|Subject:||RE: [socialcredit] Bankers Toadies - 1937|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 11, 2006 21:01:33 (-0700)|
|From:||thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
(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.