Blackout on Private Bank Ruling
The Harper Government has ordered Canadian Media to Not report on the recent Federal Court of Canada ruling against Private Banks loaning operations.
To understand what this situation means…
You can continue reading below:
The Bank of Canada used to be a government lending institution, creating near interest free loans that built much of Canada’s infrastructure during the 50’s and 60’s.
In 1974 at the Bank of International Settlements in Basel Switzerland, Trudeau Sr. was convinced by fellow Bilderberg attendees to dismantle this crucial function of the Bank of Canada, and since then we’ve lost sovereign control of our monetary policies and money supply and government debt at all levels has risen dramatically.This court case challenges the disuse of the Bank of Canada to create money for the public good.
The Federal Court of Canada has ruled against private central banking. Meanwhile, the Harper GovernmentTM has ordered a media black out on this court case. Lets help spread the word!
- the Bank was set up in the 1930s as a vehicle to provide interest-free loans to federal and provincial governments for infrastructure and human capital expenditures, and for maintaining sovereign control over credit and currency with the purpose of asserting domestic and public control of monetary and economic policy;
- the Bank provided interest-free loans to federal, provincial and municipal governments in its “early and middle existence,” but stopped doing so in 1974 – after joining the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] – in favour of interest-bearing loans from foreign private banks;
- the BIS, which purports to facilitate co-operation and serve as a “bank for central banks,” in fact formulates and dictates policies to central banks;
- the BIS is not accountable to any government and its annual meetings are secret;
- policies such as interest rates are set by the Bank in consultation with, or at the direction of, the Financial Stability Board [FSB], established in 2009 after the “G-20” London Summit and linked to the BIS. The FSB also operates in a secretive and unaccountable fashion;
- the Bank is the only central bank among the G-8 countries that is a “public” bank created by statute and accountable to the legislative and executive branches of Government, with the others all being “private” banks not directly governed by legislation or directly accountable to the legislative or executive branches of their respective countries;
- the Bank was completely independent of international private interests before joining the BIS in 1974, but since then the Bank and Canada’s monetary and financial policy have gradually come to be largely dictated by private foreign financial interests;
- after Canada’s entry into the BIS, an agreement or directive was reached within that organization that the member central banks would not be used to create or lend interest-free money, but rather governments would obtain loans from and through the BIS;
- the ceding of control to foreign private interests is unconstitutional and the agreement or directive not to make interest-free loans to governments is contrary to the Bank Act; and
- these unlawful actions have had severe detrimental effects for Canadian citizens, including the development of a spiralling schism between the rich and the poor, the elimination of the middle class, and a corresponding rise in crime related to poverty.
See: investmentwatch.org
Bill C-51 and the Winnipeg General Strike
We are in Winnipeg. The Year is 1919.
The newly passed Bill C-51 is going to create a repeat of history.
A government attempt to silence dissent in that is a difficult economy for many regular Canadians.
The declared threat back then was “Bolshevism”. Today it is “Terrorism.” The game is the same. Only the terminology is switched.
The Immigration Act was amended so British-born immigrants could be deported. The Criminal Code’s definition of sedition was also broadened.
On 17 June the government arrested 10 leaders of the Central Strike Committee and two propagandists from the newly formed One Big Union. Four days later, a charge by Royal North-West Mounted Police into a crowd of strikers resulted in 30 casualties, including one death. Known as “Bloody Saturday”, it ended with federal troops occupying the city’s streets.
It would take another three decades before Canadian workers secured union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
Bill C-51 Passed: Canada has Darkened Today
Starting out as an illegal document there was no proper, rational discussion on Bill C-51.
This bill is a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights. The bill was designed to silence dissent.
In our rapid advance towards a North American Union, we have now witnessed the equivalent of the Emergency Act and Enabling Act of 1930s Nazi Germany become law in Canada.
This bill is also a violation of section 35:
The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It recognizes, as well, that the inherent right may find expression in treaties, and in the context of the Crown’s relationship with treaty First Nations. Recognition of the inherent right is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and their resources
Note: You are more likely to be killed by a moose than a terrorist.
Abuse of power concerns are not limited to CSIS alone. The Canadian Border Security Agenda (CBSA) has been given unjustified powers; also with no proper oversight.
Why have we allowed this government to build East Germany on the soil of this land?
Some people say they could be prosecuted for “hate speech.” That was already put into place a decade ago by Chretien’s Liberal Government. At the time Chretien said in the House of Common’s that the bill would not be used against people’s religious liberties. They could not guarantee such a promise at that time. Since then many people have been charged as a result of that law.
