Martin v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1950 CanLII 242 (BC CA)



British Columbia Court of Appeal, Sloan C.J.B.C., O’Halloran, Robertson, Sidney Smith and Bird JJ.A. April 26, 1950./p

174 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

John S. Burton, for appellant.
Alfred Bull, K.C., for respondent.

SLOAN C.J.B.C.:— The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia exercising the authority vested in them by the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1936; c. 149 [now R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180] considered at length the application of the appellant Martin for call to the Bar and admission as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of this Province, and refused his application [[1949] 1 D.T, R,105]. The reasons of the Benchers actuating this decision were reduced to writing, and after a review of the evidence adduced and references to relevant decisions it is stated that the application be refused because the applicant

” (a) is not a fit person to be called to the Bar or admitted \as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and,

” (b) has not satisfied them that he is a person of good re-jute within the meaning and intent of the Legal Professions Act.” [p. 114]

Consequent upon this ruling of the Benchers the Legal Professions Act was amended to permit an appeal therefrom to this Court. Section 41A as enacted by 1949, c. 35, s. 2, reads in relevant part as follows:  “Any person whom the Benchers have refused to call to the Bar or to admit as a solicitor may appeal

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 175

from such refusal to the Court of Appeal … On the appeal the Court of Appeal may, in whole or in part, either reverse or confirm the decision of the Benchers or refer the matter to the Benchers for further inquiry.”

As I read this section it seems to me to clothe the Court with an appellate jurisdiction no different than that exercised in an ordinary type of appeal from an administrative body.  There is nothing in the section which calls upon this Court to exercise any original as opposed to appellate jurisdiction.  We are not required to rehear the application de novo but we are, as I view the matter, acting in our usual and ordinary capacity as a Court of review.

That being so, then we must consider whether the discretion vested in the Benchers was properly exercised according to law.

It must be borne in mind that the Benchers are essentially an administrative and not a judicial body.  In the exercise of their administrative functions they have, within the Legal Professions Act, a wide discretion, and that discretion extends to determination of the qualifications and disqualifications of those who seek the privilege of becoming a member of the Legal Profession.

In this particular case the applicant is a Communist.  The Benchers, considering the ideological values and motives and loyalties of an adherent of that alien philosophy, reached the conclusion that such a person was unacceptable for the reasons given refusing his application to become a member of the Bar of this Province.

I have given careful consideration to those reasons of the Benchers.  In my opinion they reflect the exercise of a proper discretion according to law; I may also add that I am in agreement with the reasons of the Benchers and with their conclusion.  In the result I would dismiss the appeal.

O’HALLORAN J.A.:  The Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia rejected appellant’s application for call to the Bar and admission as a solicitor, on the ground he was not a person of “good repute” within the meaning of ss. 36 and 39 of the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180.  The appellant appeared personally before the Benchers.  He was represented by counsel and he answered the questions he was asked.  The Benchers explained their decision in extended written reasons —— see Re Martin, [1949] 1 D.L.R. 105.

The appellant having admitted he has been a Marxist Communist for some time, the Benchers came to the conclusion that

176 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

the Marxist philosophy of law and government, in its essence, is so inimical in theory and practice to our constitutional system and free society, that a person professing them is eo ipso, not a fit and proper person to practise law in this Province, and hence cannot be of “good repute” within the meaning of the Legal Professions Act.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Benchers —— the first of its kind —— was made possible by an amendment to the Legal Professions Act enacted in 1949.  This Court was thereby empowered to reverse or confirm the decision of the Benchers in whole or in part, or refer the matter back to them for further enquiry.  The notice of appeal is dated May 20, 1949, and was given to the May-June 1949 Sittings of the Court.  But as the result of postponements asked for by the parties, the appeal did not come on for hearing until March 7-8, 1950, when judgment was reserved.

In this Court counsel for the appellant centred his argument upon the submission that although the appellant is an avowed Marxist Communist, yet there was no evidence before the Benchers he had advocated overthrow of our system of government and free society by force or by non-constitutional methods, or that he had been engaged in activities subversive to the state.  The appellant himself contended before the Benchers that he could be a Marxist Communist and still advocate the introduction of a Communist system of government into this country without the use of force or by resort to subversive methods.  The argument on behalf of the appellant came to this, that an avowed Marxist Communist can be a good citizen of our country; that the contrary cannot be said unless he is caught planning or perpetrating some overt act against the state, such as (to give an extreme example) blowing up the Parliament Buildings.

Counsel for the respondent Law Society in answer confined his brief submission to what he described as the common-sense realities of the present day.  He said in effect that particularly since the end of the European War in 1945 the United States, Britain and Canada have had a diverse variety of experiences with Communists at home and abroad.  They have had revealing encounters with the machinations of Communist agents and doctrinaire sympathizers open and underground, and with the activities of Communists in the role of “intellectuals” and advanced libertarians, often specially trained for the purpose, posing as the defenders of personal liberties and promoters of peace and goodwill among nations.  Communists and their sympathizers have been astute to find their way into so-called

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 177

peace, youth, cultural, student, welfare and various other societies and organizations, and there skilfully indoctrinate the young, the impressionable, and the irresponsible, with theories designed to weaken and destroy the foundations of our free society.

Under the amoebic guise of promoting idealistic movements they have succeeded in obtaining support from many people happy without much thought or enquiry to give their support to anything on its face sounding as if it would benefit mankind in general.  With Soviet Russia engaged in a “cold war” with the Western nations and determined to obtain mastery of the world, these friends of Soviet Russia would weaken the Western nations to the point that Soviet Russia, with their fifth and sixth columnist assistance, could be able to capture Canada and the United States by telephone.  They would repeat here the methods of national disintegration their fellow-Communists so successfully carried out in France during the early stages of the last War after Germany and Soviet Russia had come to a mutual understanding.

Widely publicized trials in the United States, Britain and Canada, have disclosed Communist activities to a degree inconceivable and incredible to the average citizen, if the facts had not been conclusively established by the most careful and impartial judicial investigations.  Wherever there is an opportunity to create discontent and disaffection there may be found Communist agents and neo-communists actively engaged in doing whatever they hope will promote the world revolution.  A recent trial was that of Dr. Klaus Emil Julius Fuchs in England, a scientist morally blinded by Communist inoculation.  The Attorney-General in opening the case said Dr. Fuchs was a Communist and that at once was the explanation of his conduct.  Lord Chief Justice Goddard in sentencing Dr. Fuchs described Communism as a “pernicious creed”.

It is true that Dr. Fuchs pleaded guilty in a Criminal Court to an overt act of communicating to a person unknown, information directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.  But it was his Communist beliefs that led him to what he did.  And what stirred Britain was the circumstance that he had all along been known as a “Communist”, and at the same time supposedly loyal to Britain.  His defence, such as it was, reminds one of the submission of the appellant here that he could be a Communist and loyal to Canada at the same time.  Dr. Fuchs’ defence was described as “controlled schizophrenia” by which he insisted one half of his mind was Communist and the other half
12—[1950] 3D.L.R.
178 Dominion Law Retorts. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

loyal to Britain.  Lord Chief Justice Goddard is reported to have said he did not understand “such metaphysical talk”, and did not know that he ought to understand it.

But recognition of that defence to the full extent it may warrant, points up most vividly the danger of allowing a Communist to occupy any position of trust or influence.  It at once proves him untrustworthy and concedes he is subject to Russian influence.  It is of course not uncommon for “intellectuals” who seek to discard the age-old concepts of right and wrong, to build up some elaborate substitution in an effort to escape ill-judged or wrongful use of their free will.  But even if one gives full vent to the “split personality” and analogous theories, it but serves to emphasize the continuing menace which “in-tellectuals” such as Dr. Fuchs, and to a lesser degree the appellant (the latter is a thinking man thirty-two years of age) are to any democratic country in which they live.  The pull of the Kremlin is never absent.

Marxism exercises a strange power over its adherents.  The moral needs of man which Marxism forbids to be expressed in terms of human ideals, are injected instead into a mechanistic conception of politics to which they impart the force of a blind passion somewhat like that which inflamed the minds of Nazi youth during the Hitler regime.  Communism is a complete philosophy of life.  It wishes to be not only a state but a church judging the consciences of men.  No person in our day who is not blind to realities can fail to recognize the strange but menacing potentialities present and future that the Marxist philosophy engenders in even the mildest appearing of its adherents.  This was illustrated in our own Canadian “spy trials”, which disclosed that some Canadians became so indoctrinated with Communist ideology, that they convinced themselves they should secretly befriend Russia even to the extent of doing irretrievable harm to their own country.

It is true the Fuchs trial had not occurred at the time the Benchers gave their decision.  But they had ample before them concerning the nature of Communist activities in the United States, Britain and Canada to compel them to the conclusion they reached.  Governments in the United States, Britain and Canada have been forced by convincing experiences to be more than distrustful of Communists.  Labour Unions, Universities, and other public bodies have publicly sought and are still seeking to rid themselves of men and women professing Communist beliefs.  It has come to be universally accepted in the Western nations that it is dangerous to our way of life to allow a known

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 179

Communist or Communist sympathizer to remain in a position of trust or influence.  The Benchers as men of the world and trustees of an ancient and honourable profession, in my opinion, would have been recreant to their trust, if in the light of convincing public knowledge and accepted justified belief in the Western world at the present time, they had failed to act on the evidence before them, in any way other than they did.

Counsel for the appellant permitted himself some forensic latitude in declaiming upon freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of the individual, and the safeguard of minorities.  According to him we would be a “servile people” if the appellant, an avowed Communist were denied the opportunity to engage in the practice of law.  How these “freedoms” can be invoked on behalf of an avowed Communist to:  place him in a position where he could more effectively destroy them, is a paradox.  But this type of paradox is consistent with the Communist plan of infiltration which disclosures in the United States in particular have made a matter of common knowledge in our day.

For a Communist to talk about personal freedom of action, expression and thought is like the devil talking about the delights of Heaven.  There is no such thing as personal freedom in Soviet Russia, where organized practices of inhumanity, lawlessness, and depersonalization continue to shock the conscience of the civilized world.  Moreover, the existence of personal rights in the sense we know them is denied by the Communist philosophy, as their existence was denied by the Nazi doctrinaires who took their political philosophy from Hegel, who was also, in so many respects, the inspiration of Karl Marx.  Hegel it was who taught the doctrine of progress by antagonism which Karl Marx took for his own as a metaphysical support to the deterministic outlook of material revolution, and made it the mainspring of his political philosophy.

Karl Marx in his German Ideology (4 Marx, Sochineniya 65 (Moscow 1933)) had written:  “Only in the collective can the individual find the means of giving him the opportunity to develop his inclinations in all directions; in consequence, personal freedom is possible only in the collective.”

Soviet writers have developed this thesis in many volumes.  Soviet jurists deny any merit whatever in the Western idea that freedom to talk against the Government in Hyde Park or elsewhere is a test whether personal freedom exists in a society.  A. Y. Vyshinsky in his text-book on Soviet Public Law (Sovetskoe Gosudarstvennoe Pravo 485 (Moscow 1938) lays it down

180 Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

authoritatively:  “In bourgeois study of public law the department concerning so-called personal rights is the most false and hypocritical department of law, the farthest from the tasks of investigation of an authentic scientific sort.”  And see Professor Hazard’s article, on the Soviet Union and a World Bill of Rights appearing in the Columbia Law Review of November, 1947.  Marxist economists regard Western guarantees of personal freedom as hollow phrases, put forward they say as propaganda on behalf of a private-enterprise system in a dying effort to prolong its existence.

Not only do Communists reject our understanding of personal freedom, but as a logical corollary they reject our conception of ethics and morality.  To them anything is right that advances the world revolution, and everything else is wrong and must be ruthlessly destroyed.  According to the Marxist scheme of things the whole structure of society is determined by the economic life of the Communist State.  In the Communist ideology, it is inconceivable for any right to be more important than the right to work to establish and maintain a Communist State.  But James T. Shotwell points out (The Idea of Human Rights 1946) in the American Declaration of Rights, Jefferson put the accent at once not upon the economic basis of well-being, but upon the moral aspect of life.

In his address to the third Congress of the Russian Communist League on October 2, 1920, Lenin said (see R. N. Carew Hunt on “The Ethics of Marxism” February 1949, “Nineteenth Century and after”):

“In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality?  In the sense that it is preached by the bourgeosie, who derived ethics from God’s commandments; or instead of deriving ethics from the commandments of God, they derived them from idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.”

We repudiate all morality derived from non-human and non-class concepts.  We say that it is a deception, a fraud in the interests of the landlords and the capitalists.  We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

“The class struggle is still continuing . . . we subordinate our communist morality to this task.

We say morality is what serves to destroy the old exploiting society and to unite all the toilers around the proletariat which is creating a new Communist society.” (My italics).

(And cf. editorial in “Saturday Evening Post” of November

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J .A.) 181

5, 1949, “Our quarrel with the Communists is moral rather than Political”).

To Communists, neo-Communists, Communist sympathizers and what have come to be described as “fellow travellers”, Soviet Russia is the apostle of peace, the inevitable instrument of a new world and model order of society, while the Western nations are warmongers, reactionaries, and capitalistic obstructionists in the path of the world revolution to create a “classless Society”.  The Communism of Marx and the Communism of Stalin are by no means identical.  But the original vision of Marx is the dynamo which supplies millions of adherents with faith in the Communist creed, and hence with the crusading instinct to serve fanatically Soviet Russia’s ambition to rule the world.

Counsel for the appellant sought comfort in certain expressions of opinion found in decisions of the United States Supreme Court particularly in Schneiderman v. U.S. (1943), 320 U.S. 118 (a 5-3 decision).  I have read also Stromberg v. California (1931), 283 U.S. 359; Herndon v. Lowry (1937), 301 U.S. 242 (a 5-4 decision); De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), 299 U.S. 353; U.S. v. Lovett (1946), 328 U.S. 303 (a 5-2 decision); and Bridges v. Wixon (1945), 326 U.S. 135 (a 5-3 decision).  In so far as any of these decisions were founded on what is described as the “clear and present danger” doctrine, it is in point to note the Court does not appear to have acted on that doctrine in Korematsu v. U.S. (1943), 320 U.S. 81 and Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), 323 U.S. 214 (a 5-3 decision).

But the facts before this Court and the known conditions existing today do not permit us to take the neutral and detached view of Communism which the majority of the United States Supreme Court, as it was constituted between 1937-1947, persuaded themselves to adopt in the Schneiderman, Bridges and other decisions.  We are compelled today to take a more informed view of Communist ideology and practice than was generally prevalent in Canada and the United States prior to 1946.  Up to that time, it was very difficult for people educated in Canada or the United States to realize the true extent of the influence of Marxist philosophy upon what was happening not alone in Europe, but right here at home on the North American continent.

If, however, we are to speak of United States decisions, I must refer to Re Summers (1945), 325 U.S. 561.  Summers, a conscientious objector to war, was refused admission to the bar of Illinois because the examiners concluded his religious

182 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

scruples “seem inconsistent with the obligations of an attorney-at-law”.  Summers was willing to take the required oath to support the state constitution, but the examiners ruled (as the Benchers did here) that he could not do so in good faith.  The United States Supreme Court upheld the ruling in a 5-4 decision.  That decision is particularly significant since the constitutional issue raised was the “free exercise of religion”.  In the case at bar, there is no such powerful supporting argument for the appellant.  For that reason I do not think that Girouard v. U.S. (1946), 328 U.S. 61 (a 5-3 decision) can be said to weaken the result in the Summers decision.

It has been pointed out that in countries which Communists control personal freedom does not exist.  I have already shown that the Communist philosophy denies the very existence of personal freedom, and acknowledges only a freedom in a collective form, viz., a freedom in the Communist State to regiment and control every aspect of the individual’s life and thought until, as Engels would have us believe, the state will have “withered away”, and the happy Communists, a great band of brothers without police and without Courts, will have reached that mythical millenium upon earth, which they have conjured up in substitution for the Christian Heaven that Karl Marx sought to abolish with a stroke of his pen.

There may still be those, however, who would invoke for an avowed Marxist Communist the cliche “I disagree entirely with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it”; or what Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in U.S. v. Schwimmer (1929), 279 U.S. 644 (a 6-3 decision) described as “the principle of free thought —— not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate”.  [pp. 654-5] In his dissent (in which Mr. Justice Brandeis joined) in Abrams v. U.S. (1919), 250 U.S. 616, Mr. Justice Holmes adopted as a formula, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”; [p. 630] this latter statement was quoted approvingly by the 5-3 majority in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61.  Not a word about the means used to get itself accepted.

I quote these sayings from a judicial pragmatist whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter once described as “so remote from the common currents of life that he did not read the newspapers”.  These statements do not recognize moral limitations; they do not recognize a distinction between propaganda as such, and reasoned statements founded upon historical experience.  They push the right of free speech to a limit that makes it only

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (O’llalloran J.A.) 183

metaphysically distinguishable from an absolute right which ignores any attendant duties.  They would make it legally impossible to decide judicially when an abuse of free speech has occurred.  They would reduce loyalty to one’s country to an impersonal metaphysical abstraction, totally beyond the ken of ordinary mortals.

These statements make no exception for emotional and inflammatory declamations which incite disaffection to the state, and create the incentive for preparations leading to conspiracies to undermine and destroy our free institutions.  Should we not hate what is wrong?  Should Canada permit people to preach disaffection which may lead to consort with the enemy and the weakening and ultimate destruction of our own country?  Such language and thinking can easily give reason to Communists to believe there is no limit to the naiveté of the people of Canada and the United States.

But the principles of constitutional democracy upon which free society is established, cannot be based upon pragmatic values, determinable by circumstance and consequentially variable.  They must be based on certain absolute values, justice, truth and reason.  That is why inalienable rights were written into the United States Constitution.  That is why we have Magna Carta.  Hence freedom of expression must have some limitations —— it cannot be used to destroy our free society, to destroy democracy itself.  Freedom of expression cannot be given to Communists to permit them to use it to destroy our constitutional liberties, by first poisoning the minds of the young, the impressionable, and the irresponsible.  Freedom of expression is not a freedom to destroy freedom.  Among many noted writers that may be referred to I mention only the French philosopher Julien Benda (See “Benda on Democracy” by E. O. Siepman —— in February 1948, “Nineteenth Century and after”), who has had ample opportunities to study not only the philosophy of Communism, but also its actual application in practice.

Likewise it must be recognized “freedom of thought” may become dangerous if it is translated into speech or writing aimed to destroy our free society.  Lord Justice Bowen once said “the state of a man’s mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion”.  When the Benchers enquired into the appellant’s state of mind regarding his attitude toward Communism, they were enquiring into a fact.  What is “fact” lies in the conception that a thing is existing or true.  It is not limited to what is tangible or visible, or to what is only perceptible directly by the senses (J. B. Thayer, Evidence at the Common

Dominion Law Reports. [[1950] 3 D.L.R.

Law, 189.8, p. 191); things invisible, mere thoughts, intentions, fancies of the minds, when conceived as existing or true are conceived as facts.  All enquiries into the truth, the reality, the actuality of things, are inquiries into the facts about them.

Mr. Justice Holmes recognized in the abstract at least, that unbridled speech and expressed thought may be dangerous to free society, for he invoked what is called the “clear and present danger”, formula for that purpose in Schenck v. U.S. (1919), 249 U.S. 47, and in Debs v. U.S. (1919), 249 U.S. 211; how difficult he found it to reduce the abstractions of this verbal formula to reality is exemplified by his forceful dissent in Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, when he refused to find clear and present danger in the printing and circulation during wartime of seditious leaflets by five Russian born anarchists.  One of the leaflets was entitled “Revolutionaries unite for action”, and the other “The Hypocrisy of the United States and her allies”.  Both were couched in violent and inflammatory language.

If a danger is “clear” the limitation of “present” seems superfluous.  Many examples could be given but it is sufficient to say it seems like an attempt to place a limit upon foreseeability that is as repugnant to law as it is in the affairs of daily life.  If there is “clear danger” that a nation may be attacked, it does not postpone preparing its defences, until that danger is crystallized into the “present” when the enemy lands on its shores.  It will then be too late.  In the Abrams case Mr. Justice Holmes professed to believe that the Russian anarchists had as much right to print and circulate in the United States seditious pamphlets threatening the free institutions of the United States, as the Government itself had to publish the Constitution of the United States!

The “Olympian” was something more than a constitutional Judge.  With John Dewey, Veblen, Beard, and Robinson (see Toronto Saturday Night Editorial March 21, 1950) he was the proponent of a distinctive American philosophy, which he introduced assiduously and vigorously into his famous dissents.  He adopted an earlier anti-authoritarian philosophy to support fictions and formulae difficult to reconcile with the realities of modern life.  Many of these dissents particularly those applying that philosophy seem to have been adopted by a majority of the members of the United States Supreme Court as constituted between 1937-1947 and may perhaps explain the Court’s detached (and one might say quixotic if attempted to be applied to present day conditions in this Province) attitude towards Communism in some of the decisions to which I have referred.

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 185

One may have a deep veneration for the Supreme Court of the United States as an institution (which I have), and yet be prepared to examine carefully theories of philosophy of government and moral conduct adopted by slim majorities of the Court during disturbed periods in its existence.

It may be a compliment to his mental vigour and the force of his personality if the Holmesian philosophy in a peculiarly distilled form maintains its hold upon many in the teaching field of law (in Canada as well), when that of his co-thinkers John Dewey, Veblen, Beard, and Robinson under more searching analysis in their respective fields, is gradually succumbing to its innate weaknesses.  The Holmesian idealistic concept of freedom of thought and expression as developed and ostensibly applied by his announced followers, leads in our day not to the strengthening of the foundations of freedom, but tends on the contrary to encourage the suppressors of freedom.  On analysis it emerges as a reconstructed anti-authoritarian formula of liberty in vogue even before the nineteenth century synthesis (now itself broken down) sought to elevate science almost into the position of a religion.

When the great constitutionalist and philosopher was at the zenith of his powers (Mr. Justice Holmes retired in 1932 at the age of ninety-one after fifty years on the Bench, the last thirty of which were on the Supreme Court of the United States) the Nazi and Communist application in practical form of Hegelian and Marxist philosophic concepts had not yet become exposed in their naked consequences, and many thinkers, before that time, would have dismissed the reality of such consequences as hopelessly inconsistent with the “inevitability of orderly progress” and the “scientific advancement” of the human race.  The plain menace of the tyrant state and the conditions which beget it were not so obvious twenty-five years ago as they are today.

The Holmesian reduction of the test of truth to the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of “the market” (Abrams v. U.S., supra) cannot fail to impress itself as the thinking of the huckster and not of the philosopher.  It may be more than a coincidence that Karl Marx declared that capitalism dehumanized man by subordinating him to the impersonal mechanism of “the market”.  The circumstance that Holmes and Karl Marx should reach this basic agreement upon “the market” as the final test, gives reason to ponder the warnings of Pandit Nehru, Einstein and Mauriac, that the thinking of Soviet Russia and the United States have reached an identical low point in materialism.  If that be true, there is ultimate danger

186 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

in the Holmesian thinking as there is present danger in the Communist thinking.

By recognizing itself to be but one teaching among many (including Marxism) freedom has already been lost in more than one country.  It can preserve itself only by asserting that it is the only true teaching among many that are false.  If the Courts and the Universities fail to recognize this simple fact one need not be a prophet to predict that the life of our free society will be short-lived indeed.  The freedom I mean is not unrestrained or abstract licence contained in the anti-authoritarian formula of liberty emotionalized by Rousseau and sought to be rationalized on this continent since the turn of the century by John Dewey, Mr. Justice Holmes, and others of their school of thought.

When called before the Benchers to explain his beliefs in the tenets of Communism, the appellant declared himself to be a Marxist Communist.  The evidence shows his belief is not a temporary youthful enthusiasm, but one reached after many years of thought, study and practice, by a man of mature years.  He is not a constitutional or Christian Socialist.  To my mind he is a logical product of the philosophy of Holmes, Dewey and Beard when that philosophy receives the full impact of the thinking of Hegel and Karl Marx.  If the concept of free expression is to be pushed to the point it becomes unbridled licence, it is but a short step to the time when forces within the nation may be attracted to invoke some form of authoritarian state as the only remaining way to curb the resulting excesses.

The views expressed here are in no wise inconsistent with a firm belief in Inherent Rights of the individual which this writer has developed extra-judicially elsewhere (See 1947-8 Fall Winter and Spring Issues of “Obiter Dicta” Osgoode Hall).  Freedom is not licence.  It is something more than an abstraction.  It gives rise to inseparable duties.  There can be no such thing as a freedom to advocate a political philosophy, which of its very nature cannot fail to be directed to the destruction of our free society, and to the setting up in its stead of a dictatorship which denies the very foundations of freedom.  There is an old saying “who plays with fire will be burnt”.  Freedom like fire is a real thing with positive consequences and it is dangerous to leave its definition and appraisal to the negative fictions and formulae of idealistic libertarians.

