs and create freer trade. This pious hope is really only rhetoric. He knows 80% of all Canadian manufacturing (i.e. tariff protection benefit) is in Ontario and Quebec. Everyone knows whatever government is elected, they will only be so elected with support of the 95 seats from Ontario and the 75 seats in Quebec. These two provinces with 80% of Canadian manufacturing in Canada are the very reason for tariffs.

Canada has for years had the highest tariffs in the world on all imports, from boots, shoes, stoves, washers, dryers, automobiles, motorcycles, televisions, radios, clothes and other manufactured goods.

Most Canadians don’t realize they are really paying between 30% to 50% more for most manufactured goods, than they would in a free trading nation, at the world price. Even fewer people realize that this is really to keep Ontario and Quebec jobs in place, and so “Canada has manufacturing,” Canada meaning Quebec and Ontario. Western Canada does not produce more than 10% of the manufactured goods which we consume. What jobs would Western Canadians lose if the 28.8% tariff on Japanese -automobiles was removed? The auto manufacturers of Oshawa and Windsor would lose, but we would not.

What Western Canadian wouldn’t benefit from a Japanese car at 28.8% less? Wouldn’t that leave more money in Western Canada for development of our own equity and reserves of all kinds, both investment and owner's equity?

The same applies to textiles and other items of a consumer nature. Western Canadians should realize that today, Canada, i.e. Ottawa, stops Japan from entering reciprocal trade agreements, which would give us much cheaper manufactured goods. Why don’t we have these benefits? Because Ottawa for 117 years has been keeping Ontario and Quebec afloat in a sea of cheap western resources which they rip off Western Canada in taxes and tariffs.

Bill Bennett, Peter Lougheed and any Western Premier knows this, but for fear of the media they will not say it. Instead, they mouth platitudes and pious hopes of a “freer trade” which will never come in Canada. This self-delusion is part of the political process. The Western Canada Concept stands for free trade, not just “freer” trade. This would result in more excess money in Western Canada and a revitalizing effect on a more debt-free, confident economy of Western Canada. We will educate the people to these facts and stand for these principles if it takes another 100 years for Western Canadians to learn not to trust Ottawa.

Without Independence, free trade is impossible; it's another reason why Independence for Western Canada is necessary.

Yours for Independence,
Douglas Christie

 

September 28,1984 – On the state of free speech in Canada during “Freedom to Read” week

Victoria Times Colonist

The Editor:

This is Freedom to Read Week so I approached the local librarian where I saw a display of previously banned books. There were such classics as: The Grapes of Wrath, All Quiet on the Western Front, To Kill a Mockingbird, and a sign which read: “The Freedom to read what you want is your right – Protect it”

I asked the librarian if she was interested in displaying a currently banned book “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” by Arthur Butz, which is being seized throughout Canada by Canada Customs under pressure from the B’nai Brith. She said “I'm no crusader. Besides I'm told it’s hate literature and we have to be careful to avoid the effects of the Criminal Code.” She said she was only displaying books which had been previously banned, as if censorship was a thing of the past. I reflected on her words and pondered the effects of them. Even before the book is proven anywhere to be against any law, its seizure by Customs Officials becomes an effective and permanent banning until some citizen can win in Court. The onus has shifted. The book is guilty until proven innocent and no-one may read it until some citizen can beat the Department of Finance in Court some years from now. How very Orwellian: The Ministry of Truth has made a judgment, now you may appeal to the government. The official version of history is being written in the silence of cowards.

Not long ago the present Prime Minister expressed himself quite vehemently as he said if he were Prime Minister there would not be an entrance visa granted to a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization to address a Senate Committee investigating the Middle East. This blatant expression went uncriticized in the press and further entrenched the belief that Canada wishes to form its foreign policy with only one side of the issue being heard regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict.

The final example of the deprivation of Freedom in Canada to which current reference can be made is the seizure in Calgary from the University Library of the book by Arthur Butz, “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century” which deals with the issue of the holocaust and questions both the numbers alleged and the method of extermination alleged. The usual media hype is to say the book says “the Holocaust never happened” whatever that means. The real issue is censorship, but once again the only resistance comes from a librarian while the vast number of commentators give the issue a wide detour.

The climate of opinion today is conducive to various interpretations but Barbara Amiel in her address to the Canadian Bar Association in Winnipeg said it best when she accused the CBA of being part of the problem of oppression of freedom. I couldn’t agree more as they adopt a resolution of a committee to encourage the Minister of Justice to take the word “willfully” out of Section 281(2) of the Criminal Code, thereby making the promotion of hatred a crime regardless of intention. With such lawyer friends as these, freedom hardly needs enemies.

Slowly, surely the noose tightens on Free Speech as persons supposed to defend it are quick to seize on a perceived public appetite for oppressive measures. By such means are freedoms lost, and by such means is it made impossible to regain freedom and seek the truth.

