Kangaroo court
Ed Deak
Dear Friends,
Whenever we question the constitutional legality of the MAI kangaroo court,
the answer comes back that that we already have such dispute settling
mechanism within NAFTA.
A precedent is only good until it is challenged and turned over. In 1988
during the FTA negotiations the Tories were forced by the Liberals and the
NDP, plus strong public pressure to publish the progress of all the steps.
There were daily newscasts and press reports on who said what. Also, the
complete text of the FTA was published and everybody could get a copy just
by by asking on a special phone line. I still have mine.
As the consequence, the FTA almost failed and it took undermining of the
accepted anti FTA Party policy by the pro-FTA faction of the Liberal Party
to get Mulroney reelected and the FTA passed.
In 1994 Jean Chretien passed NAFTA without any public consultation or
inputs, almost in total secret. Now we have the "precedent setting" NAFTA
kangaroo court. Or do we? There are some very great differences:
1. The precedent for PUBLIC INFORMATION on a vital treaty has been set by
the FTA process. This hasn't been followed during the NAFTA negotiations and
signing, therefore the process of democracy has been overruled.
2. The NAFTA can be cancelled by any present or future government in 6
months. Therefore, the process of kangaroo court could be overturned by
legal courts.
This is also a precedent.
3. MAI is for 20 years, which means that no democratically elected future
government could cancel any part of it, regardless of damages to the country.
Because of the totally different time limits involved, this law, or treaty
has no precedent and it is of highly questionable legality based on this
point alone. Therefore when negotiators claim that MAI is nothing more than
an extension of NAFTA, they are either extremely ignorant, or are misleading
the public.
Being represented by a Reform MP, I shall inform Mr.Penson of these differences.
Being on pension we don't have any money to throw around, but tomorrow I
shall send my first $25. donation to Connie Fogal's legal challenge of MAI
and hopefully, also of NAFTA.
Under separate cover I am forwarding 2 postings I had on Ecol-econ a few
weeks ago on the fraudulent introduction of free trade to Canada, in spite
of the public information process.
All the very best, Ed ( Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC, Canada)
--
For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://www.flora.org/mai-not/