It shall be the same with Bill C-51 passing.
The brand name (party name) is not important. It is the behaviour and track record of the party you must examine.
Caveat: Whichever the brand name is (Tory, Liberal, whatever) if they can take away the civil liberties of another person or group they can take it from you!
Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Gelati, has stated:
“C-51 creates “a modern-day Gestapo,”
“No exaggeration, that’s what it creates. It chills, censors, and criminalizes free speech, free association, and constitutional rights of assembly.”
“German and Italian versions” of C-51 were passed in the 1930s.
Gelati “urged Canadians not to vote for any MP or political party supporting the controversial Tory bill.”
The Emerald Isle Blueprint for Turtle Island
The English claimed that they had a God-given responsibility to “inhabit and reform “so barbarous a nation” . No they were not talking about Aboriginal peoples living on Turtle Island.
It was the ‘Irish’ the Crown was referring to.
The Crown would teach them to obey English laws and to stop “robbing and stealing and killing” one another. They would uplift this “most filthy people, utterly enveloped in vices, most untutored of all peoples in the rudiments of faith.”
The English colonizers established a two-tiered social structure. According to sixteenth-century English law, “every Irishman shall be forbidden to wear English apparel or weapon upon pain of death. That no Irishman, born of Irish race and brought up Irish, shall purchase land, bear office, be chosen of any jury or admitted witness in any real or personal action.” To reinforce this social separation, British laws prohibited marriages between the Irish and the colonizers. The new world order was to be one of English over Irish.(
The Statutes of Kilkenny
The Statutes of Kilkenney ultimately helped to create the complete estrangement of the two “races” in Ireland for almost three centuries.
Other statutes required that the English in Ireland be governed by English common law, instead of the Irish March law or Brehon law and ensured the separation of the Irish and English churches by requiring that “no Irishman of the nations of the Irish be admitted into any cathedral or collegiate church … amongst the English of the land”.
It also forbade the settlers using the Irish language and adopting Irish modes of dress or other customs. Sound familiar?
The Crown was keeping everyone compartmentalized so that people wouldn’t get to close, mix, and forget who they owed their loyalties too. The authorities did not want them to learn from one another.
Nature vs. Nurture Argument
Thus, although they saw the Irish as savages and although they sometimes described this savagery as “natural” and “innate,” the English believed that the Irish could be civilized, improved through what Shakespeare called “nurture.” In short, the difference between the Irish and the English was a matter of culture.
The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (“nature” in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual’s personal experiences (“nurture” in the sense of empiricism or behaviourism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.
The alliterative expression “nature and nurture” in English has been in use since at least the Elizabethan period.
This nature/nurture thinking is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tempest.”
Origins in Plato
Teaching on social determinism and the need and usefulness of applying “nurture” to “correct” nature were also drawn from Plato. These approaches are found in his work “Protagoras.”
Zoology & The Tree of Life
We are talking about man who has become long distanced from the light of the Tree of Life trying. Out of this light he begins to apply his systems of categorization (a form of ‘zoology’ in effect) on himself and on other people .
In plain English colonization of Turtle Island was not about an instruction from Jesus Christ; yet Christianese was hired to serve a purpose in the conquest.
Instead it is about “man trying to be god over other men in place of God.” It is about God replacement. Said differently, ignoring that people are made in the image of God . Denying the image of God is to be in the gravity of the spirit of anti-christ.
Model for Indian Act
The model for the Indian Act and Treaty System used on Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada had its more immediate origins with Crown policy on the Emerald Isle (Ireland).
In short there was a Department of Indian Affairs and an Indian Act at work long before Europeans were using these bureaus for drawing up treaties with Aboriginal peoples on Turtle Island.
From Ireland to America
As their frontier advanced from Ireland to America, the Crown began making comparisons between the Irish and the Indian “savages” and wondering whether there might be different kinds of “savagery.”
Sources:
“The Statutes of Kilkenny”, p.792
David B. Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish (Ithaca, 1966), 161;
Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York, 1976)
James Muldoon, “The Indian as Irishman,” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 111 (Oct. 1975), 269; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76.
5 Muldoon, “Indian as Irishman,” 284; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 108.
6 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 593, 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 153; Frederickson, White Supremacy, 15; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 132-33.
7 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 168; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 44.
8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.
9 Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 121; William Christie MacLeod, “Celt and Indian: Britain’s Old World Frontier in Relation to the New,” in Beyond the Frontier: Social Process and Cultural Change, ed. Paul Bohannan and Fred Plog (Garden City, 1967), 38-39
8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.
http://www.shoreline.edu/faculty/rody/archives/tempest_in_the_wilderness_Takaki.htm
The Disappeared
Many who returned after their long hitch were pathetic figures stripped of all memory of things Jewish, coarse, more like Russian peasants than Jews, they were at home neither among Jews nor Russians. To avoid the fate of these “Cantonists,” as they were called, Jews often took desperate measures.
