Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletins

logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)

TiM GW Bulletin 99/1-7

Jan. 30, 1999

Some Canadians Sue Their Government Over MAI; Some Americans to Follow Suit Over Immigration?

The Natives Are Getting Restless

Based on Reports by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Joe Fallon


WESTERN AUSTRALIA - The natives are getting restless. The North American natives, that is. No, we are not talking about the so-called "Native Americans," per the New World Order speak. We are talking about the new demographically endangered species - the indigenous Canadians and Americans who are starting to fight back against their federal governments.

A group of Canadian citizens, concerned about the loss of sovereignty which an eventual enactment of the MAI Treaty (Multilateral Agreement on Investments) may bring, sued their federal government last April. A group of American citizens, alarmed by a frontal assault on the Euro-American culture which the current U.S. immigration laws represent, is contemplating suing the U.S. federal government on a charge no less than - GENOCIDE!

A start of the Canadian Revolution I? Or of the American Revolution II? Hardly. But it's certainly a sign that some Canadians and some Americans are getting fed up with the policies which their supposedly "democratically elected" governments are carrying out. To these agitated citizens' detriment.

The first of the two reports enclosed below - about Canada - was sent to us by an occasional contributor to TiM GW Bulletins, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, an economics professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada.

The second article - about an eventual American citizens' lawsuit charging the U.S. federal government with genocide against the Americans of European origin - was authored by Joe Fallon, a researcher on Peter Brimelow's bestselling book, "Alien Nation." Mr. Fallon sent it to us in response to our recent TiM GW Bulletin, "Toward Nations of Mutts." . We carry it here in an abridged version.

Canadians Take Their Government to Court Over MAI

By Michel Chossudovsky

OTTAWA, Jan. 24 - An important citizens' initiative is underway in Canada which challenges the legitimacy of the Canadian government to negotiate the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), reports Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa. The initiative questions the authority of the federal government to negotiate an international treaty which derogates fundamental rights as contained in Canada's Constitution.

The Defense of Canadian Liberty Committee (DCLC) organization, based in Vancouver, BC, has taken the Canadian federal government to court (No. T-790-98, initiating documents were filed and served on April 23,1998).

"The MAI is unconstitutional under Canadian law because it gives entrenched rights to international banks and foreign corporations guaranteed by international law which Canadian citizens do not have...This is contrary to the principle of equality before the law which is part of the Canadian constitution enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms", according to the DCLC:

The Applicants challenge the jurisdiction of the federal government to sign such a treaty, in the form of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment, on behalf of Canada which "would be outside of the power granted by and ultra vires of the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982. They also challenge it because, "generally, such a treaty would not be in the best interests of Canadian citizens."

This legal challenge constitutes more than an embarrassment to the government's negotiating team, headed by the Trade Minister, Serge Marchi. It underscores the blatant violation of democratic procedures; it questions the honesty of elected politicians and bureaucrats involved in behind the scenes negotiations including consultations with international business groups.

"The government of Canada has no authority to sign a treaty without a mandate from Parliament. To do so is a violation of the fundamental principles of democracy and representative government. Exercise of prerogative power must be subject to the Constitution".

Three top Canadian lawyers, well versed in constitutional and human rights issues, are acting on behalf of the DCLC. Government witnesses have been interrogated, the submission of confidential government documents have been demanded by the Applicants' lawyers. At the hearings in Vancouver, the federal government witness provided many new documents, most of which were heavily censored, with large portions blacked out. The Canadian government is now attempting through various means to stall the legal challenge and prevent it from going to the trial stage.

Assigned to the court case in the January 1998 hearings in Vancouver was Judge Dube, a former Cabinet Minister and personal friend of Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who is a Defendant in the Proceedings. Judge Dube has refused to step down. The Applicants' lawyers (pointing to a blatant conflict of interest) have demanded that Judge Dube he replaced by a more qualified individual. The Applicants lawyers have demanded the federal government to produce documents and answer questions they have refused to answer on the grounds of "Cabinet Privilege".

Legal wrangling and proceedings are continuing - all to a deafening silence in Canada's "free and democratic" media (TiM Ed.). Information concerning the DCLC Legal Challenge including Legal Documents can be found at:


Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, E-Mail: Information concerning the DCLC legal challenge including the legal documents can be found at the Canadian Liberty Web site.

TiM Ed.: In the U.S., the Canadian governments' "cabinet privilege" would be equivalent to our feds' "national security" blanket. Which in the case of the Clinton Administration, means that the people sympathetic to certain foreign interests get to make decisions about whose "national security" they are guarding.


Some Americans to Sue Washington Over Immigration?

By Joe Fallon

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Clinton in June 1998 boasted that, "in a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States."

The effect of the U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when for the first time in our nation’s history, Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate genocide against the nation’s European-American majority. The term "genocide" is defined here by: (1) international customary law; (2) international treaty law; and (3) U.S. federal law.

Today, federal immigration policy is "deliberately inflicting on" Euro- Americans "conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part," one of the definitions of genocide set forth in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948.

This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found European-Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with 81 percent in the 1790 Census, an eight-point increase that took more than 100 years.

Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of "whites" had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population -- an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Since the "non-Hispanic white" Census category includes non- European whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union -- who comprise a significant number of immigrants -- the true number of white Americans of European descent is likely far lower. Grassroots efforts to create a "European-American" category in the 2000 Census have been thwarted by federal officials.)

This sharp demographic decline of Euro-Americans is the direct result of immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in 80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. More than 98 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied -- that is, granted legal status -- by the U.S. government also come from the Third World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World. U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population.

In California, Euro-Americans will become a demographic minority in California by the year 2000, in Texas by 2015, and in Florida and New York by 2016. Despite grassroots efforts to stop present genocidal immigration policies, and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce -- or halt-- immigration, the U.S. government actions are quickly reducing the Euro- American population.

A Strong Case For "Genocide"

Perhaps the only viable course is to charge the U.S. government with the crime of genocide, and seek reparations available under international and federal laws. The suit would charge that since 1965, the immigration policy imposed upon the European-American majority by the U.S. government has been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:

#1 This policy violates international customary law against genocide, binding on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against genocide prohibits "Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". While just one of the legal definitions of "group" must be met under this law, European-Americans in fact meet at least two. Racially, they are white; ethnically they are European. Most are Christian; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, they defined the nation and shared a common origin.

#2 Congress has recognized international customary law against genocide in U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: "It is the sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the crime of genocide." Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention until 1988 and Uganda, the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide, also was not a signatory to the Convention, U.S. Public Law 95-435 can refer only to international customary law against genocide. By enacting this public law, Congress has recognized both the validity of international customary law against genocide and its applicability to acts of the federal government.

#3 The U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international customary law and confers on Congress the power "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations."

#4 The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that opinion, Justice Gray wrote: " law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination."

#5 In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as "Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action against the U.S. government and others for violating it, stipulating those who commit genocide "shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals."

#6 It, thereby, violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land."

#7 It violates U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code by inserting "Chapter 50A -- Genocide". Section 1091 (a), (4), defines genocide to include act(s) which "subjects the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part" in time of peace or war.

#8 Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that "the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States." He added this "should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States." Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at the onset of Senate hearings that "the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset" by this legislation.

Two Separate -- Unequal & Unjust -- U.S. Immigration Policies

Since 1965, the U.S. Congress, President and executive branch and judiciary have actively imposed Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European- Americans have always been the majority population. In stark contrast, Congress has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories -- American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the "Free Associated States" of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau -- where non-European peoples form the majority populations, for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities.

These distinct immigration policies -- one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories -- show Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and demography, and is destroying the nation’s European-American racial and ethnic demographic majority deliberately.

Lawsuit Charging Genocide

A lawsuit charging the U.S. government with inflicting genocide upon European- Americans since 1965 via its immigration policies must be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States and simultaneously before other recognized penal tribunals throughout the world.

This lawsuit must make clear that international law against genocide is jus cogens, that is, peremptory thereby nullifying any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. immigration laws and policies. The suit must seek "reparations" as defined by international law, specifically to restore the nation’s racial and ethnic mix when the law took effect in 1948.

The objectives of this lawsuit are to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that:

* U.S. immigration policy violates international and U.S. laws against genocide

* U.S. immigration law, policies, regulations and procedures are therefore null and void

* The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American population to its demographic size, 90 percent, relative to the current population, as of December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against genocide took effect

* The U.S. government must adopt and enforce an immigration policy which admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The government should also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite that outcome.

European-Americans meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this lawsuit. They have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct and (c) there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor.

Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American population is a serious legal, moral and cultural issue, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, an immediate judicial stay on all related U.S. immigration laws must be sought from the court. This stay would halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the Supreme Court can rule on the lawsuit.

European-Americans satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since (a) they can establish legal standing, (b) they are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and (c) they can show that the benefits to the European-American population of a court-ordered stay on all U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact such a stay could have on others.

If the Supreme Court or other recognized tribunal rules in favor of European- Americans’ charge of genocide, a follow-up lawsuit must be filed immediately charging foundations, individuals, institutions, and organizations directly and indirectly responsible -- through lobbying, legislation, and other activities -- for U.S. immigration policy since 1965 with violating international law against genocide.

Among such targets may be the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Emma Lazarus Foundation/Open Society Institute, who have provided grants to MALDEF, La Raza, and various pro-immigration, open-borders advocacy and community groups; ZPG; numerous public officials; the Democrat and Republican National Committees; and members of Congress.

Under both international and federal laws against genocide, the courts can order these entities to pay both financial compensation and punitive damages to European-Americans harmed by their activities. U.S. Public Law 100-606 also provides for imprisonment of those found guilty of the crime of genocide.


Joseph E. Fallon is a published author and researcher on the topics of immigration and American demography. He can be reached at


Additional information regarding the U.S. immigration statistics can be found at: Numbers USA, among other Web sites.

logolittle.jpg (9114 bytes)

Also, check out... "What's a Trill Here, a Trill There...?", "Services-based Economy Means Cheaper Labor," "Natives Are Getting Restless,"  "Toward Nations of Obedient Mutts", "Klinton's Amerika: Israel's Tomahawk", "Two Faces of Globalism", "Canadian Banks Speculating Against Canadian Dollar""Election '98: Much Ado About Nothing""A Spoof on Goof: ABC Adds God to Its Editorial Lineup," "Taking a Little Bite Out of the 'Big Apple'", "Greenscam's Meriwether Bailout,"  "Wall Street's Conquest of America,"  "Yeltsin-IMF Deal: Feeding Drugs to Drug Addict", "Like Watergate, Cover-up Worse Than Original Crime," "Death Merchants 80; U.S. Taxpayers 19" , "The Great American Divide Widens", "Was Buchanan Robbed in Louisiana, Iowa, Arizona?"

Or Djurdjevic's WASHINGTON TIMES columns: "When Will Wall Street's Bubble Burst?""Russia, IMF, and Global House of Cards""Rekindling NATO to Fuel Cold War...", "The Great American Hoover", "Russia, IMF and Global House of Cards" , "Christianity Under Siege: Toward a One World Religion,"

Or Djurdjevic's CHRONICLES columns: "Wall Street Financial Terrorism", "Wiping Out the Middle Class."