This letter is written in the hope it will trigger the thinking of some to advise by letter and word the decision makers that we value our right to hear all points of view and do not need a Minister of Truth.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

December 19, 1985 – Art show censors artist for political beliefs

Kitchener-Waterloo Record
225 Fairway Road S.
KITCHENER, Ontario
N2G 4E5

Dear Sirs:

I am utterly appalled and dismayed at any German organization which can be so easily intimidated as to eject someone's art from any art show because someone complains about the artist's politics or for that matter criminal record. Are we so shallow and small-minded we cannot recognize the right of anyone to create art and endeavour to express their thoughts in a creative artistic manner, or do we really live in a small man's Soviet Union where art must be subjected to state-sanctioned views and pre-existing biases of the powerful elite? Where are all the Civil Libertarians now? Are they only there for their left-wing friends and pornographers?

Is there not a single German with enough combined guts and brains to recognize that a conviction under Section 177 is of the same severity under the Criminal Code as a conviction for impaired driving with the same maximum penalty? Have the Germans no man or woman who dares to speak out against this bigotry against them and ask the question, “Would this action be justified against an artist who had a previous first conviction for impaired driving?” I deeply regret that there is not, among the German people in Canada, one who dares to speak without fear of the need to end the negative stereotyping of them which creates such fearful reactions and sickening disregard for the individual's right to freedom of expression, even in art.

What political questionnaire will the German Cultural Organization require next year to test the tastefulness of future artists, or is this rule just for Ernst Zundel?

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

December 23, 1985 – Teachers & free speech

The Editor
Penticton Herald
PENTICTON, B.C. V2A 1N4

Dear Sir:

I have been made aware of a letter from David Perry who, I gather, is a teacher. He wrote on Friday, December 13, 1985, that I had dismissed questions of students at my speech as inconsequential. I did not do so. I said that whether Mr. Keegstra ought to teach one view or another was not the issue. He had lost his right to teach and his job after 21 years as a teacher. This confirms that teaching is subject to political controls. The issue is rather whether a man who speaks his views should be named a criminal. The fact that he was a teacher, or a truck driver, or a civil servant is only relevant to his job. To say something to a student is no more a crime than to say it to somebody else. It might be relevant to sentence if the speaking itself was a crime.

Mr. Perry claims to be a historian by profession. He says history should be carved in stone. I would hesitate to have any children taught by such a man. There are two sides to every dispute, not just the one that exists as stone in Mr. Perry's mind.

I would find it very ironic if someone complained that Mr. Perry's views in stone were damaging their children's minds. Would he think that would justify him being considered a criminal?

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

July 11, 1986 – Protesting a double standard at City Hall re: the Hungarian monument & Sandinista Fiesta

The Editor:

Dear Sir:

The clique of left-wingers at City Hall refused to allow Geza Benko and the Hungarian Club to put up a monument, in Beacon Hill Park or any park in Victoria, commemorating the freedom fighters of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The reference on their proposed monument “fighting against dictatorship” sparked a resolution not to allow monuments which might promote hatred of a group.

You can imagine my surprise when I walked past the local NDP office on Blanshard Street and saw a poster for the Fiesta Sandinista which is to be held in Beacon Hill Park on July 19, 1986. A communist Fiesta in the park is okay with the City Council, it appears because the poster says “Officially endorsed by the City of Victoria, Mayor Gretchen Brewin.”

I am sick of the two-faced double standard of the communists and their sympathizers in the NDP who get away with an endorsement from the Mayor. The reason why the movie Red Dawn was so criticized was because it was so true. First Nicaragua, next Mexico, and of course the softest heads in all of North America are in Victoria from the Mayor on down who endorse a Fiesta to celebrate the destruction of their freedom and way of life.

This Fiesta has promoted hatred of a group already. The group is the communists and I invite those who don't like it to come with me and protest the Red Dawn in Victoria.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie
General Counsel to
The Canadian Free Speech League

 

September 13, 1986 – No ideal Western Canadian party

To the Editor
Alberta Report
17327 – 106A Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5S 1M7

Dear Sir:

Every conceivable twist and turn has been made by Mr. Byfield in his recent columns, to work within the system of Canada, to no avail. He now has so many “ifs,” “ands” and “buts” for his ideal western party that it will certainly never exist.

The best solutions are the simplest. Mr. Byfield’s constant refusal to accept separatism as the only solution for Western Canada would be really amusing if it was not for the real, tragic consequences such thinking has on people’s lives. The West has become an economic and moral desert, lead by a group of intellectual pygmies, all afraid of the “spectre of separatism.” Why such fear of freedom? Could it be they fear responsibility?

The American patriots of 1776 would not have put up with the colonial trap of Ottawa for 5 minutes and neither should we. Everyday, as people like Mr. Byfield fiddle around with theories, real people lose real jobs and the West gets weaker and deeper in debt. The federal government has ripped off and spent the reserves we could have accumulated in the last boom-time for our present predicament.

The new nation of Western Canada could have one official language, one government, a regionally-elected Senate, the greatest abundance of wealth in fishery, forestry, mining, agriculture, petroleum and natural gas, fresh water, a beautiful environment, and 7 million vital, responsible people. Without fearless free trade, the Third World will never have the currency to purchase our natural resources, but Ontario and Quebec will never allow free trade. We are being strangled in the federal trap.

In the face of the real potential of Western Canada, why should we tolerate the abuses of a Brian Mulroney or a Pierre Trudeau, or live in some world of make-believe, waiting for an ideal party or an ideal man to solve our problems for us? Are we so stupid as not to see that we need nothing from Ottawa or Eastern Canada, but freedom? I for one am not prepared to tolerate the intolerable in Canada because nobody has yet assured me of perfection in Western Canada.

Yours truly,
Doug Christie

 

October 27, 1986 – On the retirement of Elmer Knutson

Dear Editor:

The resignation of Elmer Knutson was a shock to me. Recently as a candidate in the Pembina by-election I had the honour to sit on the platform with Mr. Knutson and was impressed by his dignity and generous spirit. He was often ridiculed in the press and yet he was never bitter.

Serving the public even when you stand the chance of being elected is a hard and thankless task. All the more so when you are there really to speak for what you believe and to offer your ideals to the people even though you realize you will seldom be rewarded with their vote. Mr. Knutson was often in this latter category.

He should be respected as a man of courage and vision who sacrificed much of his time and energy to the betterment of his country. No doubt time will reveal he was a greater man than was realized while he lead his party.

Mr. Knutson always denied being a separatist. Now it will be necessary to choose clearly, federalism with the other parties or independence for the west with the Western Canada Concept.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

October 30, 1986 – Mayor Brewin's support for Nicaragua

The Editor:

I object to the city placing a banner across Douglas Street saying “Too1s for Peace Load a ship for Nicaragua.” Does this sign have the approval of council or is it like the Mayor's letter to the Prime Minister, her views as Mayor, a private person, on the Mayor's stationery?

I am sick and tired of Gretchen Brewin, the NDP ideologue and the reflection it has on this city's administration.

Nicaragua is not just a sweet little agrarian reform nation any more than Castro's Cuba is. Communism is moving North and if we continue to load ships for Nicaragua we will simply hasten the demise of our way of life. The Soviets are doing just fine sending equipment to Nicaragua; they don’t need help from the City of Victoria.

I would like to know if it is Mayor Brewin herself or the whole City Council who think we should send help to the communist government of Nicaragua?

Under what right do these communist political messages find their way on a banner across Douglas Street?

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

December 5, 1986 – Defending self

The Editor
Times Colonist
2621 Douglas Street
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Sir:

I write to congratulate Gorde Hunter on his column assessing the value of Western Canadian Independence. The realization is indeed growing that Canada is fundamentally flawed. A smaller nation, with English as its common language, based upon free trade in our diversified resource base is a great deal more practical.

I realize Mr. Hunter has said I am not a strong enough leader to lead Western Canada, but until someone comes along who is willing to put up with the slander and ridicule of the eastern-controlled media, give up their career and holidays for political work in the prairies, give up the possibility of a home or family life, face the frustration of working with volunteers who sometimes don't know how, and work without pay, I'll just keep doing the best I can. I realize the Gorde Hunters of the world and other armchair critics could always do it better.

Having worked for the cause of independence during all available time for the last 12 years I see no reason to quit now, and intend to keep trying to educate and communicate the facts to all who will listen.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie, Leader
Western Canada Concept

 

June 24, 1987 – Opposing legislation allowing the prosecution of war crimes trials in Canada

To the Editor:

Mr. Ramon Hnatyshyn, the Minister of Justice, has put forward a bill which radically changes Canadian Criminal law, for the worse. Like so many important things, from book-banning to election advertising, to bilingualism, to the Meech Lake Accord, it has three-party support, and is expected to pass within a week.

He proposes to make acts committed in other countries which were not unlawful when they were committed, crimes in Canada, today. This will make Canada an international policeman of events around the world, both past and present. The acts to be prosecuted involve war and will inevitably open old wounds. This means the taxpayers will be obliged to pay for prosecutions much like Nuremburg when it is doubtful that most people desire such prosecutions.

Whole segments of our ethnic population of Eastern European origin will be torn apart by these show trials, and only communist ideology will be the beneficiary. For example, the Galician Division who fought on the side of the Germans against the Soviets, were fighting for a free Ukraine. The Soviets want such thinking stamped out. The present Canadian government will use the courts to do the Soviet bidding, with Soviet-style laws, here in Canada.

Nobody says anything, so we must speak out. As leader of the Western Canada Concept National Party, I am opposed to retroactive laws, which create crimes of past acts. I am opposed to laws of Canada being made for events outside of Canada, which were not within our jurisdiction or country at the time they occurred.

The Second World War is over forty years ago. Let past events in war be past and let's get on with the present. There is enough injustice here and now to deal with.

When the Deschenes Commission considered this question, the main proponents to support such prosecution of alleged war criminals with Soviet evidence were the League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith, Canada; the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, New York; Sol Littman, Simon Wiesenthal Centre; David Matas; Kenneth Narvey, North American Jewish Students’ Network; and Irwin Cotler, Canadian Jewish Congress.

Sol Littman, it should be remembered, was publicly criticized for falsely suggesting that Dr. Josef Mengele was in Canada. This allegation brought about the establishment of the Deschenes Commission, itself.

It must be obvious that special interest groups have motivated a serious error in Canadian law. Retroactive and extraterritorial laws are better suited to Soviet-style courts than Canadian courts, paid for with Canadian tax dollars. Let your M.P. and the Minister of Justice know your opinion!

