Decision of the Supreme Court is a condemnation of Premier
aurice Duplessis’ contempt for civil liberties, graphically illus-
tratea by this picture of Montreal “red squad” members maltreat-

hg a woman demonstrator.

Wheat farmers

Va

heckle Garson

WINNIPEG

Justice Minister Stuart G.
Garson was met with jeers and
derisive laughter recently when
he tried to justify Ottawa’s farm
Policies at a meeting of 650
farmers in Minnedosa, Manitoba.
He was invited by District No.
3 of the Manitoba Farmers Union
to address the meeting in the
heart of his own constituency.

Garson finished speaking be-
fore 10 o'clock but it was al-
Most another three hours before
@ was through answering ques-
tions fired at him by the
8udience. The aroused farmers
left no doubt as to what they
thought of the government scheme
® provide bank loans at five
Percent,

_ An insult to the intelligence,
Mgenuity and the industry of the
estern farmer,” was how Herb

Chulz, of Grandview, termed
the scheme. His remarks were
Steeted by prolonged applause.
“Paying interest on other sum-
Mer’s wages,” was the way
8nother farmer condemned the
ank loan scheme.

Other accusations against the
StvLaurent government included

ungling the job of marketing
~8Nada’s wheat surplus’; plac-
‘ng the wheat board in a straight-
Jacket on wheat-selling policies”;

Permitting the U.S. to take,

Some of our markets from us.”
‘ At one time the farmers’ pro-
st became so pronounced that
we Chairman was forced to in-
of eee and plead: “Let’s keep
fey Pas. I know how you
way ut let’s keep: order any
ae brief containing a four-
Raa program to .meet the
o Sn farm situation was read
ME’ cabinet minister by the
: 3i district president, R. R.
oe Ck, of Edmonton, with the
Quest that it be presented to
© cabinet. It called for:

® Interest-free advances
through the Wheat Board
©n farm-stored grain, with
all. charges to be carried by

€ government.

® Extension of credit and ac-
ceptance of reliable foreign
Currencies.

JUSTICE MINISTER GARSON

® Accepiance of barter trading
where necessary. '

@ Canadian participation in fa-
mine relief programs where
needed and a more aggres”
sive sales program through-
out the rest of the world.

Jenkins fights
for tax relief

“ote labor—end big business
domination,” is the slogan of Sam
Jenkins, president of Marine
Workers and Boilermakers Union,
who is contesting an aldermanic
seat in the December 14 civic
elections as an independent labor
candidate. 4

“T pledge to fight for tax re-
lief for homeowners, to place the
tax load where it rightfully -be-
longs—on big business,” said
Jenkins. é

Other points in his program
include exploitation of power and
natural gas for the benefit of
the people;
the transit system; more recre-
ational facilities for youth, in-
cluding youth centres and indoor
swimming pools; a fight against
corruption and the rackets which
have sullied the name of Van-

couver.

improvements in|M

FREE SPEECH VICTORIES

Peop

: ‘

By FRANK ARNOLD

win b
Quebec decisions

MONTREAL

Two highly significant events affecting free speech in Quebec took place on the
same day — November 15. Both were important victories for the people of this province
over the tyrannical reign of Premier Maurice Duplessis. One — the Supreme Court deci-
sion in the Chaput case which reaffirmed freedom of religion and the rights of minorities —
was given great and deserved publicity. The other was passed by almost unnoticed, al-

though for the trade unions and
the progressive movement it was
the culminating triumph of de-

cades of struggle.

It was the news that Montreal
City Council had repealed the
notorious bylaw which prohibit-
ed distribution of leaflets, papers
and posters anywhere in Mon-

treal.

The now-defunct bylaw, Ar-
ticle 270, Section 18 read: “It is
forbidden to carry or distribute
any posters, advertisements, pros-
pectures, circulars or papers in,
near or on the streets, alleys,
sideswalks and public places of
the city.” :

For years this bylaw has been
used to put the brakes on union
organization.

In Vancouver, Winnipeg or
Toronto one of the first things
a union organizer does when fac-
ed with the job of winning over
an unorganized shop is to put a
leaflet into the plant.

Here in Montreal many a labor
organizer has been arrested and
fined for doing “what comes nat-
urally” elsewhere in Canada.
During strikes, particularly, the
bylaw was used as a club against
the unions. The job of enforc-
ing it was frequently given to
the ill-famed “red squad.”

Even during election cam-
paigns the bylaw was utilized
to gag minority parties such as
the Labor-Progressive party,
Social Credit, and the CCF.
During the last federal elec-
tions Gabrielle Dionne, an LPP
eandidate, was arrested for the
crime of distributing her own
election platform!

In 1952, the old Houde-Asselin
provincial regime, under pressure
from the labor movement to
change the anti-democratic by-
law amended it to read: ‘“Never-
theless the executive committee
of the city, on the recommenda-
tion from the director of the
police department, may, at its
discretion, allow by resolution
etancett: cae g

The amendment, like the cure,
was worse than the disease. It
needs no imagination to see how
unwieldy and undemocratic was

|an amendment that would require

the city executive and police
chief to meet and pass on every
union leaflet in the city of Mon-
treal.

