BY HARRP GULKIN

Fight to repeal Padlock Law
now before courts--and people

MONTREAL
: the workers of French Can-
ada, the Padlock Law means
the burly figure of Paul Benoit
leading provincial police in a
tear-gas and shooting attack on
striking textile workers at
Louiseville. It means John Boy-
ezum crashing through the picket
lines of shipyard workers at
Vickers. Paul Benoit, officer in
charge of the provincial “‘anti-
subversive” ~squad, and John
Boyzcum of the Montreal squad,
are the men breaking strikes of
the miners at Asbestos, textile
workers in Valleyfield, Montreal
and lLachute, shoeworkers at
Richmond. CCL, Catholic Syn-
dicates or independent unions—
they’re all in a day’s work for
the ‘“anti-subversive” Padlock
Law squads.

To Quebecois the Padlock Law
also means the ever present
threat of the invasion and dispos-
session of one’s home; padlock-
ing of cultural centres, homes,
and newspaper offices; book
burning in the Nazi manner;
forcible stifling of all democratic
liberties, of all opposition to the
policies of Premier and Attorney
General Maurice Duplessis and
the U.S. trusts he represents.

Elsewhere in Canada echoes
of the Padlock Law have been
heard: the attempt of Premier
Jones of Prince Edward Island
to outlaw international unions;
the hooligan assaults on Ukrain-
ian halls in Timmins, Winnipeg
and Toronto; RCMP attacks on
seamen’s picket lines in Ontario
and B.C,; attacks on the Dean of
Canterbury’s meetings, and most
ominous, the St. Laurent govern-
ment’s efforts to pass Bill 93.
“But the Padlock Law is not
going unchallenged. Since its
inception the people of French
Canada have waged a vigorous
fight to have it repealed. Today
a challenge to the constitution-
ality of the act is now under ad-
visement by the Quebec Court

of Appeals.

€
The case arose out of the pad-
locking of the home of John Switz-
man, LPP organizer for Montreal
Cartier on January 27, 1949. Jus-
tice F. Collins of the Superior
Court who first heard the case
upheld the constitutionality of
- the Padlock Law, and Switzman
appealed the decision. Marcus
and Feiner, well known firm of
labor lawyers, argued the case
on Switzman’s behalf.
Padlocking of his home left
Switzman, who was wounded’
overseas in the Second World
War, his wife and infant daught-
er stranded, without lodgings and
their household furnishings im-
pounded. (Later under public
, the authorities allow-
ed the Switzmans to remove their

Law arises out of proceedings
launched by Switzman’s land-
lady to collect the sum of $2,170
revenue that she maintained had
been lost to her during the peri-
od the premises were padlocked.

While they conceded that the
landlady had forfeited the
amount of. money claimed, Switz-
man’s lawyers contended that he
had been illegally dispossessed
of the premises by a.law that is
unconstitutional.

After the constitutionality of
the law was upheld by the Su-
perior Court, Attorneys Marcus
and Feiner appealed to the Que-
bec Court of Appeals. § The
court will render a judgment in
the next six weeks.

e

The Padlock Law is officially
designated as “An Act to Protect
the Province Against Commun-

istic Propaganda.” Its true in-
tent and the effects of its appli-
cation, however, are as far re-
moved from communism as the
New York Times reporter whose
home was raided because he
dared criticize this anti-demo-
cratic law, or the Christian
Brethren, a Protestant sect whose
Shawinigan Falls, Que., chapel
was razed while their prayer
books and Bibles were being

burned in the gutter.

Title cover of the pamphlet
written by Thomas C. Roberts
and published last year by the
League for Democratic Rights.

The Padlock Law was enacted
by the Quebec legislature in 1937
shortly after the accession to
power of Duplessis’ Union Na-
tionale government. Duplessis
won election around the dema-
gogic slogan of “Down with the
Trusts.” It soon became clear,
however, that the Union Nation-

ale represented precisely those
trusts, and sought to head off
the rising tide of militancy and
trade union organization that
swept through French Canada in
the middle thirties.

A weapon against union org-
anization and. democratic liber-
ties that had been freely exer-
cised against Canada’s people
under the Tory regime of R. B.
“Tron Heel” Bennett had been
wiped off the federal statutes.
Section 98 was repealed follow-
ing the defeat of Bennett in
1935.

Duplessis sought to replace it
with the passage of the Padlock
Law. In so doing he repudiated
the expressed will of the people
of French Canada who in over-
whelming numbers had voted
against the anti-democratic char-
acter of Section 98, and against
the Tory government. :

With the “Act to Protect th
Province Against Communistic
Propaganda” passed, the witch-
hunt against all opposition to the
Duplessis regime began in earn-
est. No less than 124 raids were
carried out by Provincial Police
between November, 1937, ‘and
May, 1938. Hundreds of books
were seized and burned under
the authority of the Padlock Law.

e@
It is important to note that

while the Padlock Law is “An~

Act to Protect the Province
Against Communistic Propagan-
da,” nowhere in the act is “com-
munism” defined. The late Hon.
H. J. Coonan, former minister
without portfolio in the Duples-
sis government, made the reas-
ons for this omission clear in a
speech before a service club
some years ago. He said the act
was intended to cover “the many
who are Communists without
knowing it.” :

The essence of the Padlock
Law is contained in the follow-
ing sections of the act:

Section 3: It shall be illegal

. to make use .. . (of any

house) . . . to propagate com-

munism or bolshevism by any
means whatsoever.

