While this blog is written on April 1, 2019, ‘April Fool’s Day’, it is NOT a prank. I want to see serious discussion on the one solution to Climate Change which EVERYONE seems totally inept at raising, because?

  1. It flies in the face of the religious heretics who believe that sex is a gift of god and should, hence, be a human problem solved by? Mass starvation, suicide or mass murder by the religiously ‘endowed’ (that is, the rich nations who will push down any rights of our overpopulated, poorer parts of the globe through drones, the carpet bombing of civilian populations and then the deliberate shutdown of resources that would save other human beings). We allow continuing, forced exclusion from human rights of equivalency on the basis that someone’s ‘god’ has defined distant others as bad or ‘lesser’ than the nations of the rich; and
  2.  It flies in the face of economic heretics who see population growth as the economic engine which must justify mass consumption on increasing levels while the simple math of what over-consumption will do to the potential survival of ALL human beings is blatantly ignored; and
  3.  It implies that we deal with a human nature (sex) which is hard to control on a voluntary basis and, hence, we should not even raise it in the spectre of responsible human behaviour BECAUSE the implication becomes that we might face what Communist China miserably failed at trying to impose: the one child solution to population growth.

Well, as a former forest scientist who watched Forest Industry associations of big business interests use public propaganda to shut down the legitimate debates which WE ALL needed to have as Canada’s healthy forests disappeared into bigger and bigger forest slums, it is time to stop allowing the big shots to squander the public forums of ‘democracy’ while our mass media play this game of diddling this planet into a situation which raises the spectre of another extinction of a species, this time: OURS.

What has spurred this passionate blog/email against base human stupidity?

Well, on Saturday, March 29, 2019 a wise, lovely lady of my life pointed me to, first, a Youtube presentation by an evidently esteemed man from Canada’s oil industry. On the same day, she then led me to a media presentation of the loudest news of the day: a recorded phone conversation between Canada’s former Minister of Justice, Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould (JWR) and the Liberal speech master, the head of ‘Privy Council’. Mr. Michael Wernick was recorded while trying to coerce Ms. ‘JWR’ into using the courts of Canada to protect another good Liberal Party donor ‘for the sake of ‘9,000 jobs’ which might be lost if the esteemed engineering firm of SNC-Lavalin were shut down. Irony, SNC-Lavalin is in trouble for more than Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal code charges laid when the company tried to bribe the son of that Libyan tyrant years ago. About contracts in that dictatorial nation? Of oil. Where rich profits can be made regardless of what happens to the plebes of that distant nation after the oil disappears.

I find it ironic that I was led to two public presentations which illustrate the stupidity of the rest of us when we allow open, truly democratic debate to be guided by public presentations. The entrenched guide us into what the positioned want when the law demands something which our mass media DOES NOT protect in our electoral institutions: open and timely debate which can even challenge the probably honest but misguided intentions of richly positioned persons on this planet.

So, let us start off with the Youtube presentation by a smooth Chris Slubicki. Why did my bile turn both for and against this man’s talk still available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw2na9q68bk on April 1, 2019?

Well, Mr. Slubicki’s video reminds me of the slick presentations made by esteemed members of Canada’s associations of the forest industry business after 1980. Like the ‘new!’ forestry executive who appeared in public after the criticism of Canada’s management of its forests accelerated in the mid 1980’s, Slubicki’s speech was made as an executive of a Calgary oil enterprise named Modern Resources.

That Youtube talk which I was directed to was evidently made to The Canadian oil industry’s equivalent business association of what was once the Canadian Forest Industry Association (I am not taking the time at this time to see if the ‘CFIA’ is still in existence).

The Youtube information implies that Slubicki was addressing a meeting of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers on February11, 2019. As was clearly evident during the 1980’s Forest Industry agenda, the Slubicki presentation is slick and interesting. I suggest that you do justice to Slubicki and watch the talk in its whole.

But then start to think about this: About 4 minutes and 52 seconds (4:52) into his presentation, Slubicki begins to talk about the consequences of global warming. At least he, apparently, is trying to be honest with us. He states that “The stakes are too high” to ignore the realities of global warming. But, then his sales pitch becomes that we have an ethical responsibility to pump up the gas when it comes to oil.

Now, I found it ironic that, on my laptop computer at least, Youtube chose to send me directly into another January 22, 2019 talk by Slubicki (available on April 1, 2019 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyMHhAMc4M), apparently to the same ‘interest group’. I turned that video off after I saw the part where Slubicki insists that he is not what the general public views oil executives as: fat guys smoking fat cigars and getting fat off the land.