It was also urged on behalf of the appellant that the Benchers had penalized him for his “political opinions”.  As used in the study of “political science” in the Universities, the term “po-

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 187

litical” may be wide enough to include all the politico-economic philosophies of government that have engaged mankind’s attention among others, Machiavelli and Adam Smith as well as Burke; Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, Marxist-Lenin, as well as Locke and Jefferson (and see, for example, Spender on “The Government of Mankind”).  But in Canada the accepted and non-technical use of the term “political opinions” is not related to the philosophies underlying different systems of Government, but is directed to adherence to or acceptance of the policies of a political party that upholds the constitution and is not subversive in its programme and tendencies.

For example, if a well-known lawyer member of the Liberal party or of the Progressive-Conservative party should publicly declare his belief in Marxist Communism, the Benchers of the Law Society might well find it their duty (after a proper hearing, of course) to disbar him from practice.  Such action by the Benchers would not be directed toward his “political opinions” but toward beliefs of his inimical to his country and repugnant to the ancient and honourable profession of law, even if his pernicious beliefs might be included in the expression “Political Science” as it is understood in the Universities.  It is clear from the reasons for their decision the Benchers were not concerned with the appellant’s “political opinions” as such, but on the contrary were deeply concerned with opinions and beliefs he stated he held, which in our day, under the conditions we know, cannot be regarded otherwise than inimical to the state and subversive of our free society.

It is now coming to be well known by those who have given something more than passing thought to these subjects that the adherents of Communism and Nazism have quite a different conception than that of the Anglo-American countries in regard to “freedom”, “democracy” and many other common terms we use so frequently as if they had only one meaning.  To a Communist the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is the ultima Thule of democracy.  This difference in viewpoint is due in large part to the political philosophy of Hegel (who was influenced by Hobbes) in respect to rights of the individual.  The subject is treated fully by Spender in “Government of Mankind” and by other writers who have given it more than casual study.

Those who accept common-law theory and practice confess to a belief in inherent rights of the individual diametrically opposed to the Hegelian and Marxist concepts of the state.  The political philosophies underlying Communism have no meeting point whatever with the true political philosophies of the Anglo-

188 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

American democracies.  One dividing point appears clearly on the subject of inherent individual rights as adopted by Locke (who wrote the political philosophy of the Constitutional Revolution of 1688) and later with some variations, by Jefferson, when contrasted with the denial of these inherent rights by Hegel, Marx, Lenin and others upon whose political philosophy any type of totalitarian state is based.  Hegel is the source of modern Fascist and Communist perversions.

It was said also on behalf of the appellant that it was rather late in the day to deny him the right to practice law after he had been allowed to complete his three-year law course at the University and pass his examinations successfully.  Counsel for the Law Society replied that the objection had not come to the Benchers’ knowledge in time to act before they did, but even if it had, and whatever powers the Benchers may have in disciplining students-at-law and articled clerks under the Legal Professions Act, there is an inescapable statutory duty upon the Benchers to act at the time when call to the bar and admission as a solicitor is sought.  Many examples might be given to illustrate the wisdom of the course prescribed in the Legal Professions Act in this respect.  The study of law even if one does not practice law is extremely useful in a wide variety of occupations.

Inherent in the last objection was more than a faint suggestion that a law student who completes his course and passes University law examinations, should be admitted to practise law as of right.  This is denied by the requirements of ss. 36 and 39 that the applicant must be of “good repute”.  Moreover apart from those sections, the law is a profession; it is not a business or trade.  Nor can the Law Society be compared to a Trade Union; nor can lawyers as members of the Law Society be likened to members of a Trade Union.  A man can become reasonably proficient in hundreds of unskilled or semi-skilled manual or clerical occupations with comparatively little training.  That was demonstrated during the last war.  A young man may begin as an unskilled labourer and in a year or two learn a great deal, in the meantime in this Province earning a dollar and more per hour.

But in law the picture is quite different.  In addition to a minimum of two years College, he must take three years at law school and an additional one year’s experience in a legal office; a minimum of six years of study and training before he is eligible to practice.  Then he faces the big problem of establishing himself in practice. Ordinarily he would be lucky if he is

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (O’Halloran J.A.) 189

able to marry within ten years of the time he started studying law.  It is doubtful (unless he is particularly successful) he will get back (in the sense of maintaining it as capital) the money spent on his education.  Quite different indeed if he were earning one dollar or more an hour during that lengthy period.

Moreover, the law student’s training is not manual training, but is training of the mind, not only in law, but if he wishes to be something more than a mere legal mechanic, he must study logic, history, in particular constitutional history, political science and economics, a certain amount of philosophy and acquire a reasonable familiarity with English literature, and know something at least of the literature of other countries.  The job of the lawyer is basically to advise people upon all manner of things arising out of the complexities of life and the frailties of human nature.  As such he cannot fail in time to acquire an influence upon others, impossible to reduce to purely material terms.  It is not too much to say that the training and experience a lawyer undergoes fits him for leadership to a greater or less degree.  Obviously such men should not be partial to political philosophies and movements that conflict with the interests of their own country.

By reason of these things, all countries throughout the ages have given the lawyer a correspondingly high place in society —— particularly so in the case of the lawyer who pleads in the higher Courts.  The object of law training is to attract young men of high character, and to train them in a manner that they will be trustworthy, honourable and competent in the performance of their legal duties, and will use such influence as they may have to maintain and improve but not to destroy our Canadian constitutional democracy.  They are to be the defenders and not the destroyers of liberty.  They are expected to be sufficiently well-informed and experienced to distinguish between liberty and licence.

It is true these objectives are not always attained.  It sometimes happens that men of unmoral and amoral outlook or unstable character, or of little integrity, or whose object is to use the law solely to make money, find their way into the profession of law.  But they are the type of men who bring the profession into disrepute.  To prevent these undesirables entering into the practice of law and to keep up the standard of legal practitioners the Benchers are elected by the lawyers under statutory authority to act for the protection of the public.  If every person had the right to practice law upon passing the University law examinations, there would be no protection for

190 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

the public.  It is the duty of the Benchers to protect the public by refusing admission to the practice of law, not only the type of person who will prey upon the public for his own selfish ends, but also the type of person who professes a political philosophy alien to our free society, and who in a time of “cold war” is little else than a fifth columnist (designedly or not) to assist an unfriendly country to destroy the rights and privileges a free people have established in Canada.

I respectfully agree with Lord Chief Justice Goddard of England in the Fuchs case that Communism is a “pernicious creed”.  Furthermore by reason of what has been said I am of opinion (see the decisions of the United States Supreme Court previously discussed) that Communism is a “clear danger” to our Canadian free society; what has happened during the past five years alone shows that “clear danger” is not remote, and also that it is foreseeably greater in the future.

I dismiss the appeal on the broad ground (although narrower grounds may be found) that a Marxist Communist cannot be a loyal Canadian citizen; at best his loyalty must be divided between Canada and the Communist leadership outside Canada which is engaged ideologically through him (whether he knows it or not) and others of like indoctrination in promoting disruptively in Canada and other countries what Lenin called “the class struggle of the proletariat” for the world revolution.

I would dismiss the appeal.

ROBERTSON J.A.: —— In my opinion the Benchers of the Law Society of British Columbia reached the right conclusion [[1949] 1 D.L.R. 105], and I have little to add to what has been said by them.  Martin had been a Communist since 1943 and since that date a member of the Labour Progressive Party which is a Communist organization formed in 1942 after the Communist Party of Canada had been declared illegal and outlawed, amongst others, two well-known Communists, Buck and McEwan, the same crowd that immediately prior to 1942 ran the Communist Party of Canada.  Buck and McEwen were convicted in 1931 of being members of an unlawful association, of acting as officers of an unlawful association, and being parties to a seditious conspiracy:  see R. v. Buck, [1932] 3 D.L.R. 97, 57 Can. C.C. 290.  Martin admitted that the Labour Progressive Party was a successor of the “old Communist Party”, but he said he would not say there was “an unbroken thread of development”.  The old Communist Party was clearly a party of violence.  See reasons for judgment of Mulock C.J.O. in R. v. Buck.  He was a candidate for the Labour Progressive Party at the

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Robertson J.A.) 191

provincial election held “two or three years ago”.  He was asked “so the L.P.P. in Canada occupies the same position as the Communist Party does in the U.S.?” to which he replied “1 would say generally, yes”.

It is fair then to see what the position of the Communist Party in the United States has been in recent years.  The Committee on Un-American Activities, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., “prepared and released” in 1948 some pamphlets, two of which are called (1) “Communism and Government”, and (2) “Communism and Education”.  These are to be found in the Provincial Library at Victoria, B.C.