The Western Canada Concept points to these laws as yet another example of the corruption of the Canadian system.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

October 30, 1996 – A letter in defence of the Canadian Free Speech League, explaining much that is often misunderstood in the media

Times-Colonist
The Editor

Dear Sir:

I welcome your editorial of October 30, 1996 as one of the rare expressions by your newspaper of support for free speech. It was in some respects well reasoned and expressed.

Permit me however, to ask a few questions about some of your premises. Firstly, how do you know that the Canadian Free Speech League is “abhorrent”? You or your reporters have never since 1992 attended a meeting, for reasons I shall later explain. Neither have most of the citizens of Victoria, and so unless they, like you, are prepared to condemn someone without hearing them, then they don’t as yet find us “abhorrent.” The definition of prejudice is the formation of judgment on gossip or hearsay without evidence. Do you think most people are so prejudiced, to find us “abhorrent”?

You know nothing of our meeting, but you proclaim it “abhorrent” to most people. Why? Because we meet in private? Do you know how many perfectly honourable and decent people meet in private in Victoria, every day without being labelled “abhorrent” by Victoria’s daily newspaper?

Why do you call the Canadian Free Speech League, which is a federally incorporated society, whose objectives are defending those who have been censored, “abhorrent”? Who else in Canada, other than James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel or Malcolm Ross have been prosecuted for expressing their opinions? It is meaningless to defend the freedom of speech of those whose speech is not under attack. I represented them and Tony McAleer as well. These are merely people being censored. Do the lawyers for Little Sisters Book Store get vilified for defending allegedly pornographic material?

We meet in private for a reason. If we allow the media or the public to know in advance, we are threatened, attacked and our meetings are cancelled by threats of violence from people who hate freedom and probably truth as well. These are people who only want one side to be heard. Recently a Human Rights Commission in Alberta cautioned a hotel that if they allowed a meeting (not of the CFSL) there could be violence. Isn’t that ironic and threatening in the name of “human rights”? This happened even before the meeting took place and certainly the Human Rights Commission could not know in advance what would be said there. The meeting was cancelled.

There is nothing racist or “white supremacist” about the CFSL but the people who are being silenced in this country are usually vilified as such in advance by communists like David Lethbridge and self-proclaimed anti-racists who are quoted without criticism or question by a docile media perhaps because of a similar political bias.

Our meetings have been interrupted by the police who arrested our speaker just as he (David Irving) received the George Orwell Freedom of Speech Award. Mr. Irving had been speaking of the dangers of censorship. He was deported not for what he did or even said in Canada, but for “insulting the memory of the dead” in Germany on some former occasion.

Certain groups applauded what was done to David Irving. So, as I recall, did your newspaper. We resolved then never to trust you or any media again to enter our meetings. We believe free speech has few friends in Canada and many enemies. We count you among the enemies of freedom notwithstanding your editorial stand because of the incessant vilification, epithets and incitement to hatred which you continually include in every news article and editorial about me or the Canadian Free Speech League, of which I am merely general counsel. It is not “Doug Christie’s Free Speech League”.

I have experienced the destruction of my office, bomb and death threats, and our meetings have been cancelled time and time again. We receive beatings of our supporters and disruption of any meetings we have held, all by people who have never met us and are merely responding to the image they receive through the media. If you were fair minded you would understand why we meet in private. We will continue to do so in peace.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

March 3, 1997 – Correcting a statement in a Times Colonist article

The Editor
Times-Colonist

Dear Sir:

The profile of me (T-C, March 2, 1997, Page A4) was generally accurate with one glaring factual error, where it said of Mr. Harry Abrams, B.C. representative of B’nai Brith:

“He points to an Internet site called Grand Central Station for White Nationalists. There, alongside articles like “The Black War on White Americans,” behind ads for T-shirts sporting designs like “Aryan Woman,” or “Genetic Heritage,” is a small, paid classified ad for the Western Canada Concept, the separatist party Christie founded and remains active in.”

There is no “small paid classified ad” for the Western Canada Concept of which we are aware. We have never paid for any ad on the World Wide Web and why should we? We have our own web site at: http://ftcnet.com/~wcc, for the world to see.

After reading the article, we have tried to find this “Grand Central Station for White Nationalists,” without success. Perhaps Mr. Abrams could give us the URL so we could check this alleged site and see this ad.

Mr. Harry Abrams has never called us or we would have told him. We do not and have not paid for any classified ads on any web site and certainly not the one he alleges.

Yours truly,
Douglas H. Christie

 

March 24, 1997 -Re: “New Doubts About Human Rights Police”

The Editor
B.C. Report Magazine

Dear Sir:

I read with some shock remarks attributed to me in your article about Human Rights Tribunal member Tom Patch. While I think all Human Rights Tribunals are idiotic, hypocritical and basically biased against free speech or individual liberty, I did not mean to say or imply anything against Mr. Tom Patch personally. He is only doing the job he is entrusted by Statute. I regret also if any remark of mine should reduce what I perceive to be a serious threat to liberty, to the level of personalities. Tom Patch is not the problem as I see it, but the system in which he works.

