This was one of the cartoons run by the

Garson amendments to the Criminal Code.

The Padlock
is off the door

The Supreme Court’s decision on the Padlock Law
opens clauses of the Criminal Code to challenge

THE Supreme Court Judge-
ment, ruling that Premier
Maurice Duplessis’ notorious
Padlock Law is invalid, has
been greeted warmly by all
democratic Canadians,

It is a historic decision, a
Milestone in the struggle for
civil rights in Canada. Those
who have supported efforts to
have the law declared ultra
Vires of the authority of the
Provincial government, includ-
ing appeals to the federal gov-
ernment to disallow it, and
those many thousands who
Joined in the defense of vic-
tims of the Padlock Law will
hail the Supreme Court’s
judgment further as long-
needed corrective action, made
More significant by the syste-
Matic dereliction of the courts

In the province of Quebec.

The’Supreme Court did more
han rule the Padlock Law in-
valid; it challenged the consti-
tutional right of any province
to do the things that it was used
to legalize in Quebec..

Mr. Justice Abbott wrote
€xplicity that the rights of citi-
Zens to explain, criticize, de-
ate and discuss . . . the poli-
tical, economic and social prin-
Ciples advocated by the politi-
Cal groups or parties of which
they may be members, are in-
herent in Canada’s constitu-
tion. Furthermore, he wrote,
Tam also of the opinion that,
88 our constitutional act now
Stands, parliament itself could

Pacific Tribune during the campaign against the

By TIM BUCK

not abrogate this right of dis-
cussion and debate.”

That affirmation of the fun-
damental right of every Cana-
dian to freedom of conscience,
expression and association, will
make the Supreme Court’s
judgment a historic point of
reference in the continuing
struggle for civil rights.

This victory after 20 years
is one more refutation of the
defeatists and the pessimists
who assert that nothing pro-
gressive can be accomplished
because “reaction is too strong.”
The judgment re-affirms the
historic truth that the ideal of
democratic progress and of
freedom to work for it is in-
vincible provided men are
willing to fight consistently
for it.

The various reasons why it
took so long to get the validity
of that infamous law tested in
the Subreme Court include the
fact that the men and women
who. bore the brunt of the
struggle in Quebec were not
able to persuade the powerful
Liberal party to support the
effort. Even worse, when the
provincial Liberals were elect-
ed to office in Quebec and
held the government for five
years, they refused to repeal
the law — or even to have its
validity tested.

Without discussing at length
various other factors which
contributed to the difficulty of

defeating the Padlock Law, it
is justifiable to suggest that
the Supreme Court’s judgment
be seized upon as an oppor-
tunity as well as celebrating
it as a victory.

The labor movement in Que-
bee did not have to- wait for
Duplessis’ defeat in elections
to get rid of the Padlock Law.
That is an invitation to change
the political climate.

The outlawing of the Pad-
lock Law can be made the
starting point of a campaign
to bring the organized labor
movement forward as an_.in-
dependent force in provincial
politics and bring about Du-
plessis’ electoral defeat.

As the Padlock Law typified
Duplessis’ political reputation,
so the Supreme Court’s judg-
ment was a tribute, unconcious
but profound, to the courage-
ous dedicated men and wo-
men in Quebec who fought
tirelessly through the past 20
years to get that evil correct-
ed.

They suffered police perse-
cution and physical brutality.
Their buildings were padlock-
ed, with the result that they
lost them. In the case of the
Jewish Culture Centre, the
Padlock Law forced the sacri-
fice sale of a beautiful new
building toward which hund-
reds of working people had
contributed all their savings.

Workers’ homes were raid-

ed, personal correspondence
and treasured books were
seized and never returned,
their children were terrorized,
in all too many cases they
were padlocked out of their
homes.

They suffered affront after
affront in the courts in Que-
bec. They suffered disappoint-
ment in their. efforts to per-
suade~men of avowed liberal
views to support action to cor-
rect the law that all demo-
cratic men and women de-
nounced as evil.

It is necessary to add that
there were among the men of
liberal views some who took
their s.and for justice. Out-
standing among them were the
lawyers such as Paul Norman-
din whose leadership of and
fight for the Civil Liberties
Union was a tremendous, per-
haps decisive contribution, and
members of the legal firm of
Marcus and Feiner who ac-
cepted cases, represented vic-
tims of the law: and acted for
the Civil Liberties Union all
through the struggle.