Slubicki insisted that he is not ‘that kind of guy’. He then revealed that he had once been a ski team instructor. He posted a picture of a bunch of young kids in fancy ski suits. This became his personal propaganda point: he IS concerned about the fact that ‘our’ generation has thrived off the resources.

The stupidity became NOT that he then pointed out that we were leaving an unthinkable burden on generations to follow! UNBELIEVABLY, the man then said that it was up to those young kids, who are now adults whom he saw at a university presentation in recent months. They, implied Slubicki, are faced with ensuring that the generations to come have an “even better life style” than his (and my… he says he is ‘about 60, I will be 67 by the end of this month) generation enjoyed.

That is when I did an emotional ‘brain-puke’ and turned Mr. Slubicki’s second presentation off. Why? I had already seen too much hypocrisy in Mr. Slubicki’s slick presentation to waste my time on another second of that second video.

Let me remind you of something which I learned as a former government forest scientist who watched ‘communication experts’ inside government suppress the truths behind the supposedly complicated science so that the general public missed the simple math. We have become a species which claims some form of higher intelligence, so why do we miss the simple math?

Because we have allowed elected persons like Ms. JWR to make themselves instruments of a continuing propaganda that ‘Canada is best’ and, hence, we are right to continue on paths which lead simpler species into repetitive cycles of crises for their children, if not mass extinction.

WE remain blind to the FACT that real democracy is NOT protected inside a mass media which will run to Mr. Slubicki’s speeches and then turn to the void of masses of other interest groups to provide us with ‘contrary opinion’ while the simple math is completely ignored.

I am fed up with guys like Slubicki because he uses his education to puff himself and his position and his cohorts’ industry up above all other things. As in the 1980’s for Canada’s forests, all of the fancy graphs in the world will do nothing for civilization as we know it, if the simple math before us is not dealt with.

Slubicki does present his perception, that Energy Scarcity is an issue which must be addressed by increasing Canada’s oil production, in a very smooth way.

After all, he does start off using real data: we ARE some 7.5 billion people on this planet.

He does aptly point out that only 1.5 billion ‘live like we do’. He notes that only Canada, the USA, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore, Western Russia, Australia, etc. use 34 barrels of all sources of energy (expressed as ‘barrels of oil’) on an annual basis.

The next 2.4 billion people, in places like China, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, etc. use 14 ‘barrels of energy’ per person. Places like India, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Ghana, Egypt, etc. (adding up to 2.6 billion on his graph) use 4 barrels per year per person.

There are about a billion people who use only 1 barrel of energy per year, in the Congo, Mozambique, Uganda, Sudan, etc. Slubicki is careful to emphasize that a lot of the humans in this part of our world burn coal, wood or cattle dung. He expresses amazement that, in this year, people are still burning cattle dung.

And then he decays into the argument that poverty can be defined by ‘energy scarcity’ and that we should be working hard to get those other nations up to our standard of living.

To his merit, he raises the issue of alternate energy, ‘renewable fuels’. He is apparently enthusiastic about these new options for energy sources. BUT, then the lecture decays into an argument, which also has much merit in a truly open debate, that his graphs of energy consumption show that the decreased level of energy consumption also correlates to the statistics which illustrate a correlation between the decrease in ‘living conditions’ and the decline in ‘energy consumption..

I am not going to pull the numbers off his graph which show that life expectancy is ‘highest’ in ‘our nations’ of consumption, that the ‘years of education for children’ are highest here also, and that deaths from air pollution increase markedly in poorer nations, nations with low oil/energy consumption. He does use a slide of people dancing in the pollution on the streets of China, in air filled with coal smoke, to make his point why this last factor is so high in nations of low energy consumption.

However, I became increasingly agitated as this presentation went on, why? Because it followed the presentation tactics of the forest industry of the 1980’s AND it is A TACTIC which OUR MASS MEDIA remains oblivious to.

There is much hypocrisy when we arrive at Slubicki’s insistence that “… any 10 year old kid can criticize. We need solutions …”. We do, so why is our oil industry, as was our forest industry, so keen on promoting their side of the equation while??? How many ‘environmentalists were put in front of this same audience of oil producers? It is as I witnessed by 1998, even as a small town ELECTED OFFICIAL. Slubicki and friends are eager to promote the perception that they are ethical and none of the rest of us are, even as the instruments of our public debates, ELECTORAL PROCESSES, are co-opted to sell their self-serving agendas.

