“nt

_ By MAURICE RUSH

HERE were two important danger signals for British Columbia labor during May.

On May 5, Victoria Trades and Labor Coucil pa
“denunciation of communism.’

ness press hailed as a

couver Trades and Labor Council, in face

 #solution.
While the resolutions list many

of labor's. demands—demands for
which the communists also fight
—-these are made secondary, The
main purpose of the resolutions
is to involve the trade union
movement in big business’ red-
baiting campaign. :
Red-baiting is not something
new. Some old timers still recall
the anti-red attacks which fol-
lowed the First World War. That
campaign did succeed in dividing
labor’s ranks and the direct re-
sult was a 20 percent drop in the
workers’ purchasing power.
Birt Showler, president of Van-
couyer Trades and Labor Council,
should know from his experience
how the “communist” bogey is
used to divide labor on false is-
sues, In 1936 Tom MaclInnis,
ranting predecessor of Bob Mor-
rison, in a radio broadcast spon-
sored by the Citizens’ League, ac-
cused Showler of having “engag-
€d in communist and revolution-
ary activities, plots and plans.”
Showler was ‘so incensed that he
sued MacInnis for libel. The
courts joined in the red-baiting
chorus by dismissing the case and
Judge J. Manson declared: “I

_annot find. that the defendant

(Tom MacInnis) in doing what he

did acted recklessly or without

reasonable enquiry.”
The reason for the red-baiting
attack on Shower was to turn

Public opinion against the labor

movement, It’s unfortunat¢ that
Birt Showler and his friends did-
n't learn their lesson from that

- €xperience. It’s a pity that they

should continue to use the bosses’
Weapon to the detriment of or-
Banized labor.

e
BOTH resolutions freely misrep-

resent the communist posi-
tion,’ using the stock falsehoods
of the Chamber of Commerce and
Canadian Manufacturers’
ciation. ©
Th its opening lines.the Vancou-

Asso- .

ver resolution has the completely —

untrue statement that the com-
munists seek “the violent over-
throw of...our Canadian way of
life and the enslavement of the
Canadian people.” To give sub-
stance to this lie old documents
are brought forward from another
period, and statements torn from
their context, as was done by Tom
Alsbury, who led the fight for the
resolution.

Why don’t these gentlemen pro-
duce the official documents of the
Labor-Progressive Party, to prove

their contention? Copies of the

LPP constitution are readily
available to them on request. The
fact is that the LPP constitution
answers this lie by _ stating:
“Should any party member be
found. guilty of advocating any
form of violence or terrorism for
any purpose whatsoever, he or she

shall be summarily expelled from: -

the party.” . \
Recently Tim Buck, LPP na-
tional leader, in a letter to MP’s
cffered to appear before any com-
mittee to prove that the LPP op-
poses the use of force and viol-
ence. Naturally, his offer was re-
jected, because the red-baiters
have no concern for the truth.
It is time that this lie was nailed.

-otherwise it can do great harm

to the labor movement.

While falsely charging Com-
munists with seeking “enslave-
ment” of the people, the sponsors
of the resolution shut their eyes
to the real threat to the people’s
freedom which comes from legis-—
lation such as the Padlock Law,
the LaCroix Bill, Bill 87 and other
similar restrictions on civil liber-
ties, legislation sponsored by re-
actionary big business organiza-
tions including the CMA, which
authors of the Victoria resolution
appeal to for support,

e

ANOTHER utterly false charge
in the preamble to the resolu-
tion is that the communists seek

to foment industrial unrest.

Not long before this resolution

ssed a resolution which the big busi-
Shortly after, on May 18, Van-
of considerable opposition, adopted a similar

was introduced, the B.C. Federa-
tion of Trade and Industry, a
notoriously anti- trade union
group, carried an advertisement
which said: “Who wants strikes?
Well, communist labor leaders
want strikes. Their object is to
create unrest, discontent, insecur-
RU. sv

Isn't it clear that the B.C, Fed-
eration of Trade and Industry is
seeking to destroy the workers’
right to, strike by building up a
false idea in the public mind that
only communists strike? Many

sincere members of trade unions
are bound to ask why labor lead-
ers should join this notorious
anti-labor group in furthering its
anti-labor aim.

It is absolutely untrue that
communists seek to fomznt un-
rest. Capitalism does a _ good
enough job at that. Communists
can not be blamed for low wages,
job discrimination, anti-labor
practices, Bill 39, recurring de-
pressions and other things respon-
sible for unrest among workers.
The responsibility for that lies
with the capitalists and reaction-
ary governments. What com-
munists try to do is to organize
the workers so strongly that it
will be possible for them to win
their demands without the need

. for strike action. Nobody likes to

strike. It’s the final resort for a
union, used when all other means
of reaching a settlement have
failed.

The most deceiving statement
in the resolution is the charge
that communists are responsible
for restrictive legislation. It is
known that employers have al-
ways sought restrictions on labor.
The whole history of trade union-
ism is one of struggle against
these restrictions. If what the
resolution says is true, who was
responsible for restrictive legis-
lation in the many generations
before the organization of a com-
munist movement? And further,
how do Gervin, Showler, Alsbury
and the like explain.that the first
two unions in B.C, to be attacked
by the latest restrictions — the
ITU and the Steelworkers — are
not left-wing. unions at all?