I have years of experience with Human Rights Tribunals doing incredibly destructive and in my view biased things in B.C. and other provinces, as well as federally, and this experience forms the basis of my comment.

Indeed, any comment I made about Mr. Patch was probably after I thought the interview was over, and in a joking conversational tone which I mistakenly thought was off the record. I did not mean to say or imply that Tom Patch was either dishonest or personally anything but of the highest intelligence, notwithstanding that I disagree vehemently with what I perceive he is doing under the legislation as it exists. I apologize to him personally if anything I said insults him. I further apologize to B.C. Report for any inconvenience to you and your writer who was likewise just doing his job. I commend you for taking seriously one of the major threats to free speech in our society today.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

May 17, 1997 – Commending T-C on free speech editorial

Times-Colonist
Victoria, B.C.

To the Editor:

I was deeply impressed with your courage and integrity when you wrote the editorial “Free Speech, Use it or Lose it.”

I believe, however, because in the recent past as you and others in the media pilloried James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor or Malcolm Ross and thereby ignored the real issue in those cases, that you have lost it.

Late you come, but still you come to the realization that free speech has nothing to do with the merits of the contents. I doubt that having lost free speech as much as we have, with media complicity, that we will ever recover it in Canada. Canada now has an intolerant multicultural state religion enforced by the human rights inquisition.

Nevertheless, it is nice to see you and much of the media are now awakening to that which is lost. It is ironic that you only do so when your own ox is gored. It is sad that even now, so few people have the intelligence to realize what is happening when you with all your influence, begin to tell them. Too little, too late.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

February 4, 1999 – Comment on Times-Colonist editorial regarding the limits on free speech

The Editor
Times Colonist
Dear Sir:

What a pathetic, juvenile, self-serving editorial. “What are the limits of free speech?” you ask.

You’re afraid of the terrible Internet, where freedom prevails. Could it be you fear people ignoring so-called newspapers? You are happy to see Collins’ nose rubbed in the dirt. You are “leery” about human rights bodies becoming thought police. How brave of you! How courageous to be “leery.” Are you incapable of thunder? You don’t have confidence in their ability to find the thin line between vigorous discourse and hate. How terribly refined, dignified and restrained of you.

I can hardly wait until your own nose is rubbed in the dirt and you feel the wrath I feel when intellectual snobs like you say “tut, tut,” they lack confidence in the rightness of your oppressors. Then you will rail in vain against the injustice of it all. I can hardly wait to hear you thunder then while someone ponders blankly, “What are the limits of free speech?” Only then will you have an answer. And no one will listen to you.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

May 19, 1999 – Reform party compromises not the answer

The Editor
B.C. Report Magazine

Dear Sir:

Having always had the highest regard for Ted Byfield and Alberta/B.C. Report, and the integrity of its editorial line, I was appalled to read the editorial “Compromise or Extinction” in the latest issue. This editorial argues that compromise is essential to success, success means gaining the voters of Ontario and they won’t come over without compromise.

One of the most remarkable reasons is advanced in the argument from a man whose integrity I respect. He says compromise is the art of politics and politics is not about doctrine or morals. Oh really, hasn’t the Canadian parliament with Ontario support, sanctioned infanticide and isn’t this a moral issue? Isn’t all politics about morals from the GST to the NEP, from the F18A contracts to the bilingual hiring policies. I say it’s all about morals.

Do I believe Ted Byfield has abandoned his morals? No, I do not. I think he is really escaping from the reality that Canada cannot be reformed because if logic drives him to that hard conclusion, he has a moral responsibility to take an unpopular position.

In the real world where he has to choose between separation or the western surrender to the east, he has chosen to surrender. But he wants to do it with his honour intact pretending the political prison of Ontario or else politics is really his choice in a clever ploy. It reminds me of the client who reconciled himself to going to jail by reasoning that this was really the best way to get back at the system which had driven him to a life of crime!

The fact is that Reform has been and is a monstrous deception and in the case of Mr. Byfield, a self-deception. Over 10 years have been spent trying to reform the Canadian political system. Any honest assessment of the outcome, the 10 year expedition into federal politics, would have to admit it has been a total failure. It has not reformed a single institution and the sole senator ever elected was replaced by a Chretien appointee. Ted, why deceive yourself any longer? Why deceive others?

Separation for Western Canada is the only hope of a prosperous future and a chance to create a new nation on a fair political foundation with equal justice for all. It is now also the only way to avoid the inevitable disaster of legislative apartheid on racial, tribal homelands which Ottawa and its minions has created to further divide Western Canadians. As an independent and non-successor government to Canada, we would not be bound by those bad court decisions and legislative acts of Ottawa or their provincial counterparts.

In truth, compromise on all the principles of Reform is not an alternative to collapse; it would be its inevitable result. Compromise is collapse.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

September 24, 1999 – Correcting statements made in a letter by Patrick Jamieson

The Editor
Times Colonist

Dear Sir:

The letter of Patrick Jamieson (Sept. 24/99) once again raises my name with a subtle innuendo that I am an evil person to oppose immigrants coming illegally to my country. He says it is ironic that I am the founder of St. Andrews Refugee Association.

I suppose it is true in a way that I founded that organization. It was at the time of the fall of Vietnam to communism and I had great sympathy for Vietnamese who had fought communism, which has in my view a long track record of brutal oppression of those who dare to resist its violent imposition. I find that is true, even now in my country, with violent left-wing communist front groups who use violence to prevent meetings of those opposed to illegal immigration.

What I soon learned when I sponsored Vietnamese refugees, was the sad truth that I had been duped. Far from being fervent anticommunists, I found many were ethnic Chinese, some from mainland China, who were merely coming for economic advantage, under the guise of being refugees. I quickly realized my natural compassion was being exploited to help these people escape the obligations to comply with our own immigration rules.

Even though I had sponsored Vietnamese refugees for reasons of the love of freedom, I was still called a racist by people like Laurier Lapierre in various television interviews when I tried to build the Western Canada Concept.

I have come to realize that the racist label is being skillfully used by communists or “international socialists” to advance their pathetic lost cause in the minds of more moderate right-thinking people. The frequent use of innuendoes such as those of Patrick Jamieson in his letter, eventually build up an impenetrable wall of prejudice against a person whose values may be very different than those implied by the innuendo.

For instance, it is not “ironic” that I founded SARA. To anyone who knows me, sympathy for the oppressed and down-trodden has been a driving motive of my life. I have frequently been in that position myself. I still am, when I stand up today for my identity and culture against a mob of screaming multiculturalists as reported by a hostile media. I am always sympathetic to any human beings suffering, but that doesn’t mean I will dump my children or friends or my land into the same pathetic state of affairs, or allow my country to be dragged by sheer weight of numbers down to the level of a third world communist dictatorship.

My disillusionment with “Vietnamese refugees” has increased as I read of young Trevor McCallum gunned down by a Vietnamese gang and saw the smiles they exhibited in court later as all but one got off. My anxiety increased when I realized these invaders have no more appreciation for our language, culture, or traditions than the thief who enters my house. They merely want our property. They want welfare, legal aid, Medicare, etc., as funded by Canadian taxpayers.

Does it make me a racist to want to defend my home, no matter what the invaders’ race may be? Does it make me a racist to resist an invasion of my country, if all the invaders are Chinese? My Chinese friends and my many Chinese clients know I value them as individuals, not because or in any way connected to race. But can someone like Mr. Jamieson use your newspaper to imply that it is somehow “ironic” that I should have normal, human compassion and have once created an organization to help boat people? Every organization I have started I have created to help people, including the Canadian Free Speech League and the Western Canada Concept.

Mr. Jamieson implied quite incorrectly that I was somehow “challenged” by former Bishop de Roo “to do something.” I never discussed this endeavour with him, and I initiated action because I believed it was right. I am just as conscientious and rational when after evidence of my sad deception was plain to me, I changed my view on refugees.

It is clear to me my country is being invaded. It is equally clear that taking immigrants will not solve the troubles in the sea of humanity but will only sink the lifeboat of our own blessed land. It does no favour to anyone to sink a lifeboat by over-crowding. Those in the boat all drown. Those clambering in, who sink it, are drowned also.

We did not create the problems of China. We cannot solve them by importing those problems here. If we do so, the sad fact that those who lawfully came to Canada from China and other communist and less free countries, will have gained nothing by coming here as it becomes more and more like the place they left. The only people here who stand to gain are those poor benighted ideological communists here who see vast numbers of well-trained cadre as comrades in arms against us “capitalists” as they call those of us who own our home or business. They are usually the first to sling the dirty name of racist at any European Christian who dares to defend our home or culture.

Of course, Human Rights Commissions are their weapon of choice to silence a serious debate on this issue and of course the NDP recently legislated broader powers for them to do so. Sadly, communists seldom see beyond their own hate-filled stereotypes. I assure Mr. Jamieson, whose politics I do not know or impugn, and others, I am and will always remain a compassionate, though rational human being. Bishop de Roo was not the origin of my conscience.

Yours truly,
Douglas H. Christie

 

March 31, 2000 – More on the Reform/Alliance struggle to represent the West in Ottawa

To the Editor:

The Tragedy of Stockwell Manning

About 1985 Preston Manning began to build the Reform party. This was rallied around the idea that “the West wants in.” Western separatism was to be ignored and spurned because all it would take was Reform MPs doing things differently. There was eventually to be a Triple E Senate because western Reformers would demand it. There was no need to separate because all was going to be reformed in the Canadian house because . . . because . . . because . . . it was right.

And if they didn’t reform? Well, this question was never asked since it required a harsh response and we all know in Canadian politics you don’t give harsh answers.

Now after 15 years the truth is obvious. Ontario didn’t want reform and its sincere western leader. They didn’t want a Triple E Senate which would take away their Ontario power. They didn’t want anything Reform wanted and hence to discredit Reform before the Kim Campbell election, they sent CSIS agent Grant Bristow to organize the Heritage Front and then use it to destroy confidence in the Reform Party. Reform never quite made it in Ontario. Preston Manning faced the end of the merry go round.

Rather than admit Reform was a failure he decided a name change might win in the place that mattered. Mr Manning finally realized that you can’t be Prime Minister without winning Ontario, so to win Ontario he decided to change the name from Reform to Conform Alliance. Little did he realize people would personalize the change.

Enter Stockwell Day. Young, good-looking, bilingual and ambitious. Preston Manning looks old, tired and ineffectual in comparison. Now everybody gets excited over a new personality, as if personality will make any difference.

Ontario’s 105 seats to the West’s 88 means simply the “Conform Alliance” will either be an Ontario party or it will be an ineffectual western splinter in Ottawa. Changing leaders will never make any difference. Canada has a fatally flawed foundation. The absence of regional representation cannot be changed after the power is established in one region.

People of the West, wake up! Don’t; waste another 15 years dancing to Toronto’s tune! Separate now and start creating the greatest nation on earth, Western Canada! We have the intelligence, we have the resources, we have the common language, culture and values. All we need is the will to do it, legally, by referendum in each province.

Yours truly,
Douglas Christie

 

November 16, 2002 – “Free Speech Must Come First”

The Editor
Times-Colonist, Victoria, B.C.

Dear Sir:

Your editorial “Free speech must come first” produced a marked departure from previous editorials you have written over the years on the subject of free speech. I have always paid particular attention to your editorials on this subject because I have defended some of the more significant free speech cases in Canada, such as Keegstra, Zundel, Malcolm Ross and John Ross Taylor, all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

For this reason, I well remember your published views on this subject. Naturally, I applaud your present stance. Indeed, free speech must come first. It is the foundation of all other freedoms. Without free speech, we are indistinguishable from animals or slaves. By means of free speech, all new ideas are debated and after debate, a closer union with truth is always achieved. I was equally impressed that your free speech stance went so far as to say that even if violence results, punish the violence, but don’t silence the speech. I couldn’t agree more. Otherwise, those who do violence can destroy the freedom of us all. You bravely and truly write: “having to battle violent thugs is the price for allowing free speech; it is a price worth paying.” Naturally you have to introduce the word “Nazi” into your otherwise rational argument, but if it suits your politics, no problem.

What it raises in my mind, however, is the memory of the editorials I read in the Times-Colonist when Keegstra, Zundel, Malcolm Ross or John Ross Taylor were in the news. Not one of those men were ever even accused of inciting, let alone provoking violence. Your editorial policy was either silent or opposed to their rights to free speech. There were no riots in Eckville, or Moncton although there were noisy demonstrations outside Zundel’s house. Could you point me to one editorial in support of their rights to free speech?

Which brings me to my question: Is free speech the prerogative of people you like, such as Svend Robinson, Libby Davies and Judy Rebick, who are usually perceived as on the left of the political spectrum, or does it apply as a matter of principle to everyone? Nat Hentoff’s book “Free Speech for Me, but not for Thee,” comes to mind. Though I admire Svend Robinson’s courage in speaking out, I wonder if he or his two friends Libby Davies and Judy Rebick ever came to the defence of the free speech rights of Keegstra when his words did no more than “fret his enemies and cool his friends.” The media had a field day condemning Zundel and Ross and Taylor as well as Tony McAleer, and Terry Long, together with their families where possible. Even Eileen Pressler was vilified by a national television story for which she finally recovered damages after years in the courts. Raphael Bergmann is called an urban terrorist for having a “straight pride” parade. How often have you written nasty things about Doug Collins, and what did he do, besides express his opinions?

It’s a funny thing about free speech: It can’t be just for your political friends. If freedom means anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself.

Yours truly,

Douglas Christie

 

April 24, 2003 – The slippery slope gains momentum

To the Editorial Editor,
Times Colonist:

Dear Sir:

Re: The Slippery Slope Gains Momentum

Restrictions on free speech are a slippery slope. It started with Keegstra, and what he said in class. Although he no doubt believed it, starting in 1984, it was a celebrated case of the promotion of “hatred.” Restricting Keegstra's speech was used as the excuse in the next case, that of Malcolm Ross, a teacher in New Brunswick. The Malcolm Ross case was used as the excuse for the restriction on the speech of Paul Fromm, another teacher, from Ontario. Now, Chris Kempling is the latest target for censorship. The slippery slope is gaining momentum.

In regard to your editorial regarding the BCTF Discipline of Chris Kempling, I can speak with some experience, as one who represented James Keegstra and Malcolm Ross before the Supreme Court of Canada and Paul Fromm before the Peel Board of Education. Your editorial seems to suggest that restrictions until now, have only existed on in-class communication for teachers. After Malcolm Ross's case, nothing could be further from the truth.

It never ceases to amaze me how uninformed the media are about issues of free speech. This was brought painfully home to me as a result of reading about the predicament of Chris Kempling. He claims the BCTF are restricting his right to freely express his moral views on his own time outside of school. Of course, he is right. They are. But then the precedent was set by the New Brunswick Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Malcolm Ross which went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Ross never said or did anything unusual in class and was an outstanding teacher. He was fired by the order of the Supreme Court of Canada, not for classroom communication, but for public communication of his religious views in books he published, like Spectre of Power. So the precedent was set.

