Let us suppose.
Suppose that there exists a so-called "democratic" government besieged by Eskimo lawyers with undue influence and political clout. Wherever you step, there are Eskimo lawyers. These lawyers, many of them Eskimos themselves, help their fellow tribal Eskimo clients in setting up a number of non-profit, charitable organizations - all with the goal of enhancing the well-being of Eskimos.
Next, these laywers buttonhole legislators to influence, persuade or even pressure them to pass laws in favor of Eskimo non-profit organizations.
They, furthermore, convince grant-making agencies and government to give them huge grants on behalf of Eskimo education and Eskimo goals - where Eskimos are always portrayed as victims and non-Eskimo neighbors as villains.
These same lawyers even act as officially recognized intervenors in Human Rights Tribunal trials - where tribunal members allow Eskimo testimony when it is beneficial to Eskimo members but forbid it, reject it or rule it as inadmissible when it is detrimental to Eskimo aspirations.
Worse yet, these Eskimo lawyers are paid outrageous fees by largely non-Eskimo taxpaying citizens for suggesting and making laws and setting precedents - all benefitting Eskimos, at the expense of non-Eskimos who are uncomplainingly footing the bill.
(The obvious: Of course you realize I am not talking about Eskimos!)
Ridiculous, you say? Upsetting? Unfair? Unethical, to say the very least?
Not necessarily, as long as these lawyers in question fly by the colors of their flag - as long as they officially admit to what they are doing, why, and for whose benefit. That is, these lawyers should have admitted from the word go that they are de facto lobbyists. Therefore, they should be required by law to do what lobbyists do.
It was long felt by some political thinkers and leaders that such lawyers should register as lobbyists so that their activities can be scrutinized and monitored by citizens. In the last few years some Canadian law makers have taken steps to ameliorate the damage done by certain special interest groups acting in effect as lobbyists while flying under the guise of acting for benevolent, non-profit, charitable do-gooders.
The Ontario Lawyers Gazette of March/April 1999 says under the headling: "Legal work can be lobbying under new Act":
Under Ontario New Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, lawyers can easily slip into the role of the lobbyists even when they are doing standard legal work.
The Act's definion of "lobbyist" and "lobby" are very broad, particularly if the lobbyist is a consultant paid to communicate on behalf of a client. Lawyers will be considered lobbyists if they "are doing any type of communication to persuade a public office holder to stop or speed up or amend any legislation or policy," says J. Warren Kinsella of McMillan Binch of Toronto, himself a registered lobbyist.
(Zundelsite: Kinsella is, in fact, a registered Federal lobbyist, representing at one time or another at least 19 different clients. See for yourself by checking the Industry Canada's Lobbyists Registration website at <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca> )
Under the Act, lobbying by a consultant lobbyist occurs whenever the consultant communicates with a public office holder in an attempt to influence any one of the following:
- the development of any legislative proposal by the Government or Member of the Provincial Parliament
(Zundelsite: An example might be the proposed funding for religious - i.e. Jewish, Christian, Muslim school funding )
- the introduction, passage, defeat or amendment of any bill or resolution
(Zundelsite: An example might be setting aside a day or week for "Holocaust Remembrance" )
- the making or amendment of any regulation
(Zundelsite: An example might be outlawing certain symbols - the Celtic Cross, the Swastika - by calling them "hate symbols" )
- the development, amendment or termination of any policy or program
(Zundelsite: An example might be making the Holocaust lobbyist version the only version as part of the curriculum in schools)
- any decision about privatization or outsourcing
(Zundelsite: An example might be giving legal work without tender to the lobbyist/lawyer's law firm)
- the awarding of any contract
(Zundelsite: An example might be contracts or grants to visibly minority contractors on a preferred basis, or only making jobs available to special criteria minority groups)
- the arrangement of meetings between public office holder and any other person
(Zundelsite: An example might be such arranged meetings between any officials of B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress or Simon Wiesenthal Centre with government officials)
I think these examples suffice to show that there is a difference between what a lawyer does under cover of a legislative fog versus what that same laywer does when he is forced by law to reveal where his loyalties are - and who pays the piper to sing a certain tune.
There is a difference, for instance, if the papers were to report: "Mr. So-and-so, speaking for survivors of the Holocaust, said it was an outrage to give Ernst Zundel yet another soap box from which to broadcast his hate-filled ideas" versus a truthful "Mr. So-and-so, a registered lobbyist on behalf of Israel (or B'nai Brith, the CJC, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre etc) succeeded today in denying German-Canadian activist, Ernst Zundel, access to a publicly underwritten press room on Parliament Hill." or "B'nai Brith lobbyist So-and0so succeeds in dragging Ernst Zundel before Human Rights Tribunal" . . . or even "Registered Canadian Jewish Congress Lobbyist was chief witness against Ernst Zundel in controversial citizenship hearing."
There is a world of difference in a Jewish Lobbyist speaking to Gentiles if he is known as a lobbyist and declared as such - as compared to a ". . . concerned Jewish citizen and community leader" speaking his or her mind to a lapdog press reporter who knows what he or she is expected to report.
===
Small homework item:
Go visit the Industry Canada's website at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca
Pull down Doc. # 3-1999174-6
Revealed will be: Frank Dimant, Executive Vice President, B'nai Brith Canada - Lobbyist # 0002421
Scroll through the next pages. See what they lobby about.
Take note of how the Canadian government actually helps finance their lobbying to the to the tune of
Canadian Heritage _____$70,000
Dept of Foreign Affairs_____ $5,000
Dept of Justice_____ $10,700
Int.Centre for Human Rights and Dem. Dev._____ $2,000 Solicitor General_____ $10,000
Talk about having the nose in the public trough!
Next task: Who else from B'nai Brith are registered Federal Lobbyists?
As of September 1, 1999, the following are listed:
Abugov, Burt Director of Development 0005994
Aster, Joyce Ontario Regional Director 0002427
Dimant, Frank Executive Vice President 0002421
Friedman, Rubin Government Relations Office, Director 0002428
Gladman, Pearl National Director, Field Services 0002429
Jacobs, Bayla Western Regional Director 0007195
Kanowitz, Sol Director of Finance 0004910
Katz, Lela Midwest Region Director 0007196
Krepel, Corinne Education Coordinator 0005995
Lebman, Robert Quebec Regional Director 0002424
Mock, Karen League for Human Rights, National Director 0002422
The Canadian Jewish Congress's Lobbyists were and are:
Jack Silverstone Chief Counsel 0000753
Singer, Ron Ass., Ottawa Advocacy Centre 0006036
Vernon, Eric Director, Ottawa Advocacy Centre 0000839
Bernie Farber used to be # 0002116 but was terminated 1.1.1999.
Manual Prutschi still is 0006037
=====
Thought for the Day:
"The medium is the message."
(Rabbi Martin Siegel in New York Magazine, p. 32, Jan 18, 1972)
Back to Table of Contents of the Sept. 1999 ZGrams