‘*] DO NOT recognize the LPP

as a section of organized la-
bor. They ... are attempting to
take away the effectiveness of
organized labor,’ said Gervin in
the discussion on the resolution
by Vancouver Trades and Labor
Council That's just too bad for
Gervin, Fortunately, tens of thous-
ands of workers in the woods,
mines, fisheries and other indust-

ries don’t see eye to eye with.

him. .

This shameful statement flies
in the face of the fact that the
LPP, as a political organization
of the working class. made a
contribution to the organization
of the workers in our industries.
Because of this it has earned the
undying hatred of the bosses. The
LPP is proud of the fact that
thousands of workers in demo-

Drew, Duplessis bid

—OTTAWA

‘OR days the Tory press had
been heralding the coming of
“The Colonel.” Invasion of the
capital city itself following a
3,000 mile speaking tour was to
be Premier George Drew’s piece
de resistance—his challenge to
the Liberal Party administration;
and another strong bid for in-
heriting the robes of national
Tory leadership. Marred by a
rousing disturbance on the part
of. local constituents demanding
action on housing and the needs
of Second World War veterans,
Drew's “triumphal” entrance on
the Ottawa scene did not prove

as effective as originally planned.

Stepping out of his provincial
bounds, Drew charged the feder-
al government with “attempted
usurpation of power”; refused a
federal $10,000,000 a year grant
for health services to the prov-
ince of Ontario; and pledged
anew his support for the Drew-
Duplessis axis. ‘

If the subject material was old
stuff to most observers here, it
confirmed at least the charges
made by Ontario Liberals, CCF
and LPP members of the legis-
lature that Drew was still plot-

ting to become top-dog in the
Tory party and replace sluggish.
Mr, John Bracken as its leader.

Most reports here have it that
should Drew return to power in
Ontario, he would relinquish com-
mand at the earliest opportunity
to lead a movement for power.
Chief obstacle at the moment is
the long-term contract . under-’
taken with Bracken; and the
fear of associating the “success-
ful’ Drew with the singularly
“unsuccessful” Bracken.

What Drew wants most, say
experts, is another snap electoral
victory under his belt; perhaps a
national tour to build his stock
across the country; then follow-
ing a defeat for the Bracken-led
Tories in the coming federal con-
test, a quick rise to power as
the “brightest” star in the Tory

. fiysmament—supported by Que-

bec’s Premier Duplessis.

Events at the recent national
Tory conference at the Chateau
Laurier underscored the rising
demand for a new type leader-
ship. Strong criticism of the
opposition provided in the House
came from younger elements in

the Progressive Conservative.

movement. Their clamor was all
but silenced by a heavy curtain

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 4, 198—PAGE 5 _

cratic elections return well known
communists to office year after
year.

It should also be pointed out to
Gervin in his ignorance of the
LPP that it is the only politicai
party (including the Liberals)
which states in its constitution:
“All members shall be required
to belong to the respective trade
union to which they are eligible,
abide by its constitution and
rules and further its interests
Where no trade union exists Par-
ty members shall work consist-
ently for the promotion of trade
union organization, principles and
standards.”

According to Gervin, it was
necessary to pass such a resolu-
tion in order, as he put it, “to stop
the obstructionism of a minor-
ity.” In the first place, the vote
of 59-60 to table, which was de-
feated by one yote, hardly indi-
cates that the resolution is aimed
at a “minority”. —

Gervin defined “obstruction-
ism” as “uncalled for criticism”
and amendments to executive
proposals. Apparently, then, what
Gervin and his friends want to
stop is criticism of the executive
if and when it doesn’t act in ac-
cordance with the opinions of
some delegates; they want to pre-
vent delegates from making am-
endments to executive proposals.
In short: they want to silence
their critics, and intimidate the
members of the council into ac- |
cepting their proposals without |
question. That’s the aim of the
anti-communist resoution.

Obviously what the reso!ution
represents is a serious breach.of
trade union democracy. If Ger-
vin’s words are to be taken ser-
iously, the resolution is intended
to black out freedom of criticism,
discussion and making of free
proposals by delegates of the
council. All this is further proof
of the maxim: when the red bogey
is dragged in, make sure your
freedom is not going out.

It’s time for organized labor to
reject red-baiting in an emphatic E
way. Where labor allows itself to _
be divided on the issue of com- _
munism the boss gains and the ©
worker loses. The miners and
smelter workers of Trai] and
Kimberley recently won increases —
amounting to nearly 17 cents an —
hour, This victory was possible
only because the members of the
union rejected red-baiting and
kept their ranks united. All B.C.
labor should learn this lesson.

of secrecy dropped around pro-—
ceedings.

A significant decision pointing
to growing strength for a “draft
Drew” program was noted in
the deal concluded between Union
Nationale forces in Quebec and

Tory organizer Ivan Sabourin.
The federal Tory stategy to sup-
port UN candidates in a Quebec
election in return for UN support |
in the federal elections, finds
outstanding political expression
in the renewed statements which -
Drew is making of support for —
Maurice Duplessis leader of Que- —
bee’s Union Nationale. “s

Liberal party chiefs here place _
great significance in this political _
DDT—the Drew-Duplessis twin
bid for power—in any federal
showdown. They fear its men-—
ace to their long-standing politi-
Drew is momentarily not directly
intruding on John Bracken’s
leadership, it is an open “secret” —
that he intends to cash in on
this alliance at some future date.
A defeat for Drew this coming
week would be a victory for the ©
nation, and a setback for the
Ontario premier’s bid for Tory
leadership at Ottawa. a