e
tal dA NNN tibet lat el ela alate iat eal al al eee eee LUO EMO M ELM MC ee eM en et ee ee ee Tt eT ETE ee Td at TT

the threat to
your liberties

BILL 0

Bea

Pr te ee
EN the preliminary study of Bill H-8 (now Bill O) which we
have been able to make in the brief period since it was made

available in printed form, convinces us that the new Criminal Code
which the bill contains must receive the most careful attention of
the Senate and the House of Commons, and that haste must be
studiously avoided. We base our opinion on the fact that the
present code has not been revised since 1892, and that the con-
solidation which was the essence of the terms of reference to the
drafting committee has been so interpreted as to produce a new
code of 744 as against 1151 sections, which constitutes a re-writing
of many basic laws. While the public is given to understand by the
meagre reports in the press that the present code is unwieldy and
only a much-needed technical consolidation is taking place, that is
far from the whole truth.

Our submission is, that several sections of Bill O are re-
formulations of a number of offences, and that these must be
regarded as a series of- new basic definitions, particularly with
respect to civil rights and breaches of public order. Hence, Bill O
must become the subject of prolonged public discussion in order
that these new definitions shall be made the property of the public,
and public opinion afforded every opportunity to press for the re-
quired amendments. 4

In our opinion main basic rights of the citizen have been
either whittled down or jeopardised in the draft of the new code.
Hence, the new draft cannot be regarded as a technical product but
as a reflection of basic economic and political processes — the law,
in effect, being a codification of real political and social relation-
ships.
The present period and situation are marked by the trend—
originating in and actively promoted by dominant circles in the
United States of America—towards the curtailment of freedom of
thought and expression and the repression of criticism of the policies
of the U.S. government. The more widespread the popular ques-
tioning and anxiety regarding these policies, the more open the in-
tervention of U.S. authorities to impose on other countries the
witch-hunt and thought-control pattern so dangerously in the
ascendant in the USA.

Experience teaches the bitter lesson that apparently “minor”
technical changes in the law, ostensibly directed at so-called “ex-
tremists” only, can be part of the process, promoted by anti-demo-
cratic interests, whereby democracy is subverted to fascism. This
process is facilitated in Canada by the absence of a Bill of Rights,
or a Constitution, setting down the basic civil rights of the individual
citizen and his freedom to associate with others of like beliefs.

Our concern over the danger confronting the liberties of
Canadians derives from the fact that the Labor-Progressive party is
dedicated to the defence of Canadian democracy. Its whole record
is one of struggle for popular rights and liberties, against the re-
actionary subversion of democratic institutions which have been
won in revolutionary struggles in Britain’s and Canada’s past.

We wish to place before the committee a series of objec-
tions to these sections of Bill O which we believe constitute serious

encroachments on the political rights of citizens—encroachments so ’

serious as to challenge the sovereignty of Canada, and to identify
the loyalty of the citizen to his country with loyalty to the policy of
a party government.

We are not here attempting a legal study of the new code or
of the great heritage of decisions establishing civil rights which
make up so large a part of the law, and which the new code ap-
parently ignores.

*

ECTION 365 of Bill O replaces sands of members if, in the course
Section 499 of the present of their struggles to preserve their
code. It deals with strikes. Where- rights, they are compelled to go on

as the present maximum penalty
for convictions under this section
is three months’ imprisonment or
$100 fine, the harsh penalty of five
years in the penitentiary is provid-
ed in the new section if the trial
proceeds by indictment, or a
maximum of $500 fine or six
months’ imprisonment in the case
of summary conviction.

What is the offence specified
under the new Section 465? It is
the wilful breaking of contracts in
a series of public utilities or on
the railways. Whereas the pre-
sent Section 499 defines this of-
fence as relating to the person who
‘made the contract, the new Sec-
‘tien 365 removes this qualification
and now speaks of “Every one
who wilfully breaks a contract
+. .”, presumably including not
only signatories to the contract,
but a whole trade union of thou-

strike against intolerable griev-
ances. In effect, Section 365 codi-
fies the special ‘act of parliament
which broke the railway strike in
1950. It is a dangerous weapon
in the hands of anti-labor forces
and cannot be enacted into law ex-
cept at the expense of the right to
strike of many thousands of or-
ganised Canadian workers.

