Canadian Court Decision Has Revolutionary Implications For Banking
February 18, 2015
The mainstream media is vociferously ignoring
a recent court ruling in Canada in a case involving two Canadians who
sued to restore the Bank of Canada to its original operational
philosophy and mission.
The case was originally filed on December 12, 2011 on behalf of members of the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER). The suit sought to “restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest-free loans to the municipal/provincial/federal governments for ‘human capital’ expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.” In short, the original mission of the Bank of Canada was to be a public bank.
Since 1974, however, according to the plaintiffs in the case, the Bank of Canada has gradually become a servant of private foreign banks and other corporate interests. The suit also alleges that the Canadian government has used a fallacious accounting method which does not calculate or disclose the total national revenues before transferring back money to corporations in the form of tax credits. Finally, the action alleges that the Canadian government and Bank of Canada acted in concert with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to undermine Canadian sovereignty by circumventing the mission of the Bank of Canada--a mission decided upon by Parliament.
But just a few weeks ago, three judges in the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld the justiciability of the plaintiff’s case, meaning that the case has survived an attempt at dismissal, and will move forward.
The Public Banking Institute takes special interest in goings-on in Canada concerning the B of C and the Canadian struggle for public banking. We were proud to host Toronto City Council member Kristyn Wong-Tam at the 2013 Public Banking Conference in Northern California, and to promote the recent, very exciting seminar in Toronto on Public banking.
But the Canadian decision (the decision to allow the case to advance, at least) is also significant because it suggests that a legislative mandate to create a bank in the public interest may be binding--and it is just such a mandate that the public banking movement seeks from city, county, and state officials when public banks are implemented around the nation.
As Ontario activist Jacob Kearey-Moreland wrote about the decision's importance:
The case was originally filed on December 12, 2011 on behalf of members of the Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER). The suit sought to “restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest-free loans to the municipal/provincial/federal governments for ‘human capital’ expenditures (education, health, other social services) and/or infrastructure expenditures.” In short, the original mission of the Bank of Canada was to be a public bank.
Since 1974, however, according to the plaintiffs in the case, the Bank of Canada has gradually become a servant of private foreign banks and other corporate interests. The suit also alleges that the Canadian government has used a fallacious accounting method which does not calculate or disclose the total national revenues before transferring back money to corporations in the form of tax credits. Finally, the action alleges that the Canadian government and Bank of Canada acted in concert with the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to undermine Canadian sovereignty by circumventing the mission of the Bank of Canada--a mission decided upon by Parliament.
But just a few weeks ago, three judges in the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld the justiciability of the plaintiff’s case, meaning that the case has survived an attempt at dismissal, and will move forward.
The Public Banking Institute takes special interest in goings-on in Canada concerning the B of C and the Canadian struggle for public banking. We were proud to host Toronto City Council member Kristyn Wong-Tam at the 2013 Public Banking Conference in Northern California, and to promote the recent, very exciting seminar in Toronto on Public banking.
But the Canadian decision (the decision to allow the case to advance, at least) is also significant because it suggests that a legislative mandate to create a bank in the public interest may be binding--and it is just such a mandate that the public banking movement seeks from city, county, and state officials when public banks are implemented around the nation.
As Ontario activist Jacob Kearey-Moreland wrote about the decision's importance:
We are in a perpetual-debt crisis because we've allowed foreign private interests to control the creation of money and, by extension, federal economic and social policy for their private interests. Banks are guaranteed billions in profits every year as families slide deeper into debt. Forget income splitting; imagine the tax relief once we escape debt bondage and compound-interest payments.The Public Banking Institute will be following the Canadian case very closely, and working with our allies in Canada to educate and agitate for the kind of banks we need in both countries.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento