The Martin ca

Se:

N 1948, towards the end of

the legislative session when it
is customary for the ,government
of the day to jam through a

large number of measures, often
with scant opposition, the John-
son-Anscomb Coalition govern-
{ment smuggled in a real package
of political dynamite.

Introduced by Attorney-General
Gordon Wismer as an “Act to
amend’ the Legal Professions
Act” (Bill 105), no opportunity
was afforded opposing MLA’s for
adequate study or debate. Wis-
mer blandly assured’ the House-
that the amendments’ were
“merely technical,” affecting only
the legal profession.

It has now become. patently
clear that Wismer’s package of
“technicalities” wrapped in Bill
105, was designed by its archi-
tects to serve as an arbitrary dic-.
tatorial instrument of thought
control ahd political suppression,
striking at the very roots of

democratic rights and liberties
of the citizens.
Out of this “technicaY’ bill

came the infamous ruling of the
Benchers of the B.C. Law Society
upon the application for admis-
sion of student-veteran Gordon
Martin now internationally
known as the Martin Case.
Empowered by .the Legal Pro-
fessions Act to determine the:
“good character and repute” of
applicants to the Bar, the Bench-
ers decreed and set down in
their stated “reasons” that Gor-
don Martin’s application was re-
jected because the applicant:
(a) was not a fit person to be
called to the Bar or admitted
as a solicitor of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia,
and,
(b) had not satisfied them
that he was a person of good
repute within the meaning and
intent of the Legal Professions
Act.
e

Under the old Act, the Bench-
ers had the power to discipline
a practising lawyer “for good
cause shown” and could discip-
line a law student for “conduct
unbecoming a student.” No one
could take objection to such
powers for ensuring that certain
types of members of the profes-
sion maintainéd accepted ethical
standards. :

The sweeping powers now given
the Benchers under the new Act
is something altogether different.
They can now disbar a practising
lawyer for conduct which is “un-
becoming a member of the Law
Society.” Such “conduct” is de-
fined as “any matter, conduct or
thing that is deemed in the judg--
_ Ment of the Benchers to be con
trary to the best interests of
the public, or of the legal profes-

sipte

Acting as judge, jury and pros-
ecutor, the Benchers can “deem”
any conduct contrary to the “best
interest” of the public, because
under the new Act they have
been made the custodians of
public behavior as well as that
of members of the legal profes-
Sion. It is very easy to see how
a lawyer—let us Say one whose
sympathies are with labor, and
Whose political activities and
views are contrary to those of
the Benchers—could be declared
by them to be guilty of “unbe-
coming” conduct, and not in the
“best interests” of the “public”
as defined by the Benchers, and
thus disciplined, debarred or re-
jected by that august body.

The right of appeal from the
Benchers’ decision is implicit in
the new Act, but virtually use-
less, since the Benchers are the
final judges in appeal as to what.
is or is not in the “best interest
of the public.”

Thin end of a fascist wedge

To empower the Benchers of
the Law Society to decree what
is in the “best interests of the
public,” is: to endow them with
the power that only the parlia-
ment of Canada or the legisla-
ture can possess.
€

Under fhe new Act, the Bench-
ers, when investigating a discip-

linary case of a member of the .

Law Society, or considering the
application of a law student’ to
the Bar, are not bound by the
rules of evidence obtaining in
the courts of justice, but “on the
contrary, may proceed to ascer-
tain the facts upon suchevidence

. as it may deem fit and in
such manner as it shall deem
proper.”

Thus Wismer’s “technicalities”
become “star chamber”  tech-
nique. Hearsay evidence, un-
sworn testimony, refusal of the.
rights to cross-examine, stool
pigeons - all the kit and
kaboodle we have ‘become. so
familiar with in the “people's
courts” of Hitlerite Germany
and the un-American Activities
Committee.

That. such a clause could re-
main in an Act governing the
legal profession, which is sup-
posed to be one,of the guardians
of civil liberties and custodian
of those priceless rights of Mag-
na Charta, is a gross anomoly.
One could reasonably expect that
the Benchers themselves would
protest this undemocratic powers
placed in their hands by the
Johnson-Anscomb Coalition gov-
ernment, —

@

It may. be said in fairness to
the Benchers that their ruling on
the Martin case was not based
upon the new amendments. Their
refusal to admit him was based
upon Section 39, subsections 3-4
of the original Act, proceeding
directly from Martin's political
affiliation and beliefs, and thus
stands as a clear case of politi-
cal discrimination and _ persecu-
tion at the will of the Benchers.

Without going into a lengthy
biography of Gordon Martin, or
referring as the’ Benchers do, to
the Oxford Dictionary for a defi-
nition of what constitutes “good
repute,” suffice it to Say that he
is an RCAF veteran of over
four years’ service, with an hon-
orable discharge; holds an ex-
cellent rating at the UBC in
personal character and studies;
as a husband, father and citizen,
is highly respected in his com-
munity.

As a member of the Labor-
‘Progressive Party, he seeks to

understand present day society —

from a scientific Marxist view-
point, and not from the false
and distorted “reasons” set forth
by the Benchers in their warp-
ed interpretation of the Com-
munist Manifesto of 1848 and
their equally distorted and er-
roneous misconceptions of Com-
munist “beliefs” in 1948!

The denial of Gordon Martin’s
application to enter the profes-
sion of his choice, based upon
narrow political prejudice and
bigotry, is a flagrant denial of
the most elementary ‘rights of
the citizen. The arbitrary star-
chamber ruling and powers of
the Benchers, presumes among
other things, that the applicant,
even if not now, may, at some
future date, find his political be-
liefs at variance with his profes-
sional oath. :

This brazen assumption not

only abrogates every concept Of
our democracy, but shamelessly |
flaunts the fascist technique of.
'“thought-control” as a standard ,

of ethics for the legal profession
—and indeed for the public.
€

Well might even a staid old-
line party organ like the Kam-
loops Sentinel editorialize on No-
vember 24 1948:

“No matter where you start
thinking about the Martin case,
it ends up against the startling
fact that Martin has been for-
bidden to make a living at the
profession for which ke has
fitted himself, because he is an
adherent to Marxian socialism
and a@ member of the LPP.

“The Benchers’ attitude and
actions in the Martin case are
absurd and mischievous. The
barring of Martin wipes out
those civil rights and personal
freedoms for which our ances-
tors fought and fought again.
We cannot let this denial of
fundamental rights of citizen-
ship pass unchallenged, even
though we, through our legis-
laters, have vested the Law
Society’s Benchers with the
legal power to thus mock our
democracy. What our legis-
lature has given it can take
away, and it should. .. .”
Thus Attorney General Gordon
Wismer’s package of “technicali-

‘ties’ for the conduct of the Law

Society become in practice a
statutory star-chamber decree for
the destruction of civil rights,
for the subversion of democracy

in British Columbia, giving legal

effect to what is now becoming
all too common in Canada, not
only the desire, but an attempt
of the powers that be to silence

opposing viewpoint. S
The denial of the right to
speak in Toronto to the great

people’s artist, Paul Robson; the
arbitrary deportation and exclu-
sion of trade union organizers
from Canada on the trumped-up
charge of “communism”; the re-
peated attempts, intimidations
and threats to declare illegal the
Labor-Progressive Party and re-
strict the political rights and lib-
erties of its membership to ad-

The trut

\WHEN 100,000 Jews are living
in Birobidjan, that region
will become a_ Soviet-Socialist-
Jewish Autonomous Republic. So
declares Itzik Feffer in a recent
report on the Jewish Antonomous
Region of the Soviet Union.

Feffer, famed poet and author
of the Moscow Jewish Anti-Fas-
cist Committee, makes the state-
ment in the course of &n article
answering charges made against
Birobidjan by Jacob Lestshin-
sky, right-wing “expert” on Jew-
ish problems in the Soviet Union.
Noting that lLestshinsky has
lately found very little to say dis-
paragingly about Birobidjan, Fef-
fer comments: =

“What troubles him? He can-~

not learn the precise number of
Jews in Birobidjan. In any event,
he comes to the conclusion that
Birobidjan has very few Jews.
Correct.
Jews in Birobidjan. There are not

_yet 100,000. If there were. Biri-

bidjan would already’ have be-
come a Soviet Socialist Jewish Au-
tonomous Republic.”

