Re eview

A threat to whom?

_ Although Joe McCarthy is long
_ gone, as the saying goes, the game
of looking for Reds Under Beds,
which he did so much to promote,
continues to be very much alive—
and at times positively flourishing.
In the Excited States, the Un-Am-
erican Activities Committee contin-
_ es its tragicomic witchhunts, ridi-
_ culed and discredited, but undaunt-
ed; American Negro leaders, fight-
ing for rights which are already 100
_ years overdue, are tarred with the
ancient brush of “Communist sub-
- versives’’; Canada’s political Gesta-
_ po continues to dog the footsteps of
university professors and students
and other Canadians interested in
putting an end to the madness of
_ the arms race. ;
_ Many more such examples could
be found.
_ But perhaps the ultimate heights
of inanity and insanity were reached
last week by those so-called experts
and gutter journals who tried to

make us believe that the presence
of Soviet trawlers off our West
Coast posed a threat to the security
of our nation.

To their sick psyches, no doubt
the flight of Valentina Tereshkova
poses a similar threat to our way of
life, necessitating more nuclear
storage dumps. Likewise, if Valery
Brumel ever betters his own world
high-jumping record, it simply
means we have to build more fall-
out shelters.

The whole thing would be ludi-
crous if it weren't so deadly earnest.
For these are the same people who
have been entrusted with the de-
fence of our country, who are go-
ing to maintain our precious way-
of-life.

It would be difficult indeed to
find a better reason for making a
change in the interests of the Cana-
diarr people.

And the sooner, the better. Be-
fore long, it maybe too late.

:

Editorial comment...

here is a popular song of this
_ atomic age often sung by Vancou-
_er’s ‘Milestones’ which poses the
question, “Where will you run to
little man—all on that day?”
When CD had its “evacuation”
ramps all neatly blueprinted it
seemed, for South Vancouver Is-
landers at least, that question was
all nicely settled. Everybody would
head north to the quiet sanctuary
of the Comox-Cumberland area. Of
course there might be a bit of a traf-
_ fic jam, but in official CD jargon,
the “situation was well in hand.”
Now with Comox selected as a
nuclear bomb dump by Washing-
ton’s obliging yesmen in Ottawa,
: sueomly Comox is no place to“run”
to.
- And aoiuels again, the moral —
lesson of that song is not to “run”,
but to fight, so that the bombs don’t
begin to fall in Comox or anywhere

5 ko
_ Couple of years ago an NPA fast

buck city council “sold’” Vancou-
_ ver’s International Airport to the
federal government for a measly
_ $2.4 million net. On record, then, as
_ now, this airport was the only civic
_utility that showed anything of a

profitable return, netting the city
- approximately $400,000 annually.

The sale was wangled through
_ by a “promise” that Ottawa would
begin an $18-million dollar improve-

mene nk of the airport pronto?

~ Pacific ¢ Tribune

Editor — TOM McEWEN
Associate Editor—-MAURiCE RUSE.
$s 5 ees St aeces BIGELOW

——

Canadian and .
oe (except Aestatias, $4.00 one

Australia, United States and
countries:

all ‘other ; es: A sevad one ye ar.

Now, in Liberal jargon, which |
differs inno wise fundamentally
from Tory yak-yak, this airport de-
velopment will begin ‘in due course’
as the late MacKenzie King used to
say.
Meantime Ottawa has collected
almost half of the purchase price
already in rentals. Another twoyears
and it will have got Vancouver’ s air-
port for nothing.

When civic government gets in- -
to the hands of “think big” real
estate sharks—the sovereign taxpay-
er really gets a trimming.

NDP arene policy |

The federal-provincial agree-
ment for the ratification of the Col-
umbia treaty marks another step
towards the fatal betrayal of Can-
ada’s interests td the U.S. mono-
polies:

Comments made by party lead-
ers and published in the Vancouver
Province on July 11, (deliberately
excluding, of course, the Commun-
ist Party's views) are most reveal-
ing.

Premier Bennett, the original &

conspirator to give away the Col-
umbia—starting with Kaiser Alum-
inum -said: ‘It’s a happy day for
me.”

Liberal Perault, adhering to
the double talk of Lester Pearson,
doesn’t speak against the betrayal;
he merely wonders under whose au-
thority the project should proceed
—a new power entity, or the B.C.

Hydro.

Conservative Fulton. the archi- :

tect of the present treaty, remains
constistent in his anti-Canadian
stand. His only concern over the
agreement was that there may be
more delay in getting started.
By comparsion, the NDP and
a number of unions at their conven-
tions have characterized the Col-
umbia treaty for what it is — a sell-
out—and have pledged to fight
against its ratification. Yet, this has"
hardly been the stand of Robert
Strachan, B.C. provincial leader of
the NDP.
_ When interviewed during the
by-election in the Columbia riding,
Strachan spoke of “compensation”
in the future flood area, instead of
fighting oe the ratification of

the treaty.