At 2:00 into his presentation, Slubicki is decrying that the debate about oil use is ‘polarized’. I can not help but agree with his demonstrated contempt for ‘self-interest’ groups (about 12:56 into his talk). BUT I am fed up with this denial by these industry snob types that they do not have ‘self interests’ when they insist that Canada must up its energy production on the basis that we are ‘more ethical’ than ‘those other nations’.

Really?

There is much dishonesty to this base fact of the situation which this planet faces in 2019: many of those ‘poorer nations’, many of those nations with poor conditions for education and survival face what? A History of Heavy bombardment of their populations to keep them ‘under control’ as they enter a battle to survive.

This is a situation, of a struggle for daily survival, which Mr. Slubicki seems to not want for those members of his ‘ski team’ and children WHILE he proposes a minimum of doubled production of Canadian oil fields instead of considering the easiest solution when the fringes of any species are facing mass starvation or the eventual consumption of resources, like air and water.

Where is the DISCUSSION, OPEN AND LOUD about::: DEMAND REDUCTION?

First, let us get one thing straight, here. In January 2011, I fled this hotter and hotter battle I was having inside my own house in this nation, about what personal responsibility is. I gifted a book to a beach hut’s young Cuban bartender: Canadian General, Romeo Dallaire’s book Shake Hands with the Devil, a record of his sad service with the United Nations’ contingent which failed to stop another round of human mass genocide in Rwanda.

Cuban bartender said that he had heard about the book and about Rwanda: where, he said, he had heard some 8 million were butchered (having just finished the book, I knew the number was supposedly nearer a ‘mere 800 thousand’). He said that he was reading another book, George Orwell’s 1984, gifted to him by another Canadian. He felt that Orwell’s book was too uncomfortably close to his Cuba’s circumstances in 2011. But, I warned him that he was overly naive when he said that it seemed to him that Canada had solved the problem of what democracy really was.

We did both agree on one thing: Cuba was into a human dilemma because, as the young man so eloquently put it, “Castro’s version of ‘equality’ was the ‘equality’ of imposed poverty’. Suffering from the American embargo, in 2011, people in distant villages in Cuba were NOT getting their weekly rations of rice while Castro and his gang of ‘revolutionaries’ still danced freely and richly in Havana.

So, let us get one thing ultimately clear. I detested David Suzuki and his philosophy of ‘environmental responsibility’ because then it became a discussion that we ‘must save the Boreal Forest’. Mean while the equation of what that did to the lives of people working in those forests was silenced. I, therefore, am NOT a proponent of ‘shut down the oil industry!’ without any thought at all. BUT I am NOT a proponent of Mr. Subicki’s bigger interest group which says that the solution is to up oil production to deal with ‘human rights and demands’ while we stay silent to what that will do to generations to come.

As the forest industry self-interest groups declared by 1990, as mills slammed their doors and left towns with suicidal residents, we need to expose the writing on the wall, the truths and then deal with ALL OF THE OPTIONS before us, including that one about reducing demand by voluntarily reducing the human population on this planet.

Mr. Slubicki, et al, are stuck in this archaic, complicated ‘GDP’, ‘We need growth!’ model when the simplest solution is to reduce demand.

So why is THERE NO DEBATE on this issue: Of birth control?

By 1969, in a high school in Petrolia, Ontario, Canada, I had a geography lesson which warned of the consequences of continued human population growth. Ironically, in that era, Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre, began to insist that we, the plebes, should consider responsible birth control. ‘Replace only yourselves’ was a philosophy which I agreed with because I saw the same problem presented in university classes. So, when I married in 1975, I warned that I would have no more than two children. After a son and a daughte hadr arrived by 1980, I refused my spouse’s want to follow Pierre Trudeau’s hypocrisy after his initial ‘order to the plebes’.

Pierre had 3 boys ‘in marriage’ and a daughter ‘via another source’.

In the arrogance of ‘the privileged’, like female heartthrob Mike Jagger of the Rolling Stones rock era (how many children has that old guy had?), evidently ‘those with money’ should be able to ‘break the rules’ of personal ethical conduct. Ironic that by 12:30 into his talk, Mr. Slubicki has guided us through his arguments that the big problem with abuse of our air lays in ‘personal decisions’. He gives an example of only 3% in his lecture hall having hybrid cars. What about the number of children had by each parent in that room?

