|Subject:||RE: [socialcredit] Bankers Toadies - 1937|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 11, 2006 16:05:14 (-0700)|
|From:||William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 4237 (written by thomsonhiyu)|
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?
I included the full text of the "Toadies" pamphlet in
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?
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?
--- thomsonhiyu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
(Bill Ryan wrote:- ) First, from the perspective of
an American, I find it astounding that, in 1937
Canada, alleged libel could be considered criminal
rather than merely a civil tort, as it is here. The
right to free speech is here constitutionally
protected. And secondly, there is no jury in this
trial that sent two men to prison for several months
at "hard labour." Here, the right to trial by jury is
constitutionally protected for even minor infractions
in traffic court.
(Joe replies:- ) I have heard the dramatization
before, so I won't request a copy of it. It is
interesting, and well worth receiving and listening
to, for those who've not previously heard it. As
regards the above, I believe the charge against Powell
was one of 'seditious libel', not simply 'libel'.
'Libel', as in the USA, would be a civil tort here
also. 'Seditious libel' however, is, or was, an
offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, I believe.
And in this case it was obviously viewed as
counselling to commit a criminal offence ("...just
wipe them out") against an identifiable group.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around