There are not enough f

The significant thing, Fefter

goes on to say, is that within the
reasonably foreseeable future such
a republic will be established.
There, has been 4 migration. of
thousands of Jews to Birobidjan,

vocate social change; the Martin
case which spotlights the senior
members of the B.C. judiciary,
clothed with extra-legal powers
to apply thought control and to
penalize citizens by character
assassination, political persecu-
tion and economic restriction,

Such actions, etched on. the
Sinister pattern of fascism, are
becoming all too common in
Canada today!
©

The coming session of the B.C..

legislature must return Bill 105
to Coalitionist Wismer marked,
“Rejected by the people of Brit-
ish Columbia.” If amendments
to the Legal Professions Act are

‘required, let them be formulated

for the purpose of extending and
strengthening democracy, within

‘the legal profession and for the

common good,

Such amendments should _in-
clude a provision that no law
student shall be excluded from
practice at the Bar.or considered
of “ill repute” merely because of
his political beliefs or affiliations.

Under thé pre-1948 Legal Pro-
fessions Act the Benchers had
sufficient authority to discipline
members of the Law Society.
That authority should remain
but it must not be extended to
permit political . persecution or
ithe abrogation of civil: rights of
citizens—to become a weapon in
the hands of bigoted reaction.

The fight for the preservation
and extension of civil liberties
is an elemental fight. Martin’s
rejection by the Benchers stands
as a threat to the democratic
rights of every citizen, who to-
morrow may find his “or” her
thoughts and affiliations under
the star-chamber scrutiny and
decree of similarly empowered
thought control tribunals, backed
by extra-legal statutory powers.

This fight points up the need
of a powerful civil liberties move-
ment, determined on the preser-
vation of dearly-won rights, and
vigilant to the point of assuring

over 20,000 ?
i947 and the first quarter of 1948.
Of the 1,770 families that arrived

in 1947, approximately half sett-
led on collective farms.

Why was migration slight pre-

viously? Feffer explains, -‘Migra-.

tion’ was previously kept down be-
cause this land was close to im-

_ perialist Japan. whose empire was

continuously menacing the Soviet
borders. In view of this danger it
would have been a crime to en-
courage immigration to Birobid-
jan. It is therefore quite natural
that the defeat of imperialist Ja-
pan should be followed by a grow-
ing interest in Birobidjan.

Asa matter of fact, postwar im-
migration has exceeded all expec-

tations. If this immigration con-

iinues at the present rate an au-
tonomous socialist Soviet Jewish
republic will be set up in a few
years.” : ;

Feffer pours scorn upon so-
called / Jewish authorities who
have fabricated lies about Biro-
bidjan while keeping the truth
carefully hidden. Had the Soviet
Union not created such a regfon,
he points out, they would, have
charged it with discrimination.
Since it has assisted Jewish na-
tional aspirations, they complain
it does’ not do enough, and what

it does means nothing: anyway. © -

having arrived in’

By TOM McEWEN -

that such “technicalities” brought
down by a reactionary Coalition
government shall be subject to
inspection and
spot.

rejection on the

Write your MLA today de-
manding he or she support the.
repeal of Bill 105 and the ad-
mission, of Gordon Martin to the
profession of his choice.

The Civil Liberties Union is
defending his right to earn a
living, which his four years ser-
vice in the RCAF against Hit-
lerism, entitles him to. Back the
Civil Liberties Union with your
dollars. Give the Benchers an
unforgetable course of Canadian
democracy in action. Stamp out
Wismer’s “technicalities” with
support for the Martin case—
which is the case for democracy.

8 i ‘a ’ |

The facts are very impressive.
The government has made funds
‘available for

Birobidjan, Jewish theater build-
ings,

new’ factories in
libraries. Jewish authors
have their works published. A
Birobidjan Jewish journal is ap-
pearing regularly. ,

The region has a rich cultural
life, and indeed there has been a
“renaissance of all aspects of
Jewish cultural life in the Soviet
Union in the postwar years. Yid-
dish magazines are appearing in
Moscow, Kiev, Birobidjan, Minsk.
Yiddish theaters, schools, writers’
organizations and seholarship in-
stitutions are active; the response
of the Jewish masses is concrete
and lively.

And, Feffer adds pointedly,
“Birobidjan exists. New mills are
being built. Cities are expanding..
Jewish culture is growing. Honest
Jews would be happy over this
and impressed by the fact that
one can find such solicitude for
the Jewish people in the Soviet
Union. In what other country,”
he asks, “does the government as- |
sign colossal sums for Jewish
theaters, libraries, newspaper and
other cultural institutions, for the
settlement’ and rehabilitation” of
the Jewish» masses?" a

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JANUARY 28, 1949 — PAGE 4