Israel Itzkovich:
The Story of an Archangelsk Cantonist Soldier
In 1853 when Israel Itzkovich was seven years old, his family moved to the city of Polotzk in the Vitebsk District. They somehow managed to support themselves. Israel’s mother sent his twelve year old brother to live somewhere safe from the draft. Israel and his nine-year-old sister remained at home with their mother.
One October morning, three Chappers burst into their apartment, tied Israel up and carried him off. His mother’s cries and screams fell upon deaf ears. Itzkovich was taken to a house holding several dozen captive children. The Chappers kept them there for a couple of weeks. Itzkovich’s mother and relatives visited him often.
About a few weeks later, on October 23, 1853, the children were hauled to the receiving station where they were inducted and handed over to an army commander. They were housed temporarily in military barracks and issued military garments: underwear, overcoats, sheepskin coats, and boots-none of it the right size-and a cloth knapsack in which t store their belongings.
On November 6, Itzkovich, with a detachment of boys, was sent off to the battalion. Six or more boys were placed in each of a long line of carts. Most of the Cantonists said goodbye to their families-forever-that day. The entire town also came to bid them farewell. The children and the adults frantically screamed and wept. The crescendo of voices shook the ground. Even after traveling several miles, Itzkovich and his companions still heard their relatives’ cries. The wagons traveled until evening when the boys arrived at a village and were assigned to quarters in cold houses with dirt floors. The children were frozen and their hands and feet were stiff with cold. A boy could not remove his knapsack because he could not unfasten the cloth buttons. If the boys cried, they were beaten. Many became ill and died before they arrived at their next destination, Petersburg.
From Petersburg, Itzkovich and his detachment were forcibly marched to the Siberian city of Archangelsk. The march lasted from November 1853 to June 1854. En route, the children were beaten and harassed and many perished. The road was littered with their corpses. Finally, they entered the “Promised Land,” Archangelsk. The officers took the boys to a building occupied by other Cantonists.
For Itzkovich and his unit, it was one of extreme hardship, full of torture and suffering. Beatings and pressure to accept baptism occurred throughout the day. Even after Itzkovitch contracted an eye disease, a non-commissioned officer beat him with his fists.
A non-commissioned officer was in charge of Itzkovich and his detachment. He was a converted Jew named Yevgraf Vasilyevich Gulevich, who was the godson of the battalion commander, Dyakonov. At the first inspection of the detachment, Dyakonov declared to the battalion that as long as he lived, no one would leave his battalion as a Jew. Gulevich endeavored to fulfill the wish of his godfather.
Every evening at about nine o’clock, when it was time for bed, Gulevich would lie down on his bed, call a few boys over and order them to kneel down beside the bed. Then he would attempt to persuade the boys with quotations from the Bible, implying that the Jews were in error. Finally, he would demand in a threatening tone that the boys give their consent to be converted to Christianity or else face punishment. Gulevich allowed those boys who agreed to go to sleep. The next day they were given uniforms and an extra piece of bread. The obstinate ones, however, were kept on their knees by his bed all night, and the next day they went to bed without bread and were harassed and whipped on any pretext.
The older Cantonists, between the ages of twelve and fifteen, were tortured for longer durations. They were beaten and whipped so severely that many of them died of their wounds. Under these conditions, most of the boys, understandably, did not resist for long. They finally consented, albeit against their wishes, to accept conversion.
One boy resisted. Every morning he was placed on a bench and given at least one hundred strokes of a birch leaving him bleeding and reeling in agony. After each birching, he was sent to the infirmary where he was treated and then soon beaten again. He absorbed the abuse, did not cry out and did not relent.
Even after their forced conversion to Christianity, Itzkovich and his fellow Cantonists suffered from continued abuse. A converted Jew while in an argument with a Christian comrade would still hear the epithet, “Parkhatyy Yevri!” (disgusting Jew). Sometimes they would add, “A Jew who has been baptized is like a wolf that has been fed!” These insults though served a good purpose for Itzkovich. By continually reminding him of his Jewish identity, they strengthened his inner resolve to remain a Jew. He pledged to himself that he would seek justice and, without allowing fear of the penalties to dissuade him, would win back the right to live as a Jew.
