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 Since its inception the people of French Canada have waged a vigorous fight to have it repealed.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