BACK TO GROUNDS, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA

TRANSCRIPT OF E-MAIL

To:  Toronto Star Publisher, Michael Goldbloom
Care of Toronto Star
21 July 2006
From:  Kathleen Moore (Montreal)


This question is for your Publisher, Mr. Michael Goldbloom.

Michael Goldbloom, Montreal Gazette Publisher of 1995 pre-referendum Silent Constitution Scam   Senator Joan Fraser, Editor-in-chief of the Gazette's 1995 pre-referendum Silent Constitution Scam
LEFT:  Gazette Publisher, lawyer Michael Goldbloom, and RIGHT:  Senator Joan Fraser, Editor in Chief
of the 9 January 1995 pre-referendum Editorial:
"The Canadian constitution does not provide for a province to leave confederation (nor does it forbid departures - it is merely silent on the matter." [See full Editorial, farther below.]


I am pasting below an extract of the web site of Stephen Kimber (http://stephenkimber.com/ content.php?cid=22) alleging journalistic interference at Gazette from the Aspers when they owned it.

I am also attaching a scan of a 9 January 1995 lead editorial board item by Gazette Publisher Michael Goldbloom, Editor in Chief Joan Fraser, and others, entitled "Legalities of Separation Important". This editorial was prior to the ASPER era. Mr. Asper acquired Gazette from Hollinger, which had been owned by Conrad Black, the latter gentleman being an (honorary) Member of Canada's Privy Council and author of Canada's Continuing Identity Crisis for the Council on Foreign Relations journal "Foreign Affairs" [17 pages beginning at 74 Foreign Aff. 99 (1995)] in which Mr. Black disparages Canada's "continuing identity crisis" (perhaps as propounded through the Hollinger press?] and in which he rounds out the economic value of Canada's landmass, human and natural resources to the United States in the event of annexation by noting that their acquisition would more than cover the loss of every natural resource ever spent or wasted by the Americans in the prior century, while topping up the Assets column of their balance sheet for at least the next century.

Both Mr. Asper and Mr. Black are reported as being invited participants of the Bilderberg group, and in the case of Mr. Black, he was on the group's steering committee and hosted the 1996 Bilderberg meeting in King City (nice touch!) Toronto after the 1995 Quebec Referendum.

I would like to know if Conrad Black had any say in this particular editorial in which it is asserted that the Constitution of Canada is "silent" to the extent of not forbidding a province to secede from Canada.

I notice from Mr. Michael Goldbloom's biographical notes online that he holds a BCL - Bachelor of Civil Law from McGill. Mr. Goldbloom would then have been in a more informed position than the ordinary journalist in respect of the editorial of 9 January 1995, which says, "There is a debate raging amongst lawyers and pundits, including some in this newspaper, over the legality of Quebec separation and the Parti Québecois government's draft sovereignty bill. Many experts argue both are illegal. The Canadian constitution does not provide for a province to leave confederation (nor does it forbid departures -- it is merely silent on the matter)."

Given that Mr. Michael Goldbloom is a trained lawyer, and that his name stands atop this lead editorial, I would like to know what measures Mr. Goldbloom took as a trained lawyer to confirm the truth of the very important foregoing statement before publishing same: (nor does it forbid departures -- it is merely silent on the matter)" which by necessary implication amounts to a declaration that secession is not illegal. That is a very important statement; I am sure Mr. Goldbloom would have checked on it before promulgating it to his English-speaking readers in Quebec. For example, did Mr. Goldbloom check on it with Constitutional experts who would certainly have been available to him at McGill, such as, for example, Professor Stephen A. Scott?

Moreover, Mr. Goldbloom himself, holding a BCL, might have some Constitutional law background; even the simple application of statutory construction methods to sections of the Constitution designed at the Bill Stage to determine and narrow its purpose and exclude its opposite, would presumably have been a tool at Mr. Goldbloom's fingertips from his education in Civil Law.

Of course, Editor-in-Chief Joan Fraser, whose name also tops this lead editorial implying that the secession of Quebec from Canada would not be illegal, was ultimately named a Senator of Canada, and Chaired the Committee reviewing Bill C-20, the Clarity Bill, now known as the Clarity Act, enacted by Canadian Parliament to "give effect" to the "requirement for Clarity" in both the question and the vote result on any upcoming Referendum on the separation of Quebec from Canada. It is no doubt by pure coincidence that the Clarity Act in fact "gives effect" to the aforesaid necessary implication and "legal view" of the Gazette, as a Bilderberg publication, that secession of a Province from Canada would not be illegal.


http://by121fd.bay121.hotmail/msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000... 2006-07-21




Page 2 of 2

The manner in which the Honourable Senator Joan Fraser came to chair the passage of the Clarity Bill should be noted, given that Senator Fraser's Committee was in fact the "Senate Transportation Committee," which was given Bill C-20 over the apparently strenuous objections of the Canadian "Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs" which deals with such matters, but in this particular case, was deemed (apparently by the Prime Minister [Jean Chretién]), to be "too busy" to handle it. And so, it was "shipped" to the Honourable Senator Fraser.