It was next applied by the Peel Board of Education to Paul Fromm for his out-of-class communication. Surprise, surprise! It is now being used against less controversial views, such as those of Chris Kempling. Soon any opposition to multiculturalism, immigration, or perhaps discussion about the spread of SARS, will be banned, or probably Christianity itself, for teachers. Wake up editorialists and smell the tyranny of the mediocre. Too late you realize what has happened years ago. Perhaps you fail to understand that the particular views of a speaker should never be used as an excuse to justify censorship in principle. Soon it will affect everyone, unless you speak out, as I did starting in 1984, when the Keegstra case began. I could see the implications that Mr. Kempling and you only realize today. Thank you for coming to the defence of Mr. Kempling, but let this be the beginning of a more courageous stand for freedom of speech, especially for people you don't agree with.

If freedom means anything, it is the one valuable gift you have to give to your worst enemies, in order to keep it for yourself.

Duglas Christie

 

April 30, 2004 – Death of Bob Ward

To the Editor:

Norm Gidney's article about the life of Bob Ward is a symptom of the corruption of our time. He uses one and only one metaphor for Bob Ward. He refers to him as a gadfly.

Bob Ward spoke the truth about a $500-million boondoggle like the B.C. fast ferries. The Premier and all the B.C. Ferries elite called him a fool or a liar. He spoke out and was ostracized and cut-off from work in his profession. If his advice had been heeded, he would have saved B.C. taxpayers $500-million (twice the amount in the ad scam). He sued the Premier, at huge personal cost, over 6 years, for calling him a liar. Mr. Clark could not prove one word of Bob Ward's criticisms to be false. They were all true, as the Court of Appeal agreed.

He won at the trial, but the government appealed. He lost in the Court of Appeal basically because politicians have a privilege to defame. He had to personally pay costs of thousands. He tried to find out the amount the government paid for Clark's legal fees. The Information and Privacy Commissioner denied the information, unlike in the libel action costs of then Alberta cabinet minister Stockwell Day. But Bob Ward battled on, disregarded, disrespected by the old boys network at B.C. Ferries who can't build new conventional ferries for years. He pointed this out to the Premier and got nowhere, as Tom Ward (no relative) once in charge of B.C. fast ferries gets further government work.

And then when he dies, you refer to him as a “gadfly”. Could there be any better demonstration of why Canada is a mediocre, corrupt country, run by deceitful and subservient leaders who can only kneel in Ottawa or Washington and beg for favours? As Bob Ward and I often agreed: Free the West; we have nothing to lose but our corrupt masters.

He was no gadfly. He was an officer and a gentleman, and one of the few men of honour and integrity in our time.

Douglas Christie

 

August 26, 2009 – Sewage plan amounts to highway robbery

The project has no scientific basis, and should be put to a referendum

Imagine a community of 500,000 people who face an imposed debt of $1 billion. That would be $2,000 for every man woman or child, or $8,000 for a family of four.

Imagine this being ordered by a cabinet minister without any vote by a single elector.

Impossible, you say? Not at all. This is very similar to Victoria's sewage treatment edict from Environment Minister Barry Penner, except the cost is more likely to be $2 billion or more when it is done. Therefore a family of four's debt would be $16,000.

I attended a community information meeting sponsored by the majority of community associations on this proposal. I had two questions.

The chairman of the Capital Regional District has indicated, by way of correspondence, that he does not envision submitting the final cost of the liquid waste management plan for approval by the electorate in a referendum. In light of the onerous property-tax implications, I would submit that this is undemocratic and could be thought of as dictatorial.

I therefore wanted to request that each of the associations demand their respective municipal administrations ensure that any expenditure is legitimized by way of referendum. (Note: Section 24 (7) of Part 3 of the Environmental Management Act, by implication, states that the electorate approval is not mandatory. It is therefore discretionary.)

Since the proposed sewage-treatment facilities will seriously degrade the residential property values in their vicinities and their operations will bring continued social aggravation, I wanted to ask the association, on behalf of your members and communities, to demand their municipal governments bring in policies that no treatment plants be permitted within their boundaries.

The community associations' representatives did not attend. The facilitator denied the right to ask either question.

Saanich Coun. Judy Brownoff ridiculed questions about the legitimacy of Penner's demand. She said we must obey and pay. Complain to the federal or provincial government, she said.

Penner has not indicated any fault in the existing system.

Why is he giving no reason for destroying our present system when the scientific evidence supports that the existing system is environmentally sufficient and acceptable?

Instead, Penner orders “the work must be done,” according to Geoff Young, who chairs the CRD. Substantial fines are threatened if we decline to follow this interpretation of Penner's order.

All this is taxation without representation. This is highway robbery and property-value destruction.

Unless the minister has demonstrated serious environmental damage from the existing system, his threats of fines and his demand for secondary treatment are hollow and superfluous.

We should demand a referendum on this matter. The CRD should launch a constitutional challenge to the arbitrary power of the minister.

He has no legal right to breach the basic principles of democracy. Both Sections 1 and 7 of the Charter demand that government respect the democratic process.

The CRD should launch a referendum, and then a constitutional challenge to this arbitrary, undemocratic, ministerial arrogance.

Doug Christie is a Victoria lawyer.