= \ ee Whol to the Vation ‘ reason, It is precisely to prevent ‘criti- cism of such matters that the guy- ernment of Canada is asking par- liament to endorse wholly new con- ceptions of treason and to widen the law respecting sedition. The 11th edition of the Encyclo- Pedia Britannica (published in 1911, before the USA took over this formerly British |publication) defines the British law of treason 48 stemming basically from the Standard established in the Statute of 1851. This standard is describ- ed as-“assisting any public enemy at war with Her Majesty in such a War by any means whatsoever.” The other forms of treason set out argely concerns the person of the Monarch, but they are subsidiary main formulation, This basic definition in British Bw: clearly establishes a differenti- ation between statutory treason, 8nd sedition and seditious libels, which are both misdemeanors - in Common Jaw and not statutory of- €nees. Thus treason historically has been considered to be the com- Mission of overt acts jeopardising € Personal safety and prestige : the monarch, or attempts to fo war upon the king and assist- & an enemy with whom he is at War, fe new definitions of treason ill 0 overthrow this historical °nception, and in effect make ed nonable certain offences alleg- ie to have been committed while i afte of war exists. The people Ke anada are asked to accept the ‘ erporation of the misdemeanor ‘ge Sedition into. the statute on See 3 Thus the charge of trea- 1s widened to an extreme de- Ng to cover offences never hith- es deenied treasonous; by this oe action the civil rights of Can- NS are drastically reduced, be- Use the exercise of criticism in ing of peace, as well as in time of if tf Can be considered treasonable é € bill passes as it is. ‘a urther, the intention of the ernment is revealed in the pen- Gin; Provisions, In addition to ee to provide for the death 80h ie upon conviction for trea- ion © new. code includes provis- or a sentence of life imprison- This does not democratise Ca t .< Code, as may appear on first. 0 §) ‘ght, but will have the effect of ene . * ig, Juraging prosecutions for trea- Son * a . » And making conviction easier, meemoving from the jury possible : “tance to convict, in view of Heng, oatory character of the the Sentence. This is perhaps est proof of the political moti- behind the new definitions 4s is again revealed in Section in care section (2), which provides ion ee of treason for an informa- sued eine laid and a warrant is- though ¢ in a specified time — al-' ant he execution of the war- The pune be delayed indefinitely. Secret Ssibilities here are great for ie Drocredings and dramatic, Prejudien arrests in a manner Section lal to the accused. This 1 smacks of oppressive politi- Ca); " @ [Rtentions. seats ew Sections of the Code on D te a (Sections 60-63) appear < mafted with similar politi- otivations, So vague is the it ;, “*finition of “sedition” that every Te Applied strictly and in ‘Sion, °2S¢ public political discus- 1 vital questions would be 4 brought to a standstill. These sections of the new code (as the others already mentioned) seem to have been drafted with an eye to what one authority calls the “fluctuating circumstances” which govern these laws in the eyes. of the powers-that-be. The “fluctu- ating circumstances” of today un- doubtedly are the fear the govern- ment has of public criticism of its policy, and the increasing resist- ance of the Canadian people to the domination of Canada by the Unit- ed States of America. The first and most striking feat- ure of the new sections-.on sedi- tion is the increase of the penalty to the extremely harsh one of fourteen years. Only a year ago the parliament of Canada, on the recommendation of the minister of justice, increased the penalty from two to seven years. Now it is doubled, at one stroke. ‘This is proof of a menacing attitude to _the rights of the citizens of Cana- ada. The law governing the ex- pression of open criticism and of “iibel” is stiffened while the min- ister of justice, in his remarks to the Senate, made it clear that he and his department opposed a sug- gestion by the drafting committee that the ago-old contentions mat- - ter of “seditious intention” be de- fined in the new code. The gov- ernment prefers the all-embracing ambiguity which the new code re- tains. ’ As Bill ‘O puts it in Section 60, subsection (4), there is a “gen- erality of the meaning of the ex- pression ‘seditious intention’ ” quite apart from the “teaching or advocacy” of the use of force as a means of accomplishing govern- mental changes. What is this “generality of meaning”? The bill does not define it, hence a weapon for the exercise of repressive pow- ers is placed in the hands of a ruling political party to prosecute and persecute citizens whose views it is irritated with and impatient of. This is rendered ‘all the more dangerous because the citizen has no recourse to a Bill of Rights. To prove this motivation. still further, we draw the Senate’s at- tention to the significant changes in the new Section 60, subsection (5), which defines what seditious intention is not. The present code, (Section 133A) par. (c) ) says that it is not seditious “to excite His Majesty’s subjects to attempt to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any mat- ter in the state... .” In the new Section 60, subsection (5) the fol- lowing reformulation of the same paragraph is to be found. “to pro- cure, by lawful means, the altera- tion of any matter of government in Canada.” This is a basic change which the authors of the new code have deliberately inserted. The removal of the words “to excite .. . to attempt to procure” is actually the removal of the rights to exer- eise precisely those rights of pub- lic agitation which this whole sec- tion was intended to guarantee when it was passed by parliament in 1980. To say it is not sedition only “to procure,” when public activity is most likely to be direct- ed to the “attempt” to procure by “exciting” public opinion, is to cancel whatever ‘is just in’ this section of the code. The replace- ment of the word “state” by the word “government” means that the party in office at the moment oe ty is now considered to be the “state” —certainly ‘a reactionary concept if ever there was one! e Loyalty to the armed