Denaturalization and Deportation
Your excerpt of the “UCC Position on Denaturalization and Deportation” (hereafter d/d) in the Sept. 8 – 21, 1999, issue of the Ukrainian News presents the politically correct, legalistic version of the arguments against the d/d policy instituted by the Liberal government in 1995. Much of this excerpt is taken verbatim from the submission of the late Justice John Sopinka to the Deschenes Commission in 1985. These arguments are as valid now as they were 14 years ago.
There can be no doubt that these civil proceedings constitute a major violation of the civil liberties of the accused victim. No evidence of individual criminality is required. The victim is accused of lying during his immigration procedures, an accusation, which also can not be proven. In essence, the outcome of the trial depends whether the judge believes the prosecution’s contention that at a hypothetical immigration hearing, a hypothetical security officer asked a hypothetical question to which the accused did not answer truthfully.
D/d has nothing to do with justice, and is, in fact, a blueprint for injustice. These are political show trials in the worst sense of the term. They have seriously compromised Canada's justice system.
To explain my views on the issue, allow me to wander the fields of political incorrectness. Let us briefly examine three, perhaps interrelated, entities: the Holocaust Industry, the Canadian Establishment and the News Media.
The Holocaust Industry is, of course, the driving force behind the Nazi war criminal prosecutions since the end of World War II (WWII). In Germany, the Nurnberg War Crimes Trials were followed by thousands of other prosecutions, such that by the 1960s there were 27 full time prosecutors pushing these cases. As the power of the Jewish Lobby increased, the Industry spread its tentacles to the United States (INS, OSI), Canada (Deschenes Commission, Bill C-71, criminal trials, d/d), Australia, Britain, France and any other country it could infiltrate.
One of the main purposes of these trials appears to be to enter into the historical record a distorted picture of the realities of WWII. This is relatively easy to do, since the prosecution has the full power of the state behind it and access to unlimited resources, whereas the victim is often forced to beg for financial support from his ethnic community. Witnesses for the prosecution are encouraged to fabricate any fantastic story they wish with complete impunity. Consequently, much of the testimony recorded in the transcripts of these trials is implausible, improbable or, in some cases, impossible. The accused victim has neither the financial resources, nor even the inclination to try to counter these fabrications, since they seldom relate directly to his case. In this manner, the Canadian or American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the distortion of his own history.
Since the advent of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, the British complexion of the Canadian Establishment has acquired a significant French Canadian component. The B/B Commission, Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were all designed to cement the partnership of the British and French elites with concepts such as founding nations, bilingualism and biculturalism. The Partie Quebecois, with its separatist agenda, acts as a spur to accelerate the process. In the late 1960s, the Ukrainian community was at the forefront in promoting the concept of multiculturalism, which promotes equality of all ethnic groups in Canada. We have never been forgiven.
I find it curious that there is never any discussion of war crimes or crimes against humanity perpetrated by Allied personnel (including Canadian) during and after WWII, although there is massive evidence in this regard. The number of criminals in this category resident in Canada is at least two orders of magnitude greater than of the Nazi variety. Can you imagine the Canadian elite tolerating a process such as d/d, if it were directed at one of its own? Why do they condone it, when it is directed at a person of Ukrainian or Baltic origin?
In today’s world, information is power. The statement that “he, who controls information, controls the world” is not an exaggeration. It is, of course, the News Media, which controls the information to the general public. What symbiotic relationship exists between the Holocaust Industry and the Canadian elite with respect to control of the News Media?
Is it just a coincidence, that the major newspapers, radio and television freely promote the some of the mythology emanating from the Holocaust Industry, but seldom allow an opposing view to be heard to provide a balanced perspective? How many of your readers have written letters to the editor protesting some biased article, which the newspaper refused to publish?
Particularly disturbing was a vicious editorial in the National Post, July 15, 1999, maligning Eduards Podins and accusing Judge William McKeown of moral abdication for exonerating Mr. Podins of war crimes. I have since read Judge McKeown’s decision in which he points out that Mr. Podins simply worked as a shopkeeper serving German personnel from a nearby prison. The National Post owes Mr. Podins an apology and a retraction of their editorial.
One final note. It is my contention that the whole world is entering an era of technological serfdom just as dehumanizing as the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Is the d/d policy a portent of worse things to come?