“ “TItd be simpler if the U.S.

Kine JOHN of England was a
‘ tyrant who disagreed with the
ie that the freemen of his
int needed a Bill of Rights.
N ruled with an iron hand,
pine men, robbing them of
ae lives and possessions to
Ne his dictatorial whim. He
Saleh! upon armed foreign
Tcenaries which he imported
ato England. :

: John trampled upon the cus-
ag rights and laws of Eng-
‘nd and aroused the country

aa himself, History records
ay the cup ran over when he
ays anded levies of men. and
ary .to wage war against

Nee. His object: to conquer

‘came in and took over”

and annex Normandy to his
realm.

Tt came to a head at Runny-
mede on June 15, 1215, when
King John was compelled to
sign the Magna Charta. This
famous ‘Great ©Charter put
checks on the despotic power
of the King; it bound him to
respect the rights of the free-
men of England of that day.

The Magna Charta is a fa-
mous document marking a not-
able landmark in the struggle
for democratic rights, During
the 1939-45 world war the orig-
inal Magna Charta was brought
to this continent for safe keep-
ing less it be destroyed by Hit-

PSSSSOSSSSSSOSS < SSS

SSSSG9SSSSSSSSSSSOSOSOSE

U.S. thought control
comes to Canada

& conceserere By CHARLES SIMS

ler’s bombings. You wil] find
copies of it in every Canadian
qniversity and school.

e
There is little doubt that

speeches -will be made’ in Can-
ada’s parliament ‘around June
15 praising Magna Charta as
the cornerstone of democracy.
It will be good if the orators
on Magna Charta Day, while
praising what was done at Run-
nymede 737 years ago, heed
the demands of Canada’s people
today for a new “great charter,”
a Bill of Rights.

Justice Minister S. S. Garson,
on May 11 in Ottawa, declared
that “the still isn’t sold on the
idea Canada needs a Bill of
Rights to guarantee pasic free-
doms for her people.’’ He also
said that the essence of a Bill
of Rights was. “a distrust of
parliament.” He concluded that
“advocates of such a Bill of
Rights had proven neither that
Canada’s legislatures have sub-
stantially disregarded human
rights nor. that a Bill of Rights
would provide greater protec-
tion.”’

Two days- after this declara-
tion, Garson showed his dispo-
sition towards democratic
rights when he introduced Bill
H-8 in the Senate.

e
This
ment of about 300 pages.
contains the St. Laurent gov-
ernment’s proposals for the
amendment of the Criminal

is a formidable docu-

It.

re.

By ROB F. HALL
WASHINGTON

When the bill of Democrat
Congressman Howard Smith,
HR. 7647, reaches the floor
of Congress it will contain

. &very anti-labor proposal im-
aginable. His bill, Smith de-
clares, “takes over where the
Taft-Hartley act ends.”

The Taft-Harley act blocks
labor strikes by an 80-day
injunction, termed the cool-
ing-off period. After this 80
days strikes in the U.S. were
legally possible. Rep. Smith’s
HR 7647 proposes that when
the g0-day cooling off period
ends, if the union and man-
agement have not reached
agreement, the U.S. Attorney
General shall step in and ap-
Point receivers to take over
all properties and bank ac-
Counts of the union and em-
Dloyers, It will then be un-
lawful for any union to strike
and a crime for anyone to
aid or encourage a strike,
slowdown or absences from
Work, It will be unlawful
to pay strike relief or un-
employment benefits,

During the receivership the
ban on strike action contin-
ues until the union and man-
agement reach agreement.
The employers will receive
thei, customary profits.
Wages will be frozen.

Big business amendments,
likely to be tacked onto the
Smith bill are: prohibition of

industry-wide union contracts
and bargaining; the labor
union to be subject to the
anti-trust law — both aimed
at breaking up the big labor
unions. Big business feels
that the time is ripe for laws
that will destroy the power of
even the most conservative

JACOB POTOFSKY
“The bill must be defeated”

unions. The stakes are high.
If big business wins this
battle the U.S. will be push-
ed much further along the
road to fascism.

Allan §&. Haywood, CIO
vice- -president in his call for
inited labor action against
HR 7647 declared: “The very

In the U.S. it’s HR7647

our unions is
Under the guise
of protecting national de-
fense, reactionaries in Con-
gress are moving to impose
a permanen ws injunction
against unions.”’ AFL presi-
dent William Green says that
his seven million members
will fight the Smith bill
“which infuriates labor like
a red flag infuriates a bull.”

Jacob Potofsky, Amalgam-
ated Clothing Workers’ presi-
dent told his union’s conven-~
tion at Atlantic City that the.
Smith Bill must be defeated.
He pointed out that the at-
tack on U.S. civil liberties at
home was accompanied by
support of German Nazis and
Franco abroad.

A special meeting here of
the Railway Labor Executives.
Association, representing 19
U.S. railway unions with over

existence of
threatened.

‘a million members, declared:

“The Smith Act is aimed at
destroying organized labor.
It is a straitjacket for Jabor
under the guise os a na-
tional emergency.’ The rail
union chiefs called on all
unions to unite to, defeat this
pill.