At No. 43 of the first-mentioned pamphlet it is stated:

“The Communists have always made it basic in their thoughts that VIOLENCE is inevitable in their struggle for the world.  And in all their captures, from Russia in 1917 down to China in 1948, they have USED violence as their weapon.”

And at No. 70 the question put by the Committee with its answer, is as follows:

“Well, what’s the REAL Communist program for capturing our government?

“It starts with spying and infiltration of the sort now going on.  Then confusion and chaos caused by sudden paralysis of our communications, transportation, money system and law enforcement.

“Finally, direct seizure of power.

“Communists have spent the last fifteen years hiding their key men in our Army, Navy, diplomatic corps, treasury, and other control points of Government.”

In the second pamphlet above mentioned, No. 1 Communism is defined as “A conspiracy to conquer and rule the world by any means, legal or illegal, in peace or in war”.

It is stated in “American Communism” by Oneal and Werner, published in 1947 (a book in the Provincial Library at Victoria, B.C.), at p. 315:  “The Communist Party in each nation is a political party.  It is an agency of the Russian dictatorship pledged to carry out the aims and policies of Moscow in the expectation that eventually a Communist dictatorship will be established in each nation and the `world revolution’ become a reality.  The Communist in France, in China, in the United States and in all other countries does not regard the nation in which he lives as his.  Russia is his `fatherland’ and Communist literature in all countries refers to Russia as the ‘fatherland’, or the `worker’s fatherland,’ or the `socialist fatherland’.  It is not a matter of Russia first and his own nation

192 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

second; it is Russia only.  There is no second choice unless the servitude he plans is extended to the nation where he lives and even then Russia is the mother country with the responsibility of guiding or punishing its new offspring.  Need it surprise one, therefore, that the children dutifully respond to the commands of the parent no matter how ridiculous such a response may be?”

At p. 340:  “J. Edgar Hoover stirred the delegates to the national convention in San Francisco in October by stating that Communism had made its deepest inroad into our national life in the previous five years.  It is probable that the Canadian investigation of Soviet spies had revealed the network extending into private organizations and institutions as well as the government itself.  Hoover expressed confidence in the Legion’s ability to expose Communism which is `built and supported by dishonor, deceit and tyranny and a deliberate policy of falsehood’.

These quotations are in accord with the findings of the Report of the Royal Commission (Canada) issued on June 27, 1946, in which the following paragraph, referred to by the Benchers in their report, appears:  “The indoctrination courses in the study groups are apparently calculated not only to inculcate a high degree of `loyalty to the Party’ and `obedience to the Party’, but to instil in the mind of the adherent the view that loyalty and obedience to the leadership of this organization takes precedence over his loyalty to Canada, entitles him to disregard his oaths of allegiance and secrecy, and this destroys his integrity as a citizen”. [l[1949] 1 D.L.R. at p. 111]

Everyone knows that many Trade Unions are expelling Communists from their organizations.  I think that neither the Government of Canada, nor that of the United States, nor that of England knowingly would employ a Communist.

Experience gained from the prosecution and conviction of such men as Fuchs and May in England and Boyer in Canada, all of whom had taken the oath of allegiance to His Majesty, leads to the belief that Communists’ protestations of loyalty are not to be accepted, and that they consider their first obligation to the Communist Party.  Under these circumstances it is not to be expected that an avowed Communist is to be believed who denies that he personally adheres to all the principles of that Party, one of which is stated in the Communist manifesto, viz., that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions; coupled with a warning to the ruling classes to tremble at a Communist revolution.

The appeal must be dismissed.

SIDNEY SMITH J.A. :—It seems to me there are two funda-

Martin v. Law Society op B.C. (Sidney Smith J.A.) 193

mental misconceptions in appellant’s submission that should be briefly mentioned at once.

The first is that the hearing before this Court was on the merits, a “trial de novo”.  I think that is clearly a mistaken view of the amendment to the Legal Professions Act giving us jurisdiction.  The amendment simply states that there shall be an appeal to this Court, and nothing more.  Had it been the intention of the Legislature that we should embark on new proceedings, nothing would have been easier than to say so.  The appeal is from a decision of the Benchers, and in my opinion the Benchers are an administrative body.  That being so, the usual and well-known principles governing appeals from such bodies apply here; and so we can only interfere with their finding if their procedure was wrong, or if they acted in bad faith or against all reason or the public interest, or if they formed their opinion upon grounds never brought to appellant’s notice.

The second misconception is the assumption by appellant, and apparently also by some of the Benchers, that they could only refuse to admit him on the ground of ill “repute”.  That, too, I think is a mistaken view.  Ill repute completely disqualifies; but good repute is only the beginning of the matter.  The truth is that there is nothing in the whole of the Legal Professions Act that entitles any person to be admitted to the Society (and in this I include call to the Bar).  There are various sections stating that the Benchers may admit an applicant who complies with such and such conditions; but no section says that they must admit anyone.  The whole is left to their discretion.  And we must take the Act and the amendment as we find them.  We cannot add to or detract from them.  I may perhaps venture to repeat what I said the other day in a case before this Court, Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, [1950] 3 D.L.R. 236 at p. 241, viz.:  “But it is a trite observation that cannot be too often repeated, that Judges do not make the law; they merely interpret it and apply it to the facts on hand.”

Referring again to the Legal Professions Act, it is quite true that various qualifications cut down the Benchers’ discretion by requiring them to exclude persons who do not comply with them.  But compliance imposes no obligations on the Benchers.  As indicated by Hunter C.J.B.C. in Re Hagel and Law Society of B.C. (1922), 31 B.C.R. 75, admission to the Society is a privilege that no one can claim as of right.  That in itself is an indication that the Benchers are an administrative and not a judicial body.  The fact that they are left free to decide what considerations shall govern them, points in the same direction.

13—[1950] 3 D.L.R.

194 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

I apply the language of my brother Robertson in describing the Public Utility Commission’s functions in Veterans’ Sightseeing & Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com’n, [1946] 2 D.L.R. 188 at p. 203, 59 C.R.T.C. 63 at p. 80, 62 B.C.R. 131 at p. 153:  “The Board as an administrative body exercises its discretion as a matter of policy and expediency.  It does not decide between the legal rights of the parties; neither of the parties here had any except the right to apply under the respective Acts.”

Similarly in Re Brown & Brock & Rentals Administrator, [1945], 3 D.L.R. 324, O.R. 554 (affirmed ibid.) Roach J.A. said of a Rental Board (p. 334 D.L.R., p. 564 O.R.):  “The power of the Board is not in any way circumscribed.  No limitations are imposed on the exercise of that power, and no standards by which it is to be guided are set up.  It has a free hand.  It is a law unto itself.  It may determine its own policy and expediency is its only guide.  That is an administrative power, not a judicial power.”

In Gen’l Medical Council v. Spackman, [1943] A.C. 627, the House of Lords seem to have been satisfied that the governing body of the medical profession is an administrative body.  Viscount Simon L.C. at p. 634, described the Council as “not a judicial body in the ordinary sense”.  And at p. 639 Lord Wright said of it:  “It has not merely to ascertain the facts, but also to decide what standard to apply and whether to hold that the particular conduct is infamous, not in the abstract but ‘in any professional respect’.”

At p. 640 he said:  “The council is not a court of law”; and at pp. 641-2 he applied to the Council decisions that were in terms decisions on administrative powers.

The reasons for saying that the Benchers are an administrative and not a judicial tribunal are even stronger.  The Act relating to expulsion of physicians only allows this for “infamous conduct” in a professional sense, which applies a standard of a sort, though with a subjective element.  Here the Benchers are given no standard whatever to apply; so they can only base their decisions on what they consider prudent and expedient.

There was much evidence given below, some of it rather difficult to follow; but I think it quite sufficient to enable an administrative tribunal (and perhaps a judicial tribunal too) to conclude that the appellant belonged to a Communist organization, and that it is one of the tenets of the Communist movement that they be prepared to overthrow existing Governments by force if necessary.

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Sidney Smith J.A.) 195

The appellant cited against this the case of Schneiderman v. U.S. (1942), 320 U.S. 118, where in proceedings to revoke the Naturalization Certificate of a Communist the Court held that it was not proved that the Communists advocated the overthrow of Governments by force.  That, however, was a judicial proceeding in a judicial tribunal to deprive a person of a vested right; and in any case the decision turned entirely on the question of onus.  It has no bearing on the right of an administrative tribunal to conclude that it is imprudent and inexpedient to grant a privilege to a Communist.