In addition, it is my understanding that Mr. Michael Goldbloom's father, Dr. Victor Goldbloom, submitted a FACTUM of the Intervener on behalf of the Official Languages Commissioner for Canada in the Hôpital Montfort affair. In that factum, the Intervener goes to considerable lengths to facilitate the issuance of a ruling on "minority rights" which "relies on" the "unwritten principles" invented in the Supreme Court of Canada's Provincial Judges Reference of 1997 at the very instant when that Court also had before it the Order in Council from Prime Minister Chrétien's Cabinet compelling a Reference opinion NOT on the legality of secession (which, as we can tell from the Gazette lead editorial, is merely "presumed" legal) but on whether UNILATERAL secession by Quebec would be legal. Apparently, the Montfort ruling obligingly adopts Mr. Victor Goldbloom's "statutory construction" of these "unwritten principles" invented by the Supreme Court, thus constituting the very first piece of jurisprudence using the Secession Reference newly invented "principles".

Correct me if my impression is wrong, but the media-legalization of the Quebec Secession would appear to be largely an inside job by the Bilderberg-owned Montreal Gazette, its employees, and family members in a joint effort on behalf of Bilderberg and the Canadian Prime Minister's Office.

I look forward to your kind response, Mr. Goldbloom, and thank you very much in advance for your time and prompt reply.


. . .

Following is the extract from Kimber's web site:

"Two months after that, in September 2001, Michael Goldbloom, the publisher of the CanWest-owned Montreal Gazette resigned, citing "fundamental differences" with the new owners. Though he wouldn't be specific at the time, he would later tell the New York Times, "There is no question in my mind the Aspers feel they own the newspapers and the newspapers should reflect their views. It's not just what you see in the paper but what you don't see."

How fundamental Goldbloom's fundamental differences really were quickly became evident at his former paper.

Gazette TV critic Peggy Curran's review of a CBC documentary that criticized the Israeli military for targeting media working on the Palestinian side of the Middle East conflict, was held for a day and then altered before being published.

"Usually criticism is criticism and you're allowed to say what you want," Curran explained later. "I can't think of another occasion when this has happened to me." Soon after, Curran gave up her TV critic's job and went on a year's leave of absence. "Whether you know it or not," she added, "you start censoring yourself."

"Journalists discovered if they didn't censor themselves, CanWest would do it for them."


http://by121fd.bay121.hotmail/msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000... 2006-07-21


Note:  Mr. Goldbloom did not reply to the foregoing email.



BACK TO GROUNDS, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA




ATTACHMENT to EMAIL:
Masthead of Gazette Lead Editorial of 9 January 1995 That Secession Not Illegal



TRANSCRIPT OF THE WHOLE EDITORIAL:


MICHAEL GOLDBLOOM   President and Publisher
JOAN FRASER   Editor In Chief
ALAN ALLNUT   Executive Editor
JENNIFER ROBINSON   Editorial Page Editor
RAYMOND BRASSARD   Managing Editor (News)

E D I T O R I A L
Legalities of separation important
But more crucial questions are being glossed over by PQ  [Final Edition]

The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec, 9 January 1995. page B.2

There is a debate raging among lawyers and pundits, including some in this newspaper, over the legality of Quebec separation and the Parti Quebecois government's draft sovereignty bill.

Many experts argue both are illegal.  The Canadian constitution does not provide for a province to leave confederation (nor does it forbid departures - it is merely silent on the matter).  International law is no help to separatists either.  Experts say Quebecers have no legal right of secession because they are not oppressed or colonized.  International law does not confer on Quebec a right to secede any more than it would confer that right on a region within a sovereign Quebec.  The law is squarely on the side of federalists; Ottawa has the authority to take all necessary measures, including force, to defend the territorial integrity of Canada.

Others, including Justice Minister Allan Rock, dismiss legal issues as technicalities.  What will decide the independence issue are political, not legal realities.  Many argue that Quebec has the right to become independent if that is what a decisive majority of its people, freely and in full understanding, choose.  They argue that the legality of separation is irrelevant because the ultimate way to impose the law is by force and Canadians clearly do not want that; therefore, the legal questions are of no importance. Canada should be held together by the will of its people, not by force of arms.

Certainly, there is a great deal of truth on both sides of the argument.  However, there is a risk that the debate over legal issues could divert attention away from the many questions about independence that are not being addressed by Jacques Parizeau.

Quebecers, come referendum day, should be in a position to make an informed choice.  The legitimacy of the referendum depends on how clear the question is and how well-informed Quebecers are on the PQ government's proposal.  If a majority of Quebecers, in full understanding, were to choose to separate from Canada, then they should be able to do so.

But judging from the way things are going so far with the PQ government, the referendum campaign will be one of manipulation, not information.  Premier Parizeau's sovereignty bill and referendum question are evidence of that.

The Parizeau bill on sovereignty seeks authority - based on a majority vote in a referendum - to unilaterally declare Quebec independence one year after the referendum.  Independence would be declared even if attempted negotiations with the rest of Canada failed to result in the conditions promised in the bill.  The sovereignty bill requires Quebecers to vote on independence based on a list of assumptions and promises that the PQ government is in no position to guarantee.  It would make more sense to ask Quebecers to vote on independence based on things it knows it can deliver.

As for the proposed referendum question, it is subject to confusion.  It asks:  "Are you in favor of the Act passed by the National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec?  Yes or No?"  Instead, it should be clear:  "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada and become an independent country?  Yes or No?"  Polls show there is already confusion among Quebecers about sovereignty meaning Quebec would separate from Canada.

As things stand now, the independence proposal is full of holes, question marks and misleading assurances.  Mr. Parizeau would like Quebecers to think that sovereignty is as easy as passing a law in the National Assembly.  No costs.  No headaches.  He has made several comments that suggest that he views the referendum as a game of tactics; he recently told an interviewer that all he needed were a few Ontarians stomping on a Quebec flag and independence would be in the bag.  Some game:  at stake is one of the richest, freest countries in the world and the future and security of all Canadians, including Quebecers.  While the premier has a duty to ensure that Quebecers get the facts to make an informed choice, he seems to want to do the opposite.

Perhaps this is where the questions of legitimacy and the law become most important.  Legalities should not be used to deny Quebecers the right to make an informed choice or the right to separate if that is what they truly want.  But the federal government has the legal authority, and indeed the obligation, to ensure that the choice is based on reality, not assumptions or confusion or trickery.  There are grounds for major debate on how to determine what the true will of the people is, but there is no question of Ottawa's duty to do so.

In the meantime, there are many questions for Mr. Parizeau, political, legal and economic.  The PQ government has not said how it would carry out a unilateral declaration of independence; or how it would handle Quebecers who refused to recognize the independent state.  How would an independent Quebec deal with Ottawa's legal obligations toward Quebec natives?

What would the new regional governments outlined in the bill do?  What taxing powers would they have?  What are the financial implications?  Mr. Parizeau has not said.

Mr. Parizeau promises an end to duplication with federal bureaucracy and at the same time, he promises to hire federal civil servants and to create new regional governments.  Where is the logic?  Where is the saving?

Would the PQ government hold a second referendum if negotiations fail to deliver the benefits promised in the sovereignty bill?  If not, why not?  What happens, say, if concessions required to join the North American Free Trade Agreement are bigger than most Quebecers want to pay?  What happens if the international community refuses to recognize Quebec independence?

Mr. Parizeau should start answering fundamental questions.  On an issue as important as Quebec separation, he should ensure that voters are well informed.  It is in the interest of no one to gloss over reality.

- 30 -


BACK TO GROUNDS, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA

TRANSCRIPT OF E-MAIL
To: Senator Joan Fraser
Friday, 6 March 2006, 12h04 a.m.
From: Paul Hudson


Subject:  Gazette Editorial of 9 January 1995.


Senator:

I am doing research on the Quebec secession issue, and have come across an Editorial on page B2 of the 9 January 1995 Gazette entitled:  "Legalities of separation important" in which the statement is made:
"There is a debate raging among lawyers and pundits, including some in this newspaper, over the legality of Quebec separation and the Parti Quebecois government's draft sovereignty bill.

Many experts argue both are illegal.  The Canadian constitution does not provide for a province to leave confederation (nor does it forbid departures - it is merely silent


Page 2 of 2

on the matter)."
. . . . . . . . . .

I would appreciate knowing who was the Editor-author of that Editorial.  In obtaining that information, I would like to ask that person for more background on the "debate raging" "in this newspaper" and what sources were used by the Gazette in coming to the conclusion that the Constitution neither "forbids" nor provides for "departures" by secession.  I would like to contact any persons used as sources for this constitutional interpretation to get more background on how this was arrived at.

. . . . . . . . . .

My object is to track down the origins of the remark that the Constitution is "silent" on the matter.  That remark was, of course, echoed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference, but I want to know -- before the subject got to the high court, who in fact first stated that the Constitution is silent on secession.

. . . . . . . . . .

I will be grateful for your time in answering this question.

Thank you.

(scan of article attached)

Note:  Senator Joan Fraser replied to the foregoing email, by alleging the Constitution is "silent" and offering no contacts and none of the background requested in the email. A copy of her reply follows, below:




TRANSCRIPT OF E-MAIL
From:  Senator Joan Fraser - frasj@sen.parl.gc.ca
12 March 2006
To:  Paul Hudson


Subject:  Gazette Editorial of 9 January 1995.

Senator Joan Fraser, Editor-in-chief of the Gazette's 1995 pre-referendum Silent Constitution Scam
Senator Joan Fraser, Editor in Chief
of the Montreal Gazette's 9 January 1995
pre-referendum "Silent Constitution" scam:

Dear Mr. Hudson,

The answer to your question regarding "who in fact first stated that the Constitution is silent [on] secession" is simple:  the Constitution makes absolutely no reference to secession; nor does it say as some countries [sic] constitutions do, that Canada is indivisible.  In other words, our constitution is, as a purely factual matter, silent on this issue.

Sincerely,

Senator Joan Fraser

BACK TO GROUNDS, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA