Nanoose Expropriation Hearings
1111 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC
August 13, 1999
A large number (350 ) of objectors were refused a hearing
in this forum
for reasons as trivial as using ordinary 46-cent stamps
on their letters.
The notice of hearings was inadequate and confusing, and the
deadline was
arbitrary and unfair given the importance of the question.
Another large
large number of objectors (670) didn't receive a timely reply
to their
objection because of a 'computer error'. Moreover,
a large number of
submissions from those objectors who did qualify , were rejected
as
"irrelevant" by hearing officer D.M.M. Goldie who interpreted
his role as
exceedingly narrow. All of this has convinced me that the
people most
directly at risk from the consequences of expropriating Nanoose
to
accommodate nuclear reactors and nuclear warheads have NOT received
a
meaningful hearing at all, and that the Minister
of Public Works will
NOT hear what he needs to know in order to make a rational and informed
decision. Personally I don't believe that this process is even legal.
Hearings officer Mr. D.M.M. Goldie has repeatedly stated that
important
concerns raised by objectors are for courts of law to deal with,
and that
they are of no concern to him or to the minister of Public Works.
For
example, regarding the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons
Mr. Goldie stated on Thursday Aug. 12 that since this hasn't
been tested
in a Canadian court, he can merely pass on to
the minister that it is
a "belief" of some objectors that nuclear weapons are illegal, and
that
some objectors "believe" Canada is breaking the law by accepting
them at
Nanoose.
Yet among the many submissions specifically rejected as "irrelevant"
by
Mr. Goldie was a letter from Dr. David Suzuki to
the Prime Minister
requesting precisely such a test: that a Canadian Court
determine
whether Nanoose is in compliance with the World Court ruling (that
nuclear
weapons are indeed illegal). So when *will* a Canadian court
look at this
question? Should Canadians passively wait for that to somehow
just
"happen", instead of actively revising our policy to conform
with the
World Court ruling which is already more than three years
old?
Suzuki is not the first one to request such a ruling. The
all-party
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
was
requested to do that in 1998:
Nanoose Conversion Campaign (Feb. 26, 1998 SC-FAIT transcript):
"
...with the World Court decision, I hope we don't have to see
court cases
where community groups have to go to court to say Nanoose is illegal,
for
example. In our view the operation of Nanoose certainly contravenes
the
spirit and the intent of the World Court decision. "
Committee member Ted McWhinney responded that:
Mr. Ted McWhinney: "I think the judge is following a somewhat
different
judicial philosophy. The world court judges envisage that their decision
would be applied and tested in lots of low-level cases and in their
view
there's a highly educational function in that but from your viewpoint
it's
very expensive. In fact, I'm amazed that you can support the legal
costs
for these sorts of operations. It's a rhetorical question."
Mr. McWhinney was right. Community groups don't have
funds to conduct
these kind of court cases. But they do however have a legitimate
expectation that the Canadian Government obey the rule
of law. N.C.C.
and McWhinney were both right. Citizens shouldn't have
to go to court to
force their elected representatives to compy with the law,
especially if
the law is clear, and clearly in the public interest. The minister
can
simply abandon this expropriation. If there is any
doubt, however, it is
the Government's responsibility to refer such questions
to a court on our
behalf, as Dr. David Suzuki and Mr. McWhinney have both
advocated. But
the Canadian government has not done this. The Canadian government
has
instead ignored the letter from Dr. Suzuki, just like Mr. Goldie
has
ignored it.
That's not good enough. That is not a legitimate hearing.
What happens
when the government ignores public input given in
good faith on serious
issues? I'd like you (Mr. Goldie) to pass on to the minister
several
examples - a German judge, a Canadian judge, a Canadian law professor
and a
British jury.
In 1995, visiting German judge Ulf Panzer described how
he and twenty
other judges in 1987 blockaded a road in Mutlangen,W. Germany
- where US
nuclear weapons were stationed.
===================================
19 judges arrested for blocking
missile base
The Globe and Mail, Wednesday,
January 14, 1987
AP Mutlangen, West
Germany - Police said yesterday they arrested 19
judges and three other people
who blocked the entrance to a U.S-operated
Pershing 2 missile base
in Mutlangen on Monday ... (etc)
===================================
Lawyers demonstrate to back
judges
Vancouver Sun,
January 17, 1987 - by Miguel Moya
A lawyers' group held a demonstration
in the Robson
Square law courts building
Friday to show support for 19 West German
judges arrested at a nuclear-missile
base earlier this week.
Bruce Torrie, a spokesman
for Lawyers for Social Responsibility, said
"It'something that has never
happened before. Judges traditionally do not
involve themselves in public
matters, but here these judges have risked
their professional careers
to make a statement."
The West German judges said
they were protesting over the illegality of the
Pershing 2 missile and declaring
their opposition to NATO's policy of first
use of nuclear weapons.
[N.B. this event was nine years BEFORE the landmark ICJ ruling of 1996.
This
"expropriation" of BC territory to accomodate US nuclear weapons is
ocurring three years AFTER.]
====================================================
Two years after the German judges' demonstration (and many others),
Pershing-2 missiles were removed from Germany and the Berlin Wall came
down. In 1989 Canadian judge W. G. Craig
acknowledged that such acts
of conscience are not only legitimate but welcome. Judge Craig
aquitted
Greenpeace activists who had spray-painted radiation symbols on an
nuclear-equipped aircraft carrier in Vancouver.
Justice Craig said that
"...it's probably
true that in Canada we don't look upon protesters as
we ought to, because this
country has become probably, in the democratic
world, the most docile of
all people. We tend not to react to government
policy decisions as vocally
and as actively as we might. It's become the
Canadian personality, I
suppose, to react too passively. ...It is a
remarkable
thing that the government
has seen fit to invite this type of (nuclear)
equipment
into Vancouver, in view
of the serious concerns that people have about it.
It really invites protest
...I can only speculate that in future there
will be more
protests and I can understand
why."
In 1993, we witnessed another dramatic example (at
Clayoquot Sound) of
what can happen when Governments fail to really listen. Law professor
and
former cabinet minister Mark MacGuigan, in an essay titled "Democracy
&
Civil Disobedience", points out that scholars are nearly unanimous
that
civil disobedience is legitimate when available legal means of bringing
about the desired change are exhausted. Very relevant to
the nuclear
debate is MacGuigan's reference to the passage of time:
"...if the matter
which distresses a minority group appears to be serious,
it is no
solution to suggest the possibility of reform of the law at some millennium."
[N.B. in this case MacGuigan's 'minority' is actually a 93% majority]
Furthermore, MacGuigan says "It is one thing to oppose the ...policy
that
a community has arrived at through full and open discourse; it is quite
another to violate the decisions that a coterie of men have privately
fashioned and publicly defended through the mass media of propaganda."
The Liberal government of Canada has adopted the latter strategy,
and
these "hearings" appear to follow suit - specifically by judging
"irrelevant" letters such as Dr. Suzuki's request for a
judicial review
of Nanoose, requests from BC political leaders for
full and open public
review of Nanoose and letters from Defence Minister Eggleton
and from the
Prime Minister which document their refusal to comply with the World
Court
or even to discuss the matter.
In 1997, British activist Andrea Needham and two friends used an ordinary
hammer to pound $3 million worth of disarmament into the
control panels,
wings and fuselage of a fighter jet destined for sale to Indonesia.
They
took this action only after many years of peace activism on behalf
of East
Timor, which was invaded by Indonesia in 1975 . More than one
third of
East Timor's population of 200,000 had been killed by the Indonesian
military. The jury found that Needham was not guilty.
In British law,
citizens have a right and a duty to use force to prevent
a crime.
Nuclear weapons are a crime. Operations at Nanoose are part of that crime.
Thank you,
Norman Abbey
August 13, 1999
_________________________________
Norman Abbey
Tel/Fax: (604)738-7963 or (604)351-1416
<iabbey@alternatives.com>
_________________________________