The appellant made much of the repeal of s. 98 of the Cr. Code in 1936 [by c. 29, s. 1], the implication being that this made it legal to advocate the overthrow of the Government by force.  In my view, the repeal did nothing of the sort; it merely removed the specific penalties provided by the section, and what was unlawful at common law remained unlawful.  In my view an organization that aims at the overthrow of the Government by force is unlawful at common law.  Even if it were not, still, membership in that is something that the Benchers are entitled to treat as making an applicant an undesirable member of their Society.

In connection with this point it was argued for the appellant that no man can be penalized for “mere opinions” without any overt act, and that the Benchers could not exclude a man because of his “politics”.  I quite agree with the latter point, so long as the man belongs to a company whose objects are wholly lawful.  But advocating the overthrow of the Government by force is not a matter of politics at all; it is in the nature of conspiracy.  If a man joins a body that is in effect conspiring against the Government he goes beyond mere opinion; his very joining is an overt act.

Assuming that the evidence here would be inadequate to establish conspiracy in a Court of law, I am of opinion that the Benchers do not require such evidence; they are entitled to exercise their evidence upon probabilities; and there is quite enough evidence on which an administrative body could reasonably hold that the Communist movement probably advocates the overthrow of government by force.  The Benchers need go no further to justify their acts.

I agree with the views of the Benchers.  But that is not necessary for my decision.  It is obviously the intention of the Legislature that the Legal Profession itself through its Benchers shall decide who shall join their ranks.  We have the right to override them if they act dishonestly against all reason or

196 Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

against the public interest.  Appellant’s counsel admitted below that he did not challenge their bona fides.  And I find that I cannot say that their refusal to admit the appellant is either against all reason or against the public interest.  Therefore I see no ground for interfering with their decision.

The appeal must be dismissed.

BIRD J.A. : —— W. J. Gordon Martin appeals to this Court from the decision of the Benchers of the Law Society, refusing his petition for call to the Bar and admission as a solicitor of the Supreme Court.

On July 30th and 31st, September 25th and October 23rd, 1945, the Benchers held formal hearings for the purpose of considering the petition, and particularly with a view to determining whether the powers conferred upon them by the Legal Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c. 180, s. 36, should be exercised to call and admit the applicant, pursuant to his petition.

Upon that investigation Martin, who was represented by counsel throughout, called witnesses as to his character and repute, and testified on his own behalf.  The evidence disclosed that Martin while a student at the University of British Colum-bia, Faculty of Law, was favourably regarded by his fellow students, although he then was considered or known to those witnesses to be a Communist.  Martin then stated that he was prepared to take the barristers’ oath and the oath of allegiance, and would abide by them.  He then stated that he had been a member of the Labour Progressive Party since 1943; that Party being described in its constitution as “the Party of Canadian Communists” —— “dedicated to the struggle for socialism, the fundamental extension of democracy through the establishment of common ownership of the means of production; a government of the working class in alliance with the working farmers; the abolition of classes and of exploitation, through the development of society to communism”.  He said he was a Marxian socialist, was known as a Communist; sometimes referred to himself as such.  He had never been ashamed of the term as applied to himself and did not consider that being known as a Communist had adversely affected his reputation.

He then declared that he would not follow the Marxian doctrines to the extent of using force if necessary to overthrow constituted authority, that he always felt free to disagree with the application of such doctrines and in lieu to advocate social change by means of education and social organization.  He said “I never had and do not expect, and hope I will not see anything necessary in Canada in any other respect”; further,

Martin v. Law Society of B.C. (Bird J.A.) 197

that if the Labour Progressive Party should advocate anything subversive he would fight the policy or would leave the Party.

At the conclusion of the hearing held on September 25, 1948, the Benchers refused the petition, upon the ground that Mr. Martin had failed to satisfy them of his good repute.

On October 23, 1948, the investigation was reopened upon the application of Martin’s counsel, to permit of the presentation of further evidence and argument, upon the conclusion of which decision was reserved.

On October 30, 1948, the Benchers again refused the petition, and then delivered extended reasons upon which their decision was founded [[1949] 1 D.L.R. 105].

If I may say so, with deference, the Benchers have made a careful and thorough investigation of the petition to the end that the discretionary power conferred upon them by the statute should be honestly exercised, with due regard to the public interest and the responsibility imposed upon them, that is to say, that they have exercised the discretion conferred upon them as an administrative body upon proper legal principles:  Pure Spring Co. v. Minister of Nat’l Revenue, [1947] 1 D.L.R. 501 at pp. 515-6, [1946] Ex. C.R. 471 at p. 487.

Subsequently after Martin’s application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia by way of manadamus to the Law Society had been dismissed upon the ground that mandamus did not lie since the Court found that the Benchers had lawfully exercised their discretionary powers —— Re Martin, [1949] 2 D.L.R. 559 —— the Legal Professions Act, upon request by the Law Society was amended by the Legislature, whereby an appeal to this Court in the present proceeding was made possible.

On this appeal counsel for the appellant argued that Martin had established the right to be called and admitted since he had complied with the academic and service requirements prescribed by the Legal Professions Act and had introduced evidence of his good character and repute.  In my opinion support for this submission cannot be found in the language of the Act, whereby authority to call and admit is given the Benchers.  Section 36 (3) and (5) read in part as follows:

“36. The Benchers … .
” (3) … may call to the Bar …
” (a) Any person …. of …. good repute &c.
” (5) …. may admit as solicitors of the Supreme Court: —
” (a) Any person being of …. good repute …. and who has conformed to the rules of the Law Society.”

These statutory provisions give power to call and admit such
Dominion Law Reports. [ [1950] 3 D.L.R.

persons as are found by the Benchers to have the prescribed qualifications.  The onus is upon the appellant to satisfy them.  As was said by Hunter C.J.B.C. in Re Hagel & Law Society of B.C. (1922), 31 B.C.R. 75, “it is expressly enacted that the Benchers may call to the Bar … persons who comply with certain conditions, including proof of good character and reputation … There is no right of admission, but only a privilege on compliance with certain conditions to the satisfaction of the Benchers and the privilege becomes a right only after admission”.

The Benchers have found that the applicant “(a) is not a fit person to be called to the Bar or admitted as a solicitor … (b) has not satisfied them that he is a person of good repute within the meaning and intent of the Legal Professions Act” [[1949] 1 D.L.R. at p. 114].  The reasons given I think make it clear that these conclusions were based upon the fact that Gordon Martin then was a Communist.  Counsel for the Law Society so declared on the hearing of this appeal.

Notwithstanding Martin’s assertion that his personal philosophy did not extend to the advocacy of anything subversive or to the commission of subversive acts, the Benchers considered that adherence to that philosophy extending over a period of years since 1946 was sufficient to disqualify him in terms of the Act.

However, counsel submits that in the absence of evidence of subversive conduct by Martin mere membership in a Communist party, i.e., the Labour Progressive Party and adherence to Communist philosophies do not warrant the conclusion that he is not a person of good character and repute, or that he cannot conscientiously take the barrister’s oath.

This submission I think must be considered in the light of developments which have occurred since the cessation of hostilities in 1945.  The revelations made in the Report of the Royal Commission on Communist Espionage in 1946 which discloses the debauching by Communist influences of Canadian public servants occupying positions of public trust, despite oaths of allegiance and office which they had taken, I am satisfied have created in the public mind an utter distrust of that philosophy as well as of its adherents.  That distrust has been accentuated by the disclosure of similar activities in Great Britain, i.e., the Fuchs case and also the Alger Hiss and other like proceedings in the United States.

Communism and all that pertains to that philosophy I think is now recognized as having a connotation equivalent to Fifth

Column.  It is common knowledge that Governments on this continent, public and private organizations, more particularly among Trades and Labour Unions, alive to the danger of Communist infiltration and influence are now alert to the menace, and are actively moving towards its elimination.

In these circumstances I consider that the decision of the Benchers was right and that the findings made by them disclose a lawful and proper exercise of the discretion and public responsibility imposed upon them under the Legal Professions Act.

                                              Appeal dismissed.

News-Slanting and Communist-line Propaganda on the CBC

Category:  Historical reprints
Source:  Brief of Ron Gostick.  Cover:  This brief deals with alleged news slanting and communist line propaganda on the C.B.C.  Brief #145, ex. 285

Download scans of the original Brief from the National Archives, together with a few more related vintage news items:&nbsp:


Nota Bene:  My discussion of this Brief follows below. (Admin. NSIM)





News-Slanting and Communist-line
Propaganda on the CBC


                          Ottawa, Canada

by:     RON GOSTICK of Flesherton, Ontario,
          Editor of The Canadian Intelligence Service
          and director of The Canadian Anti-Communist League

April 13, 1956

The Free World is spending immense financial resources combatting the international Communist conspiracy which already holds in slavery over 900 million souls.  In Canada the struggle is yet a ‘cold’ one — a psychological, ideological battle for the minds and souls of men.  Our defence, therefore, requires not only military preparedness, but full information and a thorough understanding of Communist strategies, tactics and propaganda.