Section 4: The Attorney Gen-
eral . . . may order the closing
of the house against its use for
any purpose whatsoever for a
period of not more than . one
year .

Section 12: It shall be unlaw-
ful to print, publish . . . any
newspaper, periodical, pamph-
let (etc.) . . . propagating com-
munism or bolshevism.

Section 13: Any person infring-
ing or participating in the in-
fringement of Section 12 shall be
liable to an imprisonment of not
less than three months.

‘WE HAVE TO GO OUT OF OUR HOMES AND FIGHT . . .’

Valley housewife tells why she
is standing as LPP candidate

ts is a great honor to have been
asked to stand as a candidate
for the Labor-Progressive - party
in this election, to represent the
only party that puts Canada first.
I firmly believe that we will win
our goal, and that now is the
time to get out and fight for it.

When I was first asked if I.
would be a candidate I was over-
whelmed by the size of the job
—I thought, I’m just a housewife,
not a speaker! On the other
hand, I’ve worked in the labor
movement in-B.C. for 15 of my
29 years, have gained some ex-
perience in that time, maybe it
is time I did speak up in public
for my beliefs.

We women know it is time we
took a greater part in shaping
our future—that we have to go
out of our homes and fight for .
the things we want most out of
life, for our own and our child-
ren’s future. This is not always
an easy thing to do, with small
children to think about, but I
am convinced that more women
everywhere are going to have to
do it—that they cannot stay at
home and wait for the things
they want.

If we ask the men for equality,
we must be prepared to work
side by side with them in public
life, and they must recognize
that we women do play an im-
portant part. Sometimes we feel
very small and _ insignificant.

when we think of the power of
the reactionary elements in our
country and abroad. We get
discouraged, tired and confused
in the daily battle of ideas.

In weighing my decision, I ask-
ed myself: What do I feel about
conditions around me, and what
do my friends think? Where do
we start to express our convic-
tion that we hold the answer to
our country’s problems? :

Let’s start right here by look-
ing at ourselves and our sur-
roundings. It’s springtime in
this beautiful and productive
green. valley of ours. We love
our rolling hills, green fields
and broad river, in a personal
way. We think of it as ours, as
our personal corner of the uni-
verse, and we can understand
why people who have come here
from other countries hold a last-
ing tie with the places in which
they were born. :

You can stand on the front
steps of your home almost any-
where in this riding and listen
to the sounds which denote our
industries—a tractor cultivating
a field, a sawmill working in the
‘distance, the put-put of a fish-
boat. out on the river, the trans-
continental trains whistling
down the valley; cars and trucks
on the roads. These are simple,
every day things, that tell us

ue country life is good and use-
ul.

But things are not as peaceful
as they appear on the surface.
Our friends and neighbors are
worried. Things are not as we
would like them, even close to
home. We struggle to make a
living, but our men are not se-
eure in their jobs.

Our farmers, fishermen, log-
gers and miners are faced with
declining markets, and mount-
ing surpluses. Our living stand-
ards and our civil liberties are
threatened, our government is
pouring tens of millions of our
hard-earned dollars into prepar-

ations for wars that we do not ©

want.

We want to live in peace, with
all countries, to see progress, and
to lead happy and useful lives.
We want to be able to call this
country our own, to say that
we, the people, own this valley
and its resources, to_put these
great resources to use for better-
ment of our own lives.

To do that we much take fresh
courage, arm ourselves with de-
termination and confidence, and
go out to win the people for the
Labor-Progressive party’s poli-
cy, the only policy that can make
Canada truly great.

@ From the speech made by Mrs.
Frances Gilstead in accepting
nomination as LPP provincial
candidate for Dewdney.

In the Switzman case Ht ‘08
gued that in placing ; nt
on Switzman’s home ped
year, Duplessis had us overt”
powers of the federal er ie
ment. It is contended ber
Padlock Law in attemP
“outlaw communism”
not defined by the act
lating in criminal law,
this subject is ree
federal government U
of the BNA Act. the Pal
Law is therefore ultra "|

It is pointed out that ss q
infringes on freedom Be
and assembly as guarant t
the British constitution yn
“Alberta Reference Cas® cat
the Supreme Court %
disallowed the legislation of
Social Credit governme”
berta when it attempt!
pose restrictions on neWe
is quoted.

pe)
Ww
When the Padlock La ‘yet

enacted, representat inet
made to the federal © it.

its wri 0 disallow i
use its right t vit the Po

answer given was tha
of disallowance ha¢_
disuse, yet within ay 0
eral government isal
Alberta acts impo

tions on the operations d

» Switzman’s Wee sae
court that the gi ati?
subverting the ae) vet oot

Canada by de! ying
he ©

cause of the
hibitions on
aganda”) and a
them to the §
class citizens.

Fea
Should the appe?
bec Court of Appeal®
man will carry, thé

PACIFIC TRIBUNE —

é