Among the names of the law-
yers who thus_ unselfishly
placed their legal responsibili-
ties above considerations of
material advantage, one name
must have an honored place,
namely, R. L. Calder, KC, who
initiated the legal struggle
against the Padlock Law in
1938 and proclaimed it an in-
escapable part of the fight
against fascist tendencies.

Calder’s public addresses in
various cities, sponsored by the
Canadian League for Peace and
Democracy and chaired by its
national secretary, A. A. Mac-
Leod, in the late thirties, were
the clarion call that first arous-
ed wide circles of Canadians to
the menace of the Padlock

Law.
@

The cause for working class
pride in the steadfastness of
its struggle was demonstrated
when: members of the Labor-
Progressive party in Mont-
real gathered on March 9 to
celebrate the Supreme Court’s
decision. In that meeting, along
with John Switzman whose
appeal had at last brought the
issue before the Supreme Court
there were many who had
participated in the struggle to
win this victory. Among them
was Francois-Xavier Lessard
whose name for some years
almost personified the strug-
gle against the Parlock Law.

Lessard’s home was the first
house padlocked. ‘There and
then, Lessard had challenged
the law. Ripping the padlock
off he re-entered his home.
He served two years in prison,
his family. suffered, but he
never wavered in his fight
against the Padlock Law and it
is evident now that his strug-
gle was not in vain. His success
and the success of John Switz-
man in a historic victory for
Canadian democracy, now to
be carried forward.

The Supreme Court render-
ed a historic decision but the
battle for civil rights must
go on. The Padlock Law was
limited to Quebec. There are
still in operation across Can-

yeral thousands

ada a network of discrimina-
tory rulings and restrictions all
of which are directed to ac-
complish exactly the same
fundamental evil that was con-
demned by the judges of the
Supreme. Court.

Those restrictions extend all
the way from systematic in-
timidation of individuals by
the RCMP (often to induce
them to act as spies upon mem-
bers of their own family) to
the systematic exclusion of sev-
of Canadians
from employment because of
their political opinions. For ex-
ample; a Canadian is barred
from employment on Great
Lakes ships if he votes for
an LLP candidate in elections.

The Padlock Law was speci-
fically directed against Com-
munists; this network of spy-
ing, intimidation, and discrim-
ination also is directed against
communists,

Mr. Justice Rand wrote of
the Padlock Law :

“The ban is directed against
the freedom or civil liberty of
the actor; or no civil right of
anyone is affected nor is any
civil remedy created . . . it
is to curtail or proscribe those
freedoms which the majority
so far consider to be the con-
dition of social cohesion and
its ulimate stabilizing force.”

Those words apply with
equal force to the anti-demo-
cratic discrimination still prac-
tised all over this country by
the federal government.

The. Supreme Court has said
in effect that all such practices
are contrary to the constitu-
tional rights of Canadian citi-
zens. Mr. Justice Rand pointed
out that what is done against
Communists can be done
against “any other political,
economic or social doctrine
or theory.”

The written opinion of Mr.
Justice Abbott brings forward
the question as to whether
some of the anti-democratic
actions being taken onthe res-
ponsibility of the federal de-
partment of justice are in fact
within the competence of the
minister of justice or even of
the federal government.

Certainly the opinion of Mr.
Justice Abbott raises the ques-
tion as to whether the so-called
Garson Amendments to the
Criminal Code were fully con-
stitutional.

Certainly Mr. Justice Ab-
bott’s ofinion provides legal-
constitutional support for the
position taken by the LPP in
its opposition to certain fea-
tures of the changes made in
the Criminal Code when it
was revised. Some of those
changes are in defiance of the
constitution and constitutional
practise and, therefore, ,as mat-
ters stand, ultra vires.

The outlawing of the Padlock
Law is a great victory for civil
rights in Canada and it should
be made the opening of a new
stage of even broader democra-
tic action. Democratic Cana-
dians should demand now that
all discriminatory practises and
restrictions be ended as the
next step toward the achieve-
ment of full civil rights.

MARCH 29, 1957 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE--PAGE ll