Every year in May, the order came from Petersburg to send the Cantonists who had turned eighteen to join the regular field troops. In 1854, the boys who had reached that age, including those among Itzkovich’s detachment, were dispatched to Petersburg and there, assigned to various units.
When Itzkovich’s detachment arrived, it participated in an imperial review in the presence of the Tsar. During the course of the usual questioning about claims, many of the Cantonists complained about their forced conversion to Christianity. That took immense courage, as it put their lives at risk. As a result, the entire unit was placed under arrest, and they were all sentenced to a harsh punishment: to run the gauntlet past three thousand men. However, what would have been a virtual death sentence was suspended after the death of Tsar Nicholas I on February 19, 1855. Nicholas’s successor Alexander, cancelled the punishment for the rest of the detachment, and only those who had themselves complained were assigned to garrison battalions in Siberia.
Soon after, Colonel Dyakonov, died suddenly. When the sergeant major came to announce the death of Commander Dyakonov, he ordered that the icon lamps be lighted. Everyone in the room joyfully rushed to light the icon lamps. Dyakonov’s burial in a hard December frost kept the boys outside for over two hours; they grew stiff with cold, but it was a joyous holiday for them.
The manifesto of Tsar Alexander II on August 26, 1856 forbade the taking of underage Jewish children to be Cantonists, and it was soon ordered that all the boys in Cantonist battalions be released and returned to their original status. However, Jewish children, were not eligible for return to their previous status as Jews. The directive that concerned them ordered that the older Cantonists who had reached the age of eighteen were to be assigned to serve in the regular forces, while the younger ones were enrolled in the War Department academies.
A new commander, Captain Okulov was appointed to command the First Company when Dyakonov died. Life changed for the better. The food improved and the brutal beatings stopped. The members of the company, by now adults, were dispatched to central Russia for assignment to troop units. The Second Company of younger boys was assigned to the academy.
Itzkovich became a Cantonist in 1853. He continually attempted to restore his official status as a Jew. Finally in 1872, he was released on indefinite leave.
Following his release, Itzkovich was motivated by two wishes. One was to be granted retirement status and the benefits that entailed. The other was to change his official listing back from Christian to Jew.
Itzkovich reported to the authorities that he was a soldier on indefinite leave and requested retirement status. He was informed that to receive this status he would either have to serve another ten months or maintain his status of indefinite leave for an additional three years. He chose the former and enlisted in the Tomsk Province for the purpose of serving out his remaining time.
Soon he officially declared that he did not wish to be listed as a Christian, since he had been forced to convert. His new commanders threatened Itzkovich with a trial that would deprive him of his retirement rights. Despite this, he stubbornly submitted a memorandum which set forth in detail the barbarous treatment he had received as a seven-year-old child, and how he, nevertheless, had served the Tsar honestly and conscientiously for twenty years and had received several commendations. Though his earlier commander had tortured him and given him a new Christian name, Itzkovich claimed that his current commanders could not prohibit him from petitioning for the return of what had been taken from him by force. He asked to be put on trial so as to end his torment.
The army commander appealed to Itzkovich to drop his request, but Itzkovich stated categorically that he would no longer betray God or His people and that he would no longer attend Church or go to confession. Itkovich’s memorandum was forwarded up the chain of command. Six weeks later, he received orders from the Commander of the Forces of Western Siberia. “Non-commissioned Officer Itzkovich, who had strayed from Russian Orthodoxy, is to be presented for exhortation by a priest. If he remains unrepentant, he is to be transferred to another troop unit.”
The priest tried his best but could do nothing to way Itzkovich. In response to his exhortation, Itzkovich just smiled and said that he was no longer seven years old, but twenty-six. Nor was he transferred to another unit, since his term of service had, by the time ended.
Itkovich retired on October 23, 1873 after serving exactly twenty years.
The Russian Tsar is long gone, so is the Soviet Union. But today many descendants of the Cantonists outlived all their antagonists and continue to keep the traditions of their forefathers.
Larry Domnitch is the author of “The Cantonists: The Jewish Children’s Army of the Tsar.”
Cantonist Schools – The Kidnapping Prototype
Before it happened in the United States and Canada the Imperial Russian State was already well along in applying a model for assimilation on Jewish children and other ‘Cantonists.’
Russia was divided into northern, southern, eastern, and western “conscription zones” and the levy was announced annually for only one of them. The Pale of Jewish settlement was outside conscription in the fallow years, so the conscription in general and of cantonists in particular occurred once every four years, except during the Crimean War, when conscription was annual. The first 1827 draft involved some 1,800 Jewish conscripts; by the qahal’s decision half of them were children.