forces of a foreign power is demanded in Section 63 of the new code. For-. eign troops are stationed on Can- adian territory, with special extra- - territorial rights granted by the present government. Special pro- visions are contained in this sec- tion of the new code to enforce a “loyalty” to these troops under pain of comitting a seditious of- fence. Yet it is plain that the loyalty of Canadians is to their own country, not to the troops of a foreign power, and that in resisting or criticising atempts of the government to enforce loyalty to foreign troops, Canadians will be prosecuted. This is a surren- der of the sovereignty of Canada, and of the rights of Canadian citi- zens. The new Section 63 (replacing the present Section 132A) removes the word “wilfully” in defining the seditious offence of “interfering” with a “member of a force.” This again cuts down the rights of the citizen since the removal of the word “wilfully” increases the lia- bility to conviction of a citizen who acts in good faith to protest injustices. e i Our submission to the Senate is, therefore: The statutory definitions of treason are now extended to cover offences which were former- ly included in the common law re- garding sedition. ‘Together with the penalties provided in the new code, they forecast the reign of political reaction. Wholly new and unpreceden- ted definitions of treason and sedition are given in the new code which make it “treasonable” and “seditious” to protest against the actions of states. other than Can- ada, and with respect to the troops of a foreign power; and these of- fences are extended to cover their commission within Canada or with- out, and in conditions where there exists no legal enemy with whom Canada is in a state of war, thus implying prosecution and even the death penalty, for citizens who disagree with the foreign policy of the party temporarily in office. The “interests” of Canada are implicitly equated with the opin- ions of a political party in office. Sections 865 and 866 are anti-labor and intended to limit the right to strike and the right to picket. 4. These new sections accord the government arbitrary powers for use against the sovereign in- terests of Canada and the ciyil rights of Canadian citizens. e ‘ We submit the following pro- posals to the Senate of Canada: V_ That the sections of Bill O covering treasonable and seditious offences including the 1951 amend- ments be rejected. : V That Sections 365 and 366 be rejected. V_ That the Senate proposes to the House of Commons that Bill O be tabled as a whole until the parliament of Canada adopts a Bill of (Rights. ‘Such a Bill of Rights should define the basic rights of Canadian citizens, safe- guard the sovereignty of Canada, and protect the citizen from the = tHe SPORTLIGHT By BERT WHYTE LONDON OR DUBLIN? That is the big question surround- ing the world middleweight title bout next June between the holder, . Sugar Ray Robinson, and Randolph Turpin, which promoter Jack Solomons has announced as “definite” (writes Eric Butler in the London Daily Worker). It depends entirely on such items as the rate of entertainment tax and crowd limits. Solomons said that it will probably take place at the White City, London, but Dublin cannot be ruled out. Much will depend on the British Boxing Board of Control. It is up.to them to get the White City crowd limit of 50,000 in- tax. creased or else obtain a reduction in the 33 percent entertainment . RANDY TURPIN If neither of the points are won, it is pretty certain that the fight will go to the Phoenix Park racecourse, Dublin. Turpin and his manager George Middleton have already signed contracts for the fight. These, along with telegrams from George Gainford, Robinson’s manager, have been handed to the board. (The British seem confident that Robinson will cross the Atlantic for a last defense of his title before hanging up his gloves. for keeps. I wonder?) * * * THE INTERNATIONAL Judo Federation is trying to get judo contests included in the 1956 Olympic Games at Melbourne. Meanwhile the Americans, frantically seeking a means to prevent the Soviet Union from sweeping to victory in the next Olympics, are trying to eliminate all events except those in which U.S. athletes shine, This week Avery Brundage, Yankee Olympic higwig, came up with a suggestion that will enrage amateur athletes in all other countries. He solemnly made a recommendation as president of the International Olympic Committee that all events for women be eliminated from. the Olympics. (Soviet women won several gold medals at Helsinki.) Other Brundage recommendations were to eliminate some of the oppositional sports entirely, eliminate all team sports, and transfer some sports to the winter games. If Brundage has his way, the Olympics will revolve around track and field events, thus guaranteeing a victory for America. Other countries will probably protest vigorously against this scheme to hamstring the Olympic Games. SEEN EEE arbitrary power of the government formed by whatever party happens to be in office. The Bill of Rights, as it relates to the citizen, must include the right to public free speech, asso- ciation, assembly and press, the right to strike and to picket, the right to petition free from intimi- dation and coercion (such as ac- companied the collection of sig- natures for a Pact of Peace), the right to freedom of religious be- liefs, the right to freedom of the person and protection from arti- trary police measures, the right to publicly organize and _ protest against economic, political and social injustices, the right to em- ieee LLU Men tt et nt teh ployment, domicile, etc., regard- less of race, color or creed. Until these rights are guaran- teed to Canadians, their existence as free citizens in an independent state is in danger. The new Crim- inal Code shows how these rights are even now, in this moment of great world change and develop- ment, being’ attacked under the guise of making ostensibly “min- or” changes'in the law. We of the Labor-Progressive .party believe that Canadiang will oppose these assaults upon civil liberties. We urge the Senate Committee to re- cognise this, and to Seriously con- sider the proposals of the Labor- Progressive party. PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 19, 1952 — PAGE 11