How Jane Stewart might have prevented the American Revolution
Had there been an American Human Rights Commission in 1773 modelled on today's Canadian Human Rights Commission, then it could have explained to the discourteous Americans that the Boston Tea Party had been "deeply offensive" to the British, and that it had constituted an outburst of hatred against a national group. — Lubomyr Prytulak
The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
RE: Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) File 20031527, Canadian Jewish Congress v Ukrainian Archive (CJC v UKAR) at www.ukar.org
ATTENTION: The instant 11-Aug-2005 Lubomyr Prytulak letter to Paul Martin is copied to Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) Chief Commissioner Mary M Gusella, and to CHRC Investigations Manager John J CHAMBERLIN, as a Prytulak submission to the CHRC in the matter of CJC v UKAR and in support of the Prytulak argument that the Ukrainian Archive does not blame the Kosher Supermarket Tax on Jews collectively, but only upon a small segment of Jewish leadership.
Mr Prime Minister:
Canada Revenue Agency's 10-Mar-1997 News Release titled "Revenue Minister concerned by tax deduction misinformation" and reproduced below occasions the following observations.
Most importantly, Revenue Minister Jane Stewart deeply offends the Jewish people by assuming their collective complicity in a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), where the charge of "criminal conspiracy" is explained in the 19-Jun-2004 Prytulak to Martin letter titled "Canadian Jewish Congress Criminal Conspiracy Under The Competition Act" at www.ukar.org/martin/martin17.html.
In fact, the majority of the Jewish people play no role in either implementing the Canadian Jewish Congress Supermarket Tax or sharing its revenues, and are almost as unaware of its existence as non-Jews. Jane Stewart's implicit condemnation of an entire people for a crime committed by an infinitesimal proportion of them is racist, and constitutes exactly the sort of stereotypical thinking that the Canadian Human Rights Act is designed to punish.
Furthermore, it does not pass without notice that Jane Stewart's statement that the "charitable donation" is "non-existent" denies only that paying the CJC Supermarket Tax will be recognized as a "charitable donation" under the Income Tax Act. Jane Stewart most significantly does not deny that a Canadian Jewish Congress Supermarket Tax is collected, nor does she deny that if payment of this Supermarket Tax were recognized as a charitable donation, then its magnitude might justify a charitable-donation deduction in the range of $200 to $500, which multiplied by 15 million taxpayers implies annual kosher-business revenues in Canada ranging from 3 to 7.5 billion dollars.
Boston Tea Party 1773
Jane Stewart's position boils down to her insisting that consumers submissively continue to pay the Canadian Jewish Congress Supermarket Tax without benefit of a charitable-donation deduction. This Jane Stewart insistence is deeply offensive to the many Canadians who object to having — every time they line up at a supermarket checkout — the CJC dip its hand into their wallets to confiscate an amount that the wallet owner is not permitted to know. These Canadians are doubly offended at having to pay income tax on money that the CJC thusly subtracts from their income and adds to its own.
To Jane Stewart's way of thinking, perhaps, Americans should have continued paying the British Tea Tax without staging the 1773 rebellion known as the Boston Tea Party. Had there been an American Human Rights Commission in 1773 modelled on today's Canadian Human Rights Commission, then it could have explained to the discourteous Americans that the Boston Tea Party had been "deeply offensive" to the British, and that it had constituted an outburst of hatred against a national group. Using such compelling arguments as these, the American Human Rights Commission of 1773 could have contained American racial hatred against the British, and could have punished the writing of such incendiary hate propaganda as "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical" (Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779, Papers 2:545). By such actions as these, the American Human Rights Commission of 1773 might have reduced American xenophobia, and might have averted the American Revolution.
Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Department of History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto ON M3J 1P3
John J CHAMBERLIN, Manager Investigations, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON K1A 1E1
Hon. Irwin COTLER, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa ON K1A 0H8
Mary M GUSELLA, Chief Commissioner, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa ON K1A 1E1
Ed MORGAN, National President, Canadian Jewish Congress, 100 Sparks Street,
Ottawa ON K1P 5B7
Revenue Minister concerned by tax deduction misinformation
OTTAWA, March 10 1997...Revenue Minister Jane Stewart today expressed concern that certain groups are encouraging Canadians to make ineligible claims for non-existent charitable donations.
Various flyers circulated by these groups state that Canadian consumers pay higher prices for foods labeled kosher. One such publication alleges that a growing number of food processing and manufacturing plants in the food industry use a hidden kosher food tax to raise food prices to Canadian consumers. The flyers recommend that all taxpayers claim a ‘deduction’, ranging from $200 to $500, because they supposedly contributed to a Jewish religious organization when they purchased these groceries.
"The intent and message in this literature is deeply offensive to the Jewish community and, indeed, to all Canadians," said Mrs. Stewart. "The so-called ‘deduction’ described in these flyers does not exist and I urge all taxpayers to ignore this misleading advice."
Tax deductions for charitable donations are allowed only when they are accompanied by official receipts issued by registered charities. Furthermore, Revenue Canada field offices have been alerted to these claims and will follow procedures to review and disallow such claims under the Income Tax Act. All claims that Revenue Canada reassesses are subject to interest charges and the penalties that apply.
Canada Revenue Agency at