=

\

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