In the above-mentioned Province
interview, he charged that Premier
Bennett was gaining an advantage
in the Columbia by-election by an-
nouncing agreement on the treaty
at this time. This evasion of’ the
real issue by Strachan violates the
official position of the movement
which elected him.

It stands in marked contrast to
the position of the NDP generally
and national leader Tommy Doug-
las, in particular. The NDP has con-
sistently stated its unqualified op-
position to the present treaty and its
Support for the development of the
Columbia along the lines of the Mc-
Naughton plan.

Tommy Douglas has repeatedly 3
stated (prior to, during and since

the April 8 election) that the NDP

M.P.’s inparliament would do every —
thing humanly possible to prevent _
the Columbia sellout. Yet Strachan
apparently agrees neither with his
leader nor his party.

There is no better way for the

NDP to come forward with a stand
for B.C. and Canada than by con-
tinuing to state its opposition to
the present Columbia scheme. It is
nonsense and hypocrisy to speak out
against U.S. domination (as the
NDP does) and then quit the fight
for this mighty resource at sucha
crucial stage.

The membership of the NDP
must demand that all its leaders
adhere to policies agreed to in con-
vention. The stakes are too high in ©
the present struggle for major policy,
questions to be left to the whims of
individuals.

write his honest opinions, and if
you did you know beforehand that
it would never appear in print. I
“am paid $150 a week for keeping
my honest opinions out of
paper I am connected with. Others
of you are paid similar salaries
for similar things, and any of you

to write such honest opinions,

for another job.
“The business of the New York

‘journalist is to destroy the truth,
to lie outright, to pervert, to vil-
lify, to fawn at the feet of Mam-

know this end I know it, and what
folly is this to be toasting an in-
dependent press. We are the tools.

they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents, our possibilities and
our lives—all the property of other
‘men. We are intellectual prosti-

‘“waHERE is no such thing in Amer-
T ica as an independent press,
unless it is in the country towns,
you know it and I know it. There ©
is not one of you who dares to

the |

who would be foolish enough as —

would be out on the street LODE

mon, and to sell his race and his ~ —
country for his daily bread. You

and vassals of rich men behind the |
scenes. We are the jumping-jacks, |

nied? New York editor, John Swin-
ton, at a banquet given in his
honour by his fellow editors.

In a changing world many
things connected with ‘this brand
of prostitution have changed since
-Swinton’s day. The monetary wage

¥ for intellectual prostitutes has
risen considerably. So also has the
techniques, the prestige. and the
services. Just as the common
whore is now ylamorized and ele-
vated to the “respectable” status
of a “call girl.’ so also the journal-
istic prostitute now becomes a na-
tional “authority” on. world,
national and local affairs?

Moreover since Swinton’s day
“something new has been added”
» which serves as a springboard to
“fame” for both — the cold war.
The editorial prostitute is gener-
ally at his (or her) best when dash-
ing off forty column inches of anti-
Soviet or anti-Communist bilge:
the kind of stuff his (or her) pay-
- masters like to feed on since it

appeases their venal appetites and *-

quiets their class fears.

The recent Profumo_ ’ defense
how the job can be transferred
from the editorial sanctum to the
bedroom: in this case with the

‘whores, cute enough to latch onto.
the inherent degeneracy | of Bril-
ain's Tory ruling caste and make
the venture pay —- in hard cash
and million-dollar publicity?

While the “investigations” to ;

“ist state

ftitution when it ended capitalism
~ AGB Nears agos \ :

ministry scandal in Britain shows’

cold war again providing the road

-to fame and fortune. for common —
- concede
tion in all its forms has become

date of the Profumo stench con-

tinue to add-more illustrious Tory

nanies fo the whoring list. it. is

worthy of note that in’ the pro-

cess the coldwar draws the two

forms of prostitution ever closer
~ with a common purpose.

The coldwar scribblers continue
to delve into this manure pile in
search of every salacious morse]
which might be woven into some
“Soviet espionage” thril-.

the loose: chatter of a
common whore is seized upon by.
the “intellectual prostitutes” — of
capitalism to. smear a great Social-
which ended -prostita-
tion and the social causes of pros-

sort of a
ler, while

the.
eap-

Just a short time before
~Profumo-Lord Astor whores
tured the press headlines a spokes-
man for the U.S. State Department i
publicly justified the “right” of his
government to lic. bes in the naine
of ‘ security” of course? es

And a little later CIAS. Allan
: Dulles was quoted as justifving the
“use of “respectable” whores in the
productien of —coldwar provoca-
tions. ae

Obviously if Swinton were mak-
ing a speech today he-would have
to do considerable revision, and
the point “that " prostitu-

an integral part of our “Free

World” ideology. It's still “agin the |

law" to live off si oaiytton— but
not by it?