In New York 300 execu-

‘tive members and stewards

of CIO, AFL and independent
unions have joined: to spon-
sor an all-in labor conference
for June 21 to mobolize for
the defeat of HR 7647 and
repeal of the Smith Act.

Tag oe eee

Code. It is the first time since
1892 that the code has been so
treated,

Sixty years is a long time and
there are good arguments to
justify the bringing of Canada’s
basic code of laws up to date.
But the main point is that»Bill
H-8 is distinguished by its out-
right reactionary features.

Tt threatens every labor union
that may be forced to strike to

H-8 GARSON

defend the workers’ living stan-
dards and rights,

It increases the sentence for
sedition from seven to 14 years
in jail, but does not define what
sedition is.

It enlarges and widens the
definition of treason in a Man-
ner that is unprecedented in the
criminal law of any country in
the world. As section 46 of Gar-
son’s Bill. H-8 now stands the
government could charge treas-

on against any political critic ’

of its foreign policy.

Garson ignored the’ majority
people’s demand for a ‘Bill of

Rights, but the government has
taken action to strengthen re-
‘action by Bill H-8.

“This bill points in the oppo-
site direction to Magna Charta.
It clearly aims to effect funda-
mental changes in Canadian law
—changes that are clearly detri-
mental to the interests and
rights of the working people and
democracy. It is many times
worse than Section 98 which was
enacted by the Tory parliament
of 1919, and repealed when Mac-
kenzie King was prime minister,
in 1936. :

For example, section 265 of
Bill H-8 is a direct threat to
every labor union, It prescribes
a five-year prison sentence for
the breaking of any contract be-
tween the employers and labor
union which would affect prop-
erty rights, or cause any stop-
page of work on railroads and

‘public utilities, Under its pro-

visions, if so-minded, a judge
in the courts, could sentence
striking workers who acted as
the Ford and railway workers
did in their recent struggles, to
five years in prison.

This gives you some idea of
the aims of Garson’s Bill H-8.

e

Section 46 aims to strengthen
enormously the repressive pow-
ers of the ruling class of Can-
ada, It proposes to redefine
basically the law on treason in
such a way as to open up the
possibility and danger of a Can-

‘then Canada

adian being open to a charge of
treason if he or she is found
guilty of intentions or acts ‘‘like- ~
ly to be prejudicial to the safety
or interests of Canada.”

What can this mean? The
Toronto Star of May 14 drew

its conclusions when it ran @
headline, ‘‘Death, or life term
seen for aiding China.’’ The

Globe and Mail, on May 16, after
declaring that Garson’s propos-
als do not go far enough, asks
the question: “Is there danger
of a witchhunt under the clause
relating to conspiracy against
the ‘interest’ of Canada?”

Is it prejudicial to the safety

or interests of Canada to ad-
vocate trade with People’s
China? Or recognition of Peo-

ple’s China? .Or, does it streng-
0 if you advocate
sending arms and supplies to
Chiang Kai-shek and Syngman
Rhee, a worthless pair of re-
actionaries who have been re-
pudiated by the masses of China
and Korea?

The letter of Bill H-8, and the
spirit behind it, points in the di- .
rection of holding a Canadian
guilty of treason if he advocates
friendship with People’s China,
The Star headline writer knew
what Bill H-8 was driving at.

e

“Tt seems to me-that in going
so far we are taking a reckless
step. The citizens of Canada
should know what alien forces it
is treasonable to aid,” declared
Senator A. W. Roebuck in the
“Senate on May 15. He said
that the proposed Section 46
“to my mind is very doubtful.
There should be some sort of
proclamation before the highest
offense known to the criminah
jaw becomes chargeable against
a citizen,’? Roebuck stressed in
dealing with Garson’s Section 46
Which basically amends tlre law
on treason,

Last year the Montreal Gaz-
ette said that ‘Garson’s June,
1951 amendments to the Crim-
inal Code were enacted on the
suggestion of the U.S. govern-
ment. Toronto Saturday Night
of May 3 said the same thing.
Garson has never denied it.

This Bill H-8 goes further
along this made-in-U.S. line of
political repression. For it aims
to coerce al] Canadians into sub-
missively yielding to the wrong,
pro-U.S. war policies of the Lib-
eral Party, Bil] H-8 is a thought-
control law. It would put Can-
adian democracy in a pro-war
straitjacket. The only ‘opin-
ions” and “‘policies’” that, strict-
ly speaking, would not be “‘pre-
judicial to Canada’s interests”’

would be those of the top bank-
ers and monopolists and their
Liberal party politicians.

e

I predict that there will be a
vigorous, deep and broad peo-
ple’s opposition to these features
of Garson’s Bill H-8. This battle
will be warp and woof of the
fight for peace, for the right of
Canadians to speak up, and to
act for peace. Peace is not
treason and never can be treas-
on. An aroused, united Can-
adian people can defeat Garson’ 8
Bill H-§ attack on democracy
and advance the struggle for a
Bill of Rights.

These are the conclusions all
patriots should draw this Magna
Charta Day.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MAY 30, 1952 — PAGE 9

|