Historian Simon Dubnov wrote,
“The barrack was to serve as a school, or rather as a factory, for producing a new generation of de-Judaized Jews, who were completely Russified, and if possible Christianized.”
‘The name of Yeshua (Jesus) was mis-used by those who knew Him not. For many employed in these schools, a job in one of these schools was exactly that – ‘a job.’
The main goal behind the compulsory military service was the integration of Jews and other non-Russian minorities into Russian society (effectively to the detriment of their religious and national identities).
Ukrainian and Polish cantonists were also pressured to assimilate, as part of general policy of Russification. Understand, that ‘being white’ did not help these Ukrainian and Polish young people. This assimilation policy was not about Christ or Christianity in its True Meaning; instead like with the residential schools on Turtle Island, this was policy of a State, State Church, Corporation ‘that were in effect one’ and demanded conformity from the non-conformed.
To make others into ones own image(nationalism; national idol; golden statue) almost always brings pain and grief to those others. (‘see Daniel and the Fiery Furnace’)
Map: The Pale of Settlement (Russian: Черта́ осе́длости, chertá osédlosti) where most of the Jewish people in the Russsian Empire found themselves confined. Jewish permanent residency beyond this region was generally prohibited.
The Russian conscription law also spawned the development of a new profession, that of the informer who reported to the authorities on efforts by the Jews to evade the draft. There are numerous reported cases of such informers being caught and punished by the Jewish communities, one particularly serious incident of this nature having occurred in Nova Ushitsa in the 1830’s.
CSIS has been hiring aboriginals in Canada to spy on their own people. The FBI does the same in the United States. The law enforcement of these two countries no longer regard the 49th parallel. We do not need informers in Canada. One part of the population spying on the others half of the population can have no good end. This underhanded activity is clearly the wrong spirit for all of us.
As we have learned, that which is – has already been – and shall be again – because we fail to read the signs (the repeated historical variables).
See ‘Davin Report‘
Sources:
Baron, Salo W. The Russian Jew under tsars and Soviets (New York: Macmillan; London: Collier Macmillan, 1976)
Beizer, Mikhail. The Jews of St. Petersburg: excursions through a noble past, translated by Michael Sherbourne, edited with an introduction and maps by Martin Gilbert (Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1989)
Brym, Robert J. The Jews of Moscow, Kiev and Minsk: identity, antisemitism, emigration, with the assistance of Rozalina Ryvkina, editor Howard Spier (Basingstoke: Macmillan, in association with the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1994)
Dokumenty po istorii i kul’ture evreev v arkhivakh Moskvy: putevoditel’, nauchnye redaktory-sostaviteli: M.S. Kupovetskii, E.V. Starostin, Marek Veb (Moskva: Rossiiskii gos. gumanitarnyi universitet, 1997)
Dostoevskii, F. M. Evreiskii vopros, [redaktor V.I. Korchagin] (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Vitiaz'”, 1995)
Dubnov, Semen Markovich. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland … Translated from the Russian by I. Friedlaender, 3 vol. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1916-20)
Dudakov, S. Paradoksy i prichudy filosemitizma i antisemitizma v Rossii: ocherki (Moskva: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2000)
Evrei v kul’ture russkogo zarubezh’ia: sbornik statei, publikatsii, memuarov i esse, sostavitel’ Mikhail Parkhomovskii (Ierusalim: [b.i.], 1992-)
Evreiskaia emigratsiia v svete novykh dokumentov / pod redaktsiei B. Morozova (Tel Aviv: Ivrus, 1998)
Fishman, David E. Russia’s first modern Jews: the Jews of Shklov (New York, London: New York University Press, 1995)
Friedlaender, Israel. The Jews of Russia and Poland: a bird’s-eye view of their history and culture. With a map (New York; London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915) [04034.eee.68.]
Gessen, IUlii. Istoriia evreiskogo naroda v Rossii (Moskva; Ierusalim: Evreiskii Universitet v Moskve, 1993)
Gorskie evrei: istoriia, etnografiia, kul’tura, sostavlenie i nauchnaia redaktsiia V. Dymshitsa; perevod s ivrita IU. Muradova; vstupitel’naia stat’ia M. Chlenova; pod obshchei redaktsiei I. Beguna (Ierusalim; Moskva: DAAT; Znanie, 1999)
Greenberg, Louis Stanley. The Jews in Russia (Vol. 2 edited by Mark Wischnitzer) [A reissue, in one volume; with a new foreword by Alfred Levin] 2 vol. (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1965) [Ac.2692.md/3.]
Greenberg, Louis. The Jews in Russia: the struggle for emancipation (New York: Schocken, 1976) [X.709/30770]
Hundert, Gershon David. The Jews in Poland and Russia: bibliographical essays (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984)
Istoriia evreev v Rossii: problemy istochnikovedeniia v istoriografii: sbornik nauchnykh trudov, otvetstvennyi redaktor: D.A. El’iashevich (Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskii evreiskii universitet, Institut issledovanii evreiskoi diaspory, 1993)
Jews and Jewish life in Russia and the Soviet Union, edited by Yaacov Ro’i (Cass, 1995)
Judge, Edward H. Easter in Kishinev: anatomy of a pogrom (New York; London: New York University Press, 1992)
Pogroms: anti-Jewish violence in Russian history, edited by John D. Klier and Shlomo Lambroza (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
Selianinov, Aleksandr. Evrei v Rossii (Moskva: “Vitiaz'”, 1995)
Shul’gin V. V. “Chto nam v nikh ne nravitsia–“: ob antisemitizme v Rossii (Moskva: “Russkaia kniga”, 1994)
Slavic Judiaca Pamphlets, checklist no. 10; series: Judaica serials and ephemera microfilmed under the Strengthening Research Library Resources Program (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Library, 1981)
Soblazn sotsializma: revoliutsiia v Rossii i evrei. Series: Issledovaniia noveishei russkoi istorii, no.12. General editor: A.I. Solzhenitsyn (Paris, Moscow: YMCA-Press, Russkii put’, 1995)
Soviet Jews: fact and fiction (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency, [1971?])
Stanislawski, Michael. For whom do I toil? Judah Leib Gordon and the crisis of Russian Jewry (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)
Vasil’ev, A. Obzor dokumental’nykh istochnikov po istorii evreev v fondakh RGVIA [sostavitel’ A. Vasil’ev] (Moskva: Ob-vo “Evreiskoe nasledie”, 1994)
Zhabotinskii, Vladimir. Evreiskoe vospitanie (Odessa: Knigoizdatel’stvo KadimaTip. Torg. Doma G. M. Levinson, 1905)
Eighteenth & nineteenth centuries
Evrei v Rossiiskoi Imperii XVIII-XIX vekov: sbornik trudov evreiskikh istorikov [sostavitel’, avtor vstupitel’noi stat’i i annotatsii, A. Lokshin (Moskva, Ierusalim: [Evreiskii universitet, Gesharim Press], 1995)
Klier, John D. Russia gathers her Jews: the origins of the “Jewish question” in Russia, 1772-1825 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986)
Lederhendler, Eli. The road to modern Jewish politics: political tradition and political reconstruction in the Jewish community of tsarist Russia (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
Lowe, Heinz-Dietrich. The tsars and the Jews: reform, reaction, and anti-semitism in imperial Russia, 1772-1917 (Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1993)
Rogger, Hans. Jewish policies and right-wing politics in Imperial Russia (London: Macmillan, in association with St. Anthony’s College, Oxford, 1986)
Sistematicheskii ukazatel’ literatury o evreiakh na russkom iazyke so vremeni vvedeniia grazhdanskago shrifta (1708 g.) po dekabr’ 1889 g. (Cambridge: Oriental Research Partners, 1973)
Nineteenth century
Aronson, I. Michael. Troubled waters: the origins of the 1881 anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990)
Byt’ evreem v Rossii: materialy po istorii russkogo evreistva, 1880-1890-e gody, sostavlenie, zakliuchitel’naia stat’ia i kommentarii Nelli Portnovoi
Evrei v Rossii: XIX vek, vstup. stat’ia V. Kel’nera (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000) [YA.2000.a.29212]
Henderson, Ebenezer D.D. Biblical researches and travels in Russia, including a tour in the Crimea; and the passage of the Caucasus: with observations on the state of the Rabbinical and Karaite Jews, and the Mohammedan and Pagan tribes, inhabiting the southern provinces of the Russian Empire (London, 1826).
Levertov, Beatrice. Dreamers of Zion: sketches from Jewish life in pre-revolutionary Russia (London: S.P.C.K., [1931])
Peled, Yoav. Class and ethnicity in the pale: the political economy of Jewish workers: nationalism in late Imperial Russia (London: Macmillan, 1989)
The persecution of the Jews in Russia, with a map of Russia; showing the pale of Jewish settlement, issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee of London (Reprinted) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1897).