That Bill O contains wholly new
provisions can be seen also in the
new Section 366, which deals with
picketing. This new section has
added the words “threats of viol-
ence” and “attempts to intimid-
ate” to the much more precise
provisions in the present Section
501, again providing room for the
prosecuton and conviction of trade
unien members on the most
flimsy grounds. Whereas an in-
dictment and a jury trial are proy-
ided for in the present Section
501, the re-written Section 366

a

TOCA RCCL TLL RLM MtLNNIMMHINUAINNE CT

Text of

TET |

the brief

TT

submitted to the
Senate by the LPP
on Bill O (formerly
Bill H-8) revising
the Criminal Code

onan

takes away trial by jury and spec-
ifies summary trial.
rr

The most far-reaching inroads
upon the. rights of the citizens are
contained in the new Sections 46
to 57 which deal with “Treason
and Other Offences against the
Queen’s Authority and Person.”
We understand from the table of
concordance given as a key to the
old and new codes, that Section
46 was not written by the drafting
committee but by the law officers
of the Crown under the present
minister of justice — and by this
we understand that it was the pre-

sent cabinet of the Liberal party :

which produced this new defini-
tion of “treason” which is utterly
without precedent in the law of

~ any nation of the British Common-

wealth.

Section 46, subsection (2) of
the new code, dealing with trea-
son, contains completely new
formulations which are not to be
found in Sections 74, 75, 77, 78 of
the present code, but which were
forecast and to some extent defin-
ed in the 1951 amendments. The
old formulations are, in the main,
based on the conception of treason
contained in the ancient English
statutes. The new definitions ex-
tend the law of treason to cover al-
leged actions which:

he
ae

Pin ti il

@® May be committed in or out
of Canada.

@ Include the formation of “in-
tention” which hitherto belonged
to common law, and, in effect,
makes of an intention an overt
act. é

@ May be committed by assist-
ing armed forces with whom Can-
adian armed forces are engaged
in hostilities, “whether or not a
State of war exists between Can-
ada and the country whose forces
they are,” thus removing the whole
former basis of treason which re-
lates to a declared state of war, or
to levying war against the King.

@ May take the form of con-
spiring with the agent of a state
other than Canada, to communi-
cate information or do any act
that is likely to be prejudicial to
the safety or interests of Canada,

thus enormously extending the de-:

finition .of treason.

® includes the formation by an
accused of an intention to do
things which hitherto have never
been regarded as treasonable;
thus, paragraphs (f) and (zg) of
Section 46, subsection (1) of the
new code makes it possible to
charge a citizen with treason who
merely forms an intention to con-
spire, or to oppose aims being pur-
sued by the government, even if

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 19, 1952 — PAGE 10 ©

BUIBSB HME

these aims have not received par-
liamentary authority. For ex-
ample, we cite the opinion of
Chief Justice Meredith (Page 110,
Tremeear’s. Annotated Criminal
Code of Canada 5th edition) in
which he said, on this point: “No
doubt, in the case of certain kinds
of treason, the attempt, or even
less than the attempt, is treason
. . + but in the case of the kind?
of treason with which the prisoner
was charged . . . the treason. con-
sists in ‘assisting,’ and the forming
and manifesting by any overt act
an intention to assist is, under the
Code, not treason.”

If these new definitions of trea-
son become law, the political party
temporarily in office can prose-
cute, on the most severe charges in
the code, the critics of its foreign
policy. There is no difference in
principle between this and the
actions of the present government
of the Union of South Africa in
attempting to place itself above
the constitution.

Ss

The “interests” of Canada, and
actions or intentions likely to pro-
judice those “interests” for which
treason charges can be laid under
the new code, are not defined in
the code, nor can they be. What
are the “interests” of Canada?
No twelve citizens on a jury could
be found to agree on what they
are, or what they are not.

For example, it could be charg-
ed by the present government of
Canada that criticism of the North
Atlantic: Treaty Organisation, or
discussion on the part of a Cana-
dian citizen with the citizens of
other states to bring about world
peace, constitute treasonable con-
spiracies — despite the fact that
NATO has never been endorsed by
the Canadian people, or that the
Canadian people are more con-
cerned about world peace than any
other question. <<

The government could charge,
under the new sections of the code
respecting treason, that advocacy
ef an armistice in Korea is “trea-
son,” despite the fact that the Can-
adian electorate has never been
given an opportunity to discuss
the actions of the government in
sending armed forces to Korea.

Recalling the experiences of
Section 98 of the Criminal Code,
which public opinion compelled the
government to repeal in 19386, and
the abuses which'the governments
in the nineteen-thirties perpetrat-
ed against civil rights by charging
hundreds of hungry and distress-
ed working people with “sedition,”
“unlawful assembly” and ‘“unlaw-
ful picketing,” it is reasonable to
suppose that the present govern-
ment is using the chance afforded
by the consolidation of the Crim-
inal Code to intimidate many Can-
adians into accepting a foreign
policy to which they are increas-
ingly opposed.

‘The present foreign policy of
the government is bringing Can-
ada perilously close to war an
subordinating the sovereignty of
the country to the USA. Through
the automatic commitments — it.
NATO the essential decisions on
peace or war have been practically
removed from parliament, ‘Trea
son could be charged if a Cana
dian citizen criticised hostilities
which broke out because of the
actions of a foreign government,
over which Canada has no control.
The present crisis in Germany, and
the Koje camp events in Koreas
are cases in point.

Concluded on next page

2