“Ethical oil”? Ethics includes allowing the whole debate, thinking about the counter points raised and then giving some more reasons for more thoughtful debate. When the question was raised by 1969 as to why population growth was not being addressed to reduce demand on our world’s resources, why is this debate denied?

Oh, I am a man and I am not going to deny the pulling powers of the natural processes of ‘procreation’. I could not see why my spouse, who had such difficult births with the two children we had gained, wanted to ‘have more’ just from ‘the pain perspective’. But because I was the one who was insistent that there were ethical responsibilities to future generations in even our ‘birthing rights’, it was I who had the vasectomy in 1981.

I do dare to ask why we allow this discussion about GDP and ‘growth economics’ when the simple math is that, if we keep consuming oil as we have with forests and other resources, generations to come will face not just reduced oil resources. Ramping up our energy demand, instead of reducing it, leads to risks even Slubicki admits exist… and risks we cannot ignore.

We are, as Slubicki notes, a species of 7.5 billion which is putting unbelievable pressure on all world resources. So why are NONE OF OUR ‘DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS’ and the mass media which supposedly serves ‘democracy’, addressing the issue of how to deal with OUR COLLECTIVE PROBLEM in 2 decades, NOT the time frames which scientists warn are threatening our species?

IF we are truly serious about reducing energy demands and giving ‘equality’ greater probability on this planet, we will start to do the simple math of ‘apportioning’. IF we can convince people of my children’s generation (and the next one) that one baby per family is ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, WE could start to actually REDUCE the demands which lead to international violence which Mr. Slubicki is COMPLETELY DISHONEST TO. WE, the greedy, want to retain our consumption levels and life styles. To do that: We either reach into the nations where these resources are cheaper to extract; OR, we engage in technology which MIGHT improve extraction methods BUT do NOTHING to deal with the implications of a need for increased consumption (something known since 1865, as Mr. Slubicki notes in one part of his presentation, after 4:52) because of increasing numbers of human beings.

‘Political’ (often religious) differences are then used to justify mass murder in nations whose oil we want. In the hypocrisy of Mr. Slubicki’s industry’s mimicking of other resource depleting industries before us, ‘new technology’ allows the related industry to ensure that the company executive gets to retire to Florida and then escape to some other safer part of the globe when climate change impacts rip coastal towns apart.

Back in Canada, as in Canada’s Fort McMurray and Newfoundland fisheries and Ontario’s forests, the eager employee, servant to the CEO’s self-interests, will suddenly see a cushy job disappear. The distant towns and even cities fall into decay in 2019 and we still are NOT getting the gravity of this situation as it relates to air AND water..

Like any affair, if one is rich enough, the neglect is easier to engage in with citizens outside national boundaries. Like any affair, the neglect is easier to deal with, with citizens in distant towns who will no longer have the resources to march up to Parliamentary doors to demand why their towns are left starving in the wilderness.

Exploding populations? Responsible behaviour? I sicken of people like Slubicki who use this rah, rah nationalism to promote Canada’s interests over other nations ‘ethics’ when the repetitive illustration of the very BAD ‘ethics’ of Canada’s business elite is in front of us.

Why should a nation like China move to use oil and natural gas from Canada when cheaper sources, like that coal which Donald Trump so wants to free up, are options? For the sake of Canadian ‘entrepreneurs’ who declare themselves as ‘more ethical’?

Really?

At about 14 minutes into his presentation, Slubicki brings in commentary from old Liberal lawyer and once ‘Prime Minister’, Paul Martin. Mr. Martin insists that the oil industry is doing a poor job of selling itself as a concerned and ethical citizen when it comes to First Nation rights.

Let us get out of that bugaboo, first off. It was ‘the big issue’ which I heard in the forest industry and the governments of Canada after I dared to demand that the lying stop in 1982. The lying has not ended and it will not until we stop allowing ‘employment numbers’ to be justified by ‘growth industries’ instead of proper, daily consideration to the rights of others.

It matters NOT what new technology Slubicki and cohorts will and can brag about, in bringing down oil industry waste and inefficiencies. Bravo, his company is supposedly using solar and other electrical energy to bring methane escape down to ZERO. That is good. What is NOT good is this sales job that, if even Canadian ‘Indians’ can make big bucks in the oil industry (as did miners and loggers and fishermen in Canada’s not so recent past) while oil companies brag about their operating efficiencies from directional drilling and other ‘technology’. ???