Russkie liudi o evreiakh [A collection of extracts from offical and unofficial sources relating to Jews in Russia], compiled by S.I. Rapoport (Sankt Peterburg, 1891) [The only known copy in existence]
Sbornik materialov ob ekonomicheskom polozhenii evreev v Rossii. 2 vols. (S. Peterburg, 1904)
Nineteenth & twentieth centuries
Deich, G. M. Arkhivnye dokumenty po istorii evreev v Rossii v XIX- nachale XX vv.: a research guide to materials on the history of Russian Jewry, 19th and early 20th centuries, in selected archives of the former Soviet Union (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Blagovest”, [1994?])
Gitelman, Zvi Y. A century of ambivalence: the Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the present (London: Viking, 1988)
Kniga o russkom evreistve: ot 1860-kh godov do revoliutsii 1917 g. (New York: Soiuz russkikh evreev, 1960)
Levitats, Isaac. The Jewish Community in Russia, 1844-1917 (Jerusalem: Posner, [1981])
Pudalov, Boris Moiseevich. Evrei v Nizhnem Novgorode (XIX-nachalo XX veka) (Nizhnii Novgorod: Nizhegorodskii gumanitarnyi tsentr, 1998)
Taina Izrailia: “evreiskii vopros” v russkoi religioznoi mysli kontsa XIX-pervoi poloviny XX vv. [sostavlenie, primechaniia Boikova V.F.] (Sankt-Peterburg: “Sofiia”, 1993)
Wolf, Lucien. The legal sufferings of the Jews in Russia: a survey of their present situation and a summary of laws, edited by L. Wolf, with an introduction by Professor A. V. Dicey (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1912)
Twentieth century
Dennen, Leon. Where the Ghetto ends: Jews in Soviet Russia (New York: Alfred H. King, [1934])
Evrei i russkaia revoliutsiia: materialy i issledovaniia, edited and compiled by O.V. Budnitskii (Moskva; Ierusalim: Gerashim, 1999)
Gassenschmidt, Christoph. Jewish liberal politics in tsarist Russia, 1900-14: the modernization of Russian Jewry (Basingstoke: Macmillan, in association with St Antony’s College, Oxford, 1995)
Honig, Samuel. From Poland to Russia and back, 1939-1946: surviving the Holocaust in the Soviet Union (Windsor, Ont.: Black Moss Press, 1996)
Jews in Eastern Poland and the USSR, 1939-46, edited by Norman Davies and Antony Polonsky (Basingstoke: Macmillan, in association with the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London, 1991)
Kagan, Mikaella. Evreiskaia emigratsiia iz byvshego SSSR v SShA: obzor izmenenii za 70-90-e gody (Moskva: Institut etnologii i antropologii RAN, 1996)
Kochan, Lionel. The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917, edited by Lionel Kochan. 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, for the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1972)
Kostyrchenko G. Out of the red shadows: anti-semitism in Stalin’s Russia (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995)
Kuts, Vladimir. Poedinok s sud’boi, izd. 2, dop. (Moskva: RIO Uprpoligrafizdata Administratsii Moskovkoi oblasti, 1999)
Lustiger, Arno. Rotbuch: Stalin und die Juden: die tragische Geschichte des Jüdischen Antifaschistischen Komitees und der sowjetischen Juden (Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch, 2000, c1998)
Nitoburg, Eduard Lvovich. Evrei v Amerike na iskhode XX veka (Moskva: Choro, 1996)
Pinkus, Benjamin. The Jews of the Soviet Union: the history of a national minority (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
The Russian Jews in the War (Jewish Fund for Soviet Russia: London, [1944])
Quigley, John. Flight into the maelstrom: Soviet immigration to Israel and Middle East peace (Reading: Ithaca, 1997)
Sawyer, Thomas E. The Jewish minority in the Soviet Union (Boulder: Westview Press; Folkestone: Dawson, 1979)
Shindler, Colin. Exit visa: detente, human rights and the Jewish emigration movement in the USSR (London: Bachman and Turner, 1978)
Weinberg, Robert. Stalin’s forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the making of a Soviet Jewish homeland: an illustrated history, 1928-1996 (Berkeley, Calif.; London: University of California Press, 1998)
Journals and periodicals
Ivask, U. G. Evreiskaia periodicheskaia pechat’ v Rossii ([Israel]: [b.i.], [1987])
Jews and Slavs, edited by Wolf Moskovitch, Shmuel Schvarzband, Anatoly Alekseev (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Center for Slavic languages and literatures, 1993-)
The journal of the academic proceedings of Soviet Jewry, Vol.1, no.1- (London: Henry Stewart Publications, 1986-)
Judaica Rossica, vyp.1- (Moskva: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, TSentr bibleistiki i iudaistiki, 2001-)
Orbach, Alexander. New voices of Russian Jewry: a study of the Russian-Jewish press of Odessa in the era of the great reforms 1860-1871 (Leiden: Brill, 1980)
Vestnik Evreiskogo universiteta v Moskve, No. 1 (1992)- (Moskva; Ierusalim: Jewish University in Moscow, 1992-)
Goodbye Birthright, Hello Bowl of Porridge
WE must have earned this lunacy by our collective complacency. What fool would sacrifice his birthright in this country [read: corporation] Canada for a bowl of porridge (lentils, whichever you find yourself eating, etc…)
Another bill passed into law from a then to vanish minister (see Jim Flaherty and FATCA)
On this day in 1982, the rights and freedoms essential to a “free and democratic society” were entrenched into Canada’s Constitution by the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Queen Elizabeth II at a ceremony on Parliament Hill. Much of the time, most of us are able to take these guarantees for granted – we are fortunate to be able to do so.