The CBC should be our most powerful cold war weapon in the defence of this nation and Christian civilization.  Yet, it is a disturbing paradox that as we spend billions of dollars in defence against the Communist conspiracy, the Number 1 weapon in our ideological arsenal, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, more and more reflects the leftwing, pro-Communist propaganda line.

Communist Propaganda Line

Perhaps the best approach to this question is to lay down the Red propaganda line, and then compare the CBC’s line with it over a period of years.  The Communist ‘line’ in recent years has included:

1.  Promoting of ‘peaceful co-existence’ and trade with Red regimes.

2.  Disparaging Chiang Kai-shek and demanding ‘recognition’ (diplomatic facilities and privileges) and a UN seat for Red China.

3.  Smearing and ridiculing of anti-Communist leadership throughout the world, while praising the fence-sitters and neutralists in the cold war.

4.  Popularizing of a smear vocabulary — including such terms as:  guilt by association, hysteria, witch-hunt, fascist, book-burning, reactionary, etc. — to be hurled at those who effectively oppose Red activities.

The CBC Propaganda Line

While it would take weeks of this Commission’s time to study even a summary of all the Red-slanted CBC propaganda of recent years, following are a few typical examples.

Oct. 15/50:  Harold Isaacs promoted recognition of Red Chinese regime and its admission to the UN.  Reds pictured as agrarian reformers (a few days later they carried their ‘agrarian reform’ into Tibet and then into Korea).

Nov. 12/50:  Max Freedman expressed opposition to anti-Communist Senator Hickenlooper of Iowa:  lamented defeat of anti-McCarthy Sen. Tydings; spoke glowingly of Mrs. Helen Gahagen Douglas, California darling of the leftwing clique, and disparagingly of Sen. Nixon (his committee exposed Alger Hiss) who defeated her at the polls.

Nov. 21/51:  Mrs. Dorothy Steeves advocated that Red China (then at war with Canada) should be admitted to the UN and given Formosa, at the expense of anti-Communist government of Chiang Kai-shek.

The CBC, in the cultural field, during 1951 sponsored several speakers, including Dr. Brock Chisolm, Bertrand Russell, Dr. Anna Freud, Dr. Ewen Cameron, Professor Fred Hoyle, and Dr. Carl Binger — who attacked religion, Christian ethics and morality.

And during the past five years such propagandists as Max Freedman, Matthew Halton, Alexander Uhl, Frank H. Underhill, James McConaughy, Murray Balantyne, Maxwell Cohen, and many others, have used CBC “Capital Reports” and “Week-end Reviews” to attack and smear Senator Joseph McCarthy’s fight against Reds in the US Government.

June 14/53:  Charles Woodsworth (Capital Report) attacked anti-Communist Syngman Rhee.

July 19/53:  Anne Francis advocated ‘recognition’ of, and a UN seat for, Red China.

Jan. 17/54:  Roger Baldwin, chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, and associated with no less than 40 Communist ‘fronts’ according to chairman Harold Velde of the Un-American Activities Committee, was a special CBC speaker.  He attacked Sen. McCarthy and all congressional investigations of subversion; boasted that his organization opposed the prosecution of the Red leaders convicted in 1949, opposed loyalty oaths, opposed immigration policies which prohibit Reds from entering the US, and opposed US insistence on loyalty from her UN personnel.

April 15/54:  Ralph Lapp, speaking from Washington over the CBC, defended Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, who had just run afoul of US security requirements through his long recorde of Communist association and support.

May 2/54:  Matthew Halton (C.R.) supported Red Chinese admission to UN.

July 12/54:  James M. Minnifee (C.R.) disparaged Chiang Kai-shek.

This last year, as the emphasis in the Red line shifted more and more to ‘peaceful co-existence’, this whole pack of CBC commentators has parroted the ‘line’.

Even in ‘drama’ we find the ‘line’.  I shall not in this brief deal with the licentiousness and disregard for Christian morality in certain CBC productions.  But it is significant that even in the drama section of the CBC we find the Red propaganda line.  For instance, on the Sunday night (Mar. 17/54) CBC play we heard these lines:

” …You think he is a Communist?  Oh, Joe, this isn’t the United States with its witch-hunting.  This is Canada.”

The foregoing are but a few typical examples of the almost daily Commie ‘line’ carried over the CBC.

The Strange Case of Reuben Ship

CBC policy has perhaps never been more accurately reflected than it was in 1954 in the strange case of Reuben Ship.

On May 30, 1954, the CBC produced and broadcast a Commie-line propaganda play smearing Senator McCarthy and investigations of subversion, written by one Reuben Ship.  A New York Times  report (June 1/54) read:

“Canadians were chuckling today over the ribbing given Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in a burlesque of a Senate committee hearing broadcast last night.  The broadcast originated in Toronto and was carried by the Trans-Canada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

“The play was ‘The Investigator’ by Reuben Ship of Montreal, with John Drainie of Montreal playing the title role with such accent, intonation of voice and mannerisms of speech that many listeners thought for a time that they were listening to a recording of the Wisconsin Republican Senator.

“The play concerns an investigation ‘up there’ after the investigator is killed in a plane crash.”

And just who is Reuben Ship?  The New York Times  itself supplies the answer:

“Mr. Ship was deported from the United States last year as a result of testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that identified him as a member of the Communist party.”

The files of the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities contain the following information on Mr. Reuben Ship:

He was a witness before this Committee during public hearings in Los Angeles, September 24, 1951 (Communism in Motion-Picture Industry), Part 5, pages 1771-1775).  At that time Ship, under the privilege of the ‘Fifth Amendment’, refused to answer questions concerning present or past membership in the Communist Party.

Referring to the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, of wihch he had been treasurer, Owen Vinson gave the following testimony:

Mr. Tavenner:  Ruben (sic.) Ship appeared before this committee last September and refused to answer any material questions that were asked him.  Was he a member of that group?

Mr. VinsonYes; he was.

Mr. Tavenner:  How do you know that?

Mr. Vinson:  He attended meetings and I collected dues from him, also.

Mr. Tavenner:  What was his occupation?

Mr. Vinson:  Radio writer.

— (Communism in Los Angeles Professional Groups, Part 3, October 2, 1952, p. 4078.)

Paul Marion, an actor who was a member of the Communist Party from early 1946 until early 1948, in listing for the Committee those members of the radio group of the Communist Party in Los Angeles to which he had belonged, named Ruben (sic.) Ship.

Mrs. Pauline Swanson Townsend, a member of the Communist Party from 1943 to 1948, testified before the Committee on March 12, 1953, that Reuben Ship’s membership card in the Communist Party was turned in through her branch.

William L. Alland, motion-picture producer and former Communist Party member, testified before the Committee on November 23, 1953, in part:

Mr. Tavenner:  Now, will you tell the committee, please, what the principal activity was of this group of the Communist Party organized within the radio field?

Mr. Alland:  Its principal activity was attempting to control the Radio Writers Guild … They wanted the Radio Writers Guild to try to get the Screen Writers Guild to be more lenient in its actions and attitudes toward the Communist members in the Screen Writers Guild.  They tried to get its members in any way possible to censure and block the work of the Un-American Activities Committee, certainly, and to in any way possible aid and support those people who had been exposed by the committee …

Mr. Tavenner:  Can you recall members of your Communist Party group who actually became officials in the Radio Writers’ Guild as a result of the activities of your group?

Mr. Alland:  … Reuben Ship was an official …

COUNTERATTACK, the authoritative New York report on Communist activities, in its January 21/55 issue, revealed that the tape recording of the CBC production of “The Investigator” was sold to Ship, and from it a long-playing record was produced, handled in New York by Walter Colquitt and John Bubbers (B & B Recording, Inc.).

The Daily Worker  expressed its pleasure over this CBC venture, boasting that the sale of records would not be less than 100,000 — at $5.95 each!

Thus did the CBC not only produce and feed to the Canadian public, at its own expense, a Red-line propaganda piece, but it also helped to raise funds for ‘Fifth Amendment’ Ship and his associates!