What really matters is the dishonesty to this simple math as it is TOO CLEAR from our national history: When the gold runs out (Beardmore, Ontario), when the fish are brought to near extinction (Newfoundland’s cod industry), when forests are mismanaged so that fire, disease or insect-prone forests are left behind and then towns collapse into despair, ‘ramping up consumption’ to deal with a human species which is already demanding too much from this planet IS UNETHICAL.

So, this is when THE PEOPLE should go listen to that phone call (available at: https://globalnews.ca/news/5113348/wilson-raybould-recording/) , evidently provided from Ms. JWR, Canada’s once Minister of Justice. There, the international community of ‘democratic conscience’, should start to learn how all of this BECAME ILLEGAL WHEN the voice of challenge, FROM ANYWHERE, even the poor, is excluded in our electoral systems.

What is sickening here, is that Canada’s Chief of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, barely a minute into the conversation, raises the issue of ‘job losses’ for SNC-Lavalin IF criminal charges were processed because of? Only Partly Because of Shenanigans in Libya which the Canadian Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) found to be criminal in that ‘oil rich nation’. Apparently SNC-Lavalin officials tried to bribe the son of Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi. No, it seems, the antics of ‘bribery’ were committed in Canada (a bridge in Quebec ‘circa 2000’) before an ‘oil nation’ became another target for trying to exercise influence and gain contracts there (visit this report at CBC News, available on April 1, 2019: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/snc-lavalin-corruption-fraud-bribery-libya-muhc-1.5010865

But why is Wernick so sensitive to the potential loss of ‘9,000 jobs’ in 2019, in a “signature Canadian Firm”? As he starts this conversation, he makes reference to the loss of thousands of jobs in Southern Ontario because of issues raised with the Saudi Arabia violation of human rights. Ethics? It is clear that Canada has none or Mr. WErnick et al would not be still whining over the loss of jobs because of standing up against human rights issues in a distant nation.

At 3:50 into that recorded phone call, Canada’s former ‘Minister of Justice’ begins to imply that she is concerned about the appropriateness of this conversation with Mr. Wernick . The argument becomes that, as a Minister of Justice, the perception of any of her actions must be one of her complete impartiality in any decision she makes.

What becomes almost unbelievable that both she and Mr. Wernick raise the issue of talking about all of this with Canada’s Chief Justice, Beverly McLaughlin. Why does our media not challenge what the level of impartiality is in a federal court where Ms. JWR has only the option of consulting a ‘judge’, who is appointed by friends of the Liberal partisans, after first registering a Liberal loyalty as a lowly lawyer. OR of consulting a Conservative appointed Supreme Court ‘justice’ who is an appointee of the Conservative faction, an enemy of the 2019 presiding Liberals when that lowly lawyer chose to register Conservative loyalties so that a Conservative might promote him or her.

Skip to 9:50 into this taped phone conversation. Ms. JWR asks Mr. Wernick if he and Canada’s Prime Minister truly understand the gravity of the situation. It is not, Ms. JWR insists, just about the potential loss of 9,000 jobs. It is, Ms. JWR intones, “… about interfering with one of our fundamental institutions. … This is like breaching a constitutional principle of (prosecutory ..ial) independence. …”. The conversation carries beyond 10:30 into the former Minister of Justice’s concerns that all in Parliament must think about ‘… the integrity of how we act …’.

She uses words throughout this conversation that the “conversation is wrong” because political interference should have been avoided in the SNC-Lavalin investigation. JWR does not want the ‘integrity of the Prime Minister (Justin Trudeau)’ impacted? The ‘integrity of government’ is being impacted.

JWR implies that judicial processes must ‘act in a manner that is independent’. At one point, she insists that all involved cannot act in any way that can be seen as for partisan benefit.

So, when does the citizen AND the ‘journalist’ visit the ‘About Law, “Understanding the Law” posting of mine (http://takebackdemocracy.ca/how-partisan-violation-of-our-laws-strips-away-critical-daily-debate-in-issues-like-global-warming-etc/ . Please read that section and the extracts from international law which forbid the construction of courts which are NOT impartial in all ways.

These were issues which I have raised with partisans on all sides of the Canadian Parliament, since 2003: ‘judges’ who first register a state of bribery to gain the attention of the right partisan whom they hope will gain the power to appoint them into courts.

So, it is time to start challenging even lowly JWR as to why ‘impartial courts’ are NOT the avenue available to every Canadian citizen on every day of our year.

What to do about it?

I repeat:

Well, citizens of my nation and this planet, there is a way. In short, we need to do this to stop this corruption in its place::

  1. REFUSE to participate in an electoral process which has become an instrument for self-serving promotions and corruption of our courts. This partisan history has stripped us of more than just our voting rights and freedom of voice. Recognize THAT it is positioned partisan ‘judges’ who ‘legalize’ the new rules of exclusion which excluded my independent voice from being heard in 1997, 2006, and 2008 federal elections. START the conversation as to how we END ALL OF THIS and start to make rational decisions about big issues like Climate Change, instead of protecting the old hierarchies for ‘another four years’;
  2. Take lessons from life around you and understand how distant institutions are deliberately used to shut down debates which should be important to all of us. History’s lessons imply that our rights could be targeted next (as happened by 1940, too rapidly) if we remain silent. Educate yourself to how violation of the rights of one cause our elected and their rich friends to think that they can violate our laws in the same manner which Hitler’s henchmen did by 1933: remove small rights until it is too late to do anything about the critical rights and situations. Educate ourselves. Visit:http://takebackdemocracy.ca/how-partisan-violation-of-our-laws-strips-away-critical-daily-debate-in-issues-like-global-warming-etc/ to use my life lessons to start to understand why ending the violation to international law is a critical first step in achieving credible democracy. Subscribe so that you get blogs and emails telling when the next stage of web page development is complete;
  3. Consider the need for a new, short-term organization to bring credible democracy back into being by using the law, not repetitive, senseless demonstrations which go no where. While I intend to post a more detailed “HOW” (we do this, together) at the above site in short days time, I point out what we need to do, following the rules of International law:
  4. Start to recognize how abuse of the law has stripped away independent voice in ‘our vote’. When I post The Nipigon Story and The Wolsleley Story, you should have fuller understanding about this. A lot of reading will continue to be posted at the above web site. Hopefully this will motivate you to sponsor an organization where we will seek to ENCOURAGE, NOT RECRUIT, 308 independent voices in the 2019 federal election. Yes, we will ask 308, or even more, thinking citizens to apply to have their name on the federal ballot. WE will then make record(s) of the violations of international law in Canada’s voting processes and then file legal action to declare Canada’s 2019 ‘federal election’ as invalid under international law. The intent will be to force an electoral process which allows freed voice so that THE PEOPLE, NOT THE PARTISAN, are the persons selecting the individual they want to THINK FOR US ALL, IN DAILY RESPECT OF THE LAWS OF EQUALITY, NOT in submission to the likes of current ‘leadership’ options which we are forced to, ILLEGALLY, accept today;
  5. Educate ourselves and others to HOW corrupted courts have been ILLEGALLY used to create institutions of extortion, especially in our fields of health care, environmental oversight, and our ‘justice systems’. Engage staff to prepare a legal challenge to partisans in this nation, forced before impartial courts if necessary. Yes, unfortunately, that means recognizing when EVEN bureaucrats allow themselves to become instruments of partisans, NOT protectorates of THE LAW. In short, the agenda here will be to set up a separate organization to strip back the moneys taken away by ‘big public service unions’ and their ‘successors’; ‘law societies’, where the criminal exercise of influence AND breach of trust runs rampant; and ‘partisan organizations’, which have made superiority of race an oath of allegiance and religious rites above legal duties to the rest of us… yes, the intent will be to even force law society officials and their partisan friends INTO JAIL IF they DO NOT admit by a firm deadline (Voting day, 2019?) that they have abused position and power since 1948 and must change the Canadian institutions of law and ‘the vote’ to protect US ALL from this repeat of the circumstances of 1930.

An electoral system where oil industry executives are often the biggest sponsors of ‘government officials’ (look into the Saskatchewan Party and who was the biggest donor to the partisan group which eventually became the ‘majority ruler’ in Saskatchewan in the last provincial election: it was a rich oil executive out of Alberta!)? A judicial system where the partisan promotes only the lawyer who has first registered an allegiance with the partisan who gains power ‘via the vote’, who gains power only by submitting to the demands of ‘the sponsors’?

WE do have the power to end this but ONLY IF we decide to do so.

Generating Real Democracy: How our ‘democracies’, ‘the vote’ and our institutions of ‘justice’ have been made irrelevant by partisan entrenchment. What we need to do about it.