But Bill C-51, dubbed the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, should cause Canadians deep concern. Its provisions, if passed into law, would jeopardize many of our most basic rights and liberties and would only serve to undermine the health of our democracy. On the thirty-third anniversary of the signing of the Charter, we should demand that Parliament scrap Bill C-51 altogether.
The guarantees of the Charter are not absolute. The Charter itself is clear on this point. However, any limits imposed by Parliament on our basic rights and fundamental freedoms must be “reasonable”; they must not be overbroad; and they must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
As many commentators have pointed out, Bill C-51 fails on all of these counts. Below, we highlight some of the most troubling aspects of the proposed legislation.
The proposed new Criminal Code offence of “promoting terrorism” is vastly overbroad and would capture innocent speech made for innocent purposes, including private conversations. In prohibiting the perceived promotion of “terrorism offences in general”, its scope goes well beyond that of the already-existing terrorism-related offences – including the prohibition on counselling someone to commit a terrorist attack – and would unduly and unnecessarily limit Canadians’ freedom of expression and ability to engage in proper democratic debate.
Similarly, in proposing to amend existing provisions that allow for preventive arrest and detention, Bill C-51 is unreasonable and dangerous. The new law would not only allow police to detain people for 7 days as opposed to the current 3 days, it would do so based only on the peace officer’s suspicion that a terrorist activity may be carried out and that the arrest is likely to prevent it. The current Criminal Code standard requires the police officer to show a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and that the arrest is necessary to prevent it. The proposed amendments grant far too much latitude and discretion to law enforcement and are contrary to Charter values and the rule of law.
As has been pointed out by privacy commissioners and advocates across the country, Bill C-51 would also allow and direct a large number of government departments and agencies to share individuals’ private information without any of the oversight necessary to ensure that this power is not abused. Granting bureaucrats this unfettered power to share confidential information without any oversight will almost inevitably result in an overuse and abuse of this power.
Finally, Bill C-51 would increase the powers of CSIS in ways that are ill-defined and contrary to a basic understanding of what constitutes a “free and democratic society”. Instead of being confined to its role in gathering intelligence – the mandate for which it was created in 1984 – under the new law, CSIS would be authorized to “take measures” to reduce a perceived “threat to the security of Canada.” We take no comfort in the fact that Bill C-51 would constrain CSIS from intentionally causing death or violating sexual integrity. This proposed expansion of powers is especially concerning because the legislation would do nothing to bolster oversight mechanisms that are already clearly insufficient.
Further, if CSIS believed that it needed to “take measures” that would contravene any Charter guarantee, Bill C-51 would allow a judge to authorize, in advance, that infringement in a hearing held in secret. This fundamentally misunderstands the role of judges in our democratic system and the nature of constitutionally-entrenched rights. A judge’s role is to prevent Charter infringements and to adjudicate alleged breaches by another branch of government in open court, not to authorize them behind closed doors.
Proponents of Bill C-51 claim that terrorists want to attack Canada and Canadians because they hate our society and its values. The solution Bill C-51 offers is not more effective protections against terrorists, but an unnecessary and dangerous dilution of the rights and freedoms essential to a free and democratic society – the very values terrorists are said to hate.
Canadian society and its values require that security laws respect the individual liberty, dignity and privacy the Charter is aimed at protecting. Bill C-51 does not meet this test.
Above Article by Peter Jacobsen and Andrew MacDonald
Peter Jacobsen is a Founding partner at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, and CJFE Board member. He chairs CJFE’s Canadian Issues Committee.
Andrew MacDonald is an Associate at Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP.
Wounded Knee – Generation of Decision
The Wounded Knee “Incident” (1973) occurred on the same ground as The “Battle” of Would Knee (1893)
istormnews 