Now, after repeated requests
from all trade union centres
and from the Civil Liberties
Union which has been unrelent-
ing in its campaign to win re-
peal of the bylaw, the city
executive has proposed to city
council repeal of both the by-
law and its amendment.

Pierre Desmarais, chairman of
the city executive, said, “We have
taken the decision to abolish the
discretionary powers of the chief
of police following the demands
ade by the labor unions.”
| He was thanked on behalf of
organized labor by Councillor
Louis Laberge, who represents
Montreal Trades and Labor Coun-
cil. i
It is expected that the city

| will now drop a number of cases

|still pending before the courts
|for violations of the late, un-
lamented bylaw.
x % xt

Of equal importance for the
people of Quebec was the ver-
dict of the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Chaput case. The

highest court in the land spoke
with one voice in condemning
the “highly reprehensible” con-
duct of three members of the
provincial police.

The events on which the Sup-
preme Court ruled are known to
most Canadians. They were sum-
med up by Mrs. Justice Robert
Taschereau:

“The plaintiff-appellant (Esy-
mier Chaput) is a minister of the
Witnesses of Jehovah. On the
14th of September 1949, another
‘minister of the same sect went
jto Chapeau, and there, in the
‘plaintiff’s house conducted a re-
ligious ceremony. He expound-
ed the religious doctrines in
which fie believed, read certain
| passages from the Bible, and the
| evidence does not reveal that any
seditious words. were spoken.
Everything took place in a very
orderly manner.

“The meeting was called for
two o’clock in the afternoon, but
three-quarters of an hour later,
the three defendants, officers of
the provincial police, entered ap-
pellant’s house, orderedsali’'those
present to leave the lace, es-
corted the invited mirfister Gott-
hold to the Pembroke*ferry and
seized a Bible and all#the other
books that were on. ‘the table
near. which the minister was
speaking. Ali those present com-
plied with the order given and
dispersed quietly.” fic -
| Mr. Justice Taschereau, sum-
{ming up the unanimous opinion
of the nine judges on these ac-
tions,,spoke with the voice of 15
,million Canadian when he deliv-
ered the judgment.

j “I have no doubt,” said the
,learned judge, “that the three
respondents’ conduct was highly

CAMILLIEN HOUDE

His amendement was worse
than the_ original bylaw.

\

, reprehensible, and of such a na-
‘ture as to offend deeply the
iplaintiff-appellant. He clearly
had the unquestionable right to
convene at his home the meet-
‘ing where some 40 persons were
| gathered, and to invite Gotthold
'as a preacher. In our country
, there is no state religion. All
‘religions are on an equal foot-
|ing, and Catholics as well as Pro-
i|testants, Jews, and other adher-
ents to various religious demon-
inations, enjoy the most complete
liberty of thought. The con-
science of each is a personal mat-
ter and the concern of nobody
else. It would be distressing to
think that a majority might im-
pose its religious views upon a
minority, and it would also be a
shocking error to believe that one
serves his country or his religion
by denying in one province, to a
minority, the same rights which
one rightly claims for oneself in
another province.

“In the circumstances of the
present case, the preacher was
only expounding religious doc-
trines in which he _ believed,
which may have been opposed to
the views of the majority of the
citizens of the locality, but the
opinion of a minority is entitled
to the same respect as that of
the majority.”

The thinking behind the gag
law on leaflet distribution and
the brutal actions of the pro-
vincial police was undoubtedly
inspired by the Padlock Law
which starts from the assump-
tion that “the opinion of a min-
ority” is not “entitled to the
same respect as that of the ma-
jority,” be that a religious or a

7

/ political minority.

The Supreme Court judgment
is, therefore, not only a con-
demnation of three policemen
but an attack on the whole sys-
tem of police repression and on
what has come to be known
as “the Padlock Law mental-
ity.” ‘

This is the first time that the
Supreme Court has found itself
in\complete accord on a matter

so profoundly affecting the civil
liberties of Canadians, with Eng-
lish and French-Canadian judges
joining: in denouncing a flagrant
curtailment of freedom.

It’is a happy augury for the
Padlock Law test case which is
scheduled to come before the
same Supreme Court at its Feb-
ruary term.

Clearly there are new winds
blowing in Quebec and across
Canada — warmer, freer air is
beginning to circulate, dispelling
the choking fumes of repression.

But civic-minded citizens in
Quebec and Canada should not
hold. their breath waiting for

the fresh air. Immediate assist-
ance is.needed by the Montreal
Civic Liberties Union in its great
campaign to defeat the Padlock
Law in the Supreme Court.

Those who wish to contribute
financially can do so by mail-
ing cheques to: Montreal Civil
Liberties Union, Paul Normandin,
secretary, P.O. Box 1251, Place
D’Armes, Montreal.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 2, 1955 — PAGE 3

 S
t
|
Be