Reports indicate that there was a heavy mail sent to CBC Chairman Dunton’s office, protesting this production.  One citizen who protested advised me that Mr. Dunton’s reply was to the effect that it was not proved that Ship was a Communist.  A study of the foregoing testimony would indicate that Mr. Dunton has a cavalier disregard for evidence, at least when it concerns pro-Communist writers.

Overt CBC Communist Support

Following are a few examples of overt CBC support of the Communist conspiracy in Canada:

  • During the federal election in 1953 the LPP (Communist Party) was given free time on the CBC.  At that very time thousands of Canadian boys were in Korea risking their lives, supposedly in defence of the very things which the Reds in Canada, with the co-operation of the CBC, were working to destroy.  Combat Communism in Korea — but subsidize it at home!

  • The CBC televised the 1954 May Day parade and rally in Vancouver, addressed by such Red leaders as A. A. MacLeod (Ontario Red Leader) and Harvey Murphy of the West Coast.  The Communist weekly, The Canadian Tribune  (May 17.54) congratulated the CBC for carrying this propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.  Again, this is a case of taxing Canadians to arm against Communism, and at the same time taxing them to buy TV facilities for the Reds to spread their poison in Canada.

  • The same Commie weekly, in June of 1954, warmly praised the CBC for its Reuben Ship production; and in September of 1954 reported favourably on Canadian TV development as a government monopoly, beginning to carry educational programs into Canadian schools. 1  A letter published in the February 27, 1956, issue of this Red organ expresses pride in the CBC, referring to it as the “most democratic institution in Canada.”

CBC Communist Line Stepped Up

The fantastic success of this Red infiltration is evident from the glowing accounts of CBC programs recently carried in the Communist press.

Last October 1st, CBC carried the last of its Focus — series — a two-hour Commie play entitled We Shall Not Be Moved, which received two full columns of build-up in the September 25th CBC Times, and rapturous applause from the Red press.

The U.S. West Coast Communist organ, Daily People’s World (Oct. 13), reported:

“The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. made radio history Oct. 1 when it presented a two-hour special program, ‘We Shall Not Be Moved,’ in which Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, now jailed as a Smith Act victim, is portrayed as a leading figure.”

This CBC production featured a recording by Paul Robeson, the notorious Communist-front personality and money-raiser.  The People’s World  boasts that it “took over the best possible broadcasting time — 8 to 10 p.m. Saturday.

There were no interruptions — even the usual station breaks were omitted.”

The play glorified Elizabeth Gurley Flynn as a “rebel girl,” and People’s World, hardly able to conceal its mirth, suggested:

“Perhaps someone has made a recording of this program as was done with the play ‘The Investigator’ from the same network.  It would be a smash hit.”

The Canadian Communist weekly, The Tribune  (Oct. 17), carried this letter to Elizabeth Flynn:

“You were not in your cell Saturday evening, October 1st.  You travelled across the Canadian border.  You were in many Canadian homes. …”

And the same Communist organ (Oct. 10), under a 3-column headline “THREE CHEERS FOR THE CBC,” eulogizes it in these terms:

“For the excellence of this program all concerned must be congratulated.  John Reeves, the producer, deserves special applause.  He struck a new vein for Canadian radio to work, and it is a rich one.”

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Elizabeth Gurley Flynn is one of the leaders of the Communist conspiracy in the U.S., and is presently serving a prison term for her role in Red subversion in America.

The Communist propaganda line today is to paint Communists as persecuted champions of the working class, make the public believe that there really is no Communist menace, and defeat or emasculate anti-Communist security measures in order to spring their convicted agents from prison and open the way for further infiltration.

This CBC production, by glorifying the Red prisoner, and undermining security measures, followed every turn in the Communist line.  Thus, as the U.S. cracks down on subversion, the CBC is used to beam the Red line to the U.S. and at the same time brainwash Canadians.

It is difficult to ujnderstand how such an incredible situation has developed in our CBC.  This material is not merely slanted in favour of Communism — it IS Communism, pure and simple.  The people responsible for staging such productions must be either outright Communists, or ‘egg-heads’ under the influence and control of those directing today’s Red line.

CBC Bias Widely Recognized

That the disturbing leftwing, anti-Christian influence I observe in the CBC is no figment of the imagination, is confirmed when we note but a few of the increasing protests.

Dr. W. A. Brown, Lion’s Club Governor for Renfrew, in 1951 told the Ottawa Lions Club:

“I am opposed to the godless vaporings of some top United Nations members of the medical profession heard over the government-owned radio system on a recent Sunday evening.”

Lions International, he said, was “a Godfearing, Christian organization, and we are not going to stand for some of this CBC broadcasting.”

The Canadian Slovak League, in a brief to the Ministers of External Affairs and National Defence in 1952, relating to CBC-Slovakia policy, said:

“The Slovaks are a conservative people with an absolute Catholic majority (about 85%), but the propaganda from Canada for Slovakia is performed by this Staff of Employees:  Dr. Schmolka, Mr. Rejhon and his brother, Reichman, Stauber, and Williams, all of whom are of the Jewish religion … and of a deep socialistic conviction … and also three Czechs, Volesky, Skvor and Mrs. Vasak.  We strongly doubt … that this is a good staff for the defence of these (Christian and national) ideals which today alone strengthen nations in their resistance.”

The leading Western Canada weekly, Camrose Canadian (July 22/53), commenting on a CBC report by Anne Francis in favour of recognition of Red China, described the talk as “pretty hot socialist propaganda.”  And on Sept. 9/53, commenting on a series of CBC talks, observed:  “An outsider could readily label each speaker as a Communist fellow traveller … and we Canadians are paying these men …”

The Ensign  (July 31/54) said editorially:

“The ‘radio curtain’ can be noted also in Canada in the consistency of choice of political commentators on the nationally owned networks, who are most critical of Washington and most sympathetic to the recognition of Red China.

“It is interesting how a conspiracy of silence towards those advocating contrary views is a growing problem in many countries. …”

And on October 10/54 The Ensign  observed:

“What the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through a consistent choice of political commentators seems to be advocating is what Moscow desires.”

The Edmonton Journal, two years ago, observed editorially:

“Canadian listeners would like to have a balanced, objective account … Instead, all the commentators on this program, whether Canadians or Americans, give us virtually nothing except straight Democratic Party doctrine.”

Why The Strange Conformity ?

Why do the overwhelming majority of CBC commentators consistently follow the line promoted by the Communists, and consistently attack the most militant anti-Communist leaders and measures?

Is it because only individuals holding such pink views are selected consistently by the CBC ?

Or is it because reporters are anxious for these CBC contracts, and promote the line which they know, from experience, will assure them of more contracts?

It is respectfully submitted, gentlemen, that the CBC should be our most powerful weapon in the present ideological struggle, but that the evidence presented demonstrates that all too often it is actually used to further the Communist propaganda line.

It is hoped that the information contained in this brief, and the questions raised, will assist the Commission in finding and recommending action for the eliminating of Communist propaganda from our CBC.

– 30 –

1  Constitutionally, the federal government (and thus the CBC) is denied (local) Education powers.  This was pointed out by Quebec historian, Robert Rumilly, also in 1956, the year of this Brief, in his L’Infiltration gauchiste au Canada français (The Leftist Infiltration in French Canada).  Radio-Canada is the French name of the CBC in Quebec.  From page 95:

Radio-Canada complète et soutient le réseau gauchiste qui s’est mis en place, dans notre province, depuis quelques années.

Il est déjà inconstitutionnel que l’État fédéral accapare une tranche de l’éducation –- domaine réservé aux provinces –- comme il le fait par le truchement de Radio-Canada.  Les tribunaux ont reconnu à l’État fédéral le droit de réglementer l’usage des ondes.  Ils ne lui ont reconnu aucun droit sur l’éducation populaire.  La Société Radio-Canada, telle qu’elle fonctionne, est illégale.  Il est doublement intolérable que la radio et la télévision d’État d’expression française, vivant des deniers du peuple canadien-français, cherche à l’entraîner vers une idéologie contraire à ses traditions et à ses aspirations nationales.

Radio-Canada completes and has been supporting the leftist network set up in our province in the last few years.

It is unconstitutional already that the Federal state monopolizes a section of education –- a domain reserved to the provinces –- which it does by the interposition of Radio-Canada.  The courts have recognized to the Federal state the right to regulate the use of the air­waves.  They have not conceded to it any right of public education.  Radio-Canada, the corporation, such as it functions, is illegal.  It is doubly intolerable that French-language State radio and television, living off public funds of the French-Canadian people, seek to drag them towards an ideology contrary to their own traditions and their national aspirations.

However, the CBC today