< Previous | Next >
|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Bankers Toadies - 1937|
|Date:||Thursday, July 13, 2006 22:22:11 (+1200)|
|From:||W. McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
Hi Bill and Joe
In an attempt to clarify the argument about
"sedicious libel", with due respect to Bill, the two acts can be combined.
Sedition is any act conducted by a CITIZEN against an established government
calculated to undermine and negate the legal framework whereby that
government operates. It does not include justifiable critism of a government
elected to power, but does cover direct critism of the administrative
judicial and legal system phrased in a manner calculated to destroy the
credibility of the populace in that system. Sedition is an internal matter
for any particular country and does not involve external agencies. Treachery
does involve external influences whereby any citizen or citizens conspire
with an external agency to cause similar credibility loss. Working on this
premis certain types of libel can be interpreted as seditious. I trust this
clarifies the position.
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomsonhiyu" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Bankers Toadies - 1937
> (Bill wrote:-) According to the website cited, the source for the
> materials, the charge was "libel." Nothing about
> "seditious libel," whatever that could be. I can't
> imagine what it might be. There is sedition and there
> is libel. False accusations against the government?
> And who is to judge whether true or false?
> (Joe replies:- ) I believe 'seditious libel' would be making unfounded
> statements against some individual or group which could be viewed as
> inciting others to violence, thereby disturbing the "peace, order, and
> (supposedly) 'good' governance of the country". It might be viewed in
> the same way some of the more recent criminal Laws against wilfully
> promoting hatred or discrimination against some identifiable group are
> (Bill continues:- ) I included the full text of the "Toadies" pamphlet
> my previous post. There is nothing that could be
> construed as seditious in the ordinary sense of the
> word. But read it for youself. Libelous, perhaps,
> against the persons named in the pamphlet. The audio
> clip that I appended quotes the offended party,
> General Griesbach, under cross examination, as
> admitting to having made the following statement to a
> meeting of ex-servicemen:
> "We should give the government [meaning the Social
> Credit government] every opportunity to do the right
> thing, but if these methods do not succeed, we must
> consider other methods."
> Other methods? What in the world did General
> Griesbach mean by that? Surely not armed rebellion?
> (Joe replies:-) No, I don't think so. But we know now there was a very
> concerted effort mounted by the Canadian Bankers Association and the
> first Governor of the Bank of Canada, Graham Towers, to 'contain' what
> was then happening in Alberta. To financially 'isolate' that Province,
> and keep Social Credit from spreading to the other western Provinces.
> Whose governments were also all under tremendous pressure to 'do
> something' to ease the Depression, and all were quite shaky
> There was a concern that the 1936 Alberta Bond default would damage the
> credit rating of the Dominion as a whole in the international money
> markets if other Provinces got the notion they, too, could default and
> 'get away with it'. At that time the Bank of Canada itself had only
> just been chartered, and there really was no domestic equivalent here to
> 'Wall Street' or 'Lombard Street'. That the Alberta bond default was
> viewed abroad as an isolated incident, and that it didn't damage the
> credit of the Dominion in its ability to raise capital externally was
> seen by the Canadian Banks and Dominion government as a great success
> for Towers. In a sense, Aberhart, by not following Douglas's earlier
> advice and doing some of the contrary things he did, really made the
> situation worse than it otherwise might have been.
> (Bill continues:- ) I think the complete transcript from the trial would
> make interesting reading.
> Who appointed the judges in Alberta at the time, and
> what were their terms of office?
> (Joe replies:- ) It wouldn't have been Aberhart's government, through
> his Attorney-General in this case. Probably the trial would've taken
> place before a Judge appointed by the previous UFA Government, which had
> been in office for quite a few years before Social Credit came in. Or
> maybe even the Liberal one which preceded them. (Alberta's governments
> have all been long lasting once a Party is initially elected.)
> I don't believe there is a set 'term of office' for a Judge here.
> They're in there until they retire or resign. Or some 'cause' becomes
> apparent why they should be removed, i.e. being involved in some breach
> of the law themselves, or caught up in a scandal, or being in a conflict
> of interest situation, etc. 'Removal' seems to be rather unusual,
> though. In such instances their 'honour' would likely bring about their
> resignation first, (especially at that time, when 'honour' seemed to
> mean a lot more than it seems to mean in many quarters today).
> It may have been that the accused (Powell) elected to be tried by Judge
> alone, rather than by Judge and Jury. Jury trials don't seem to be as
> common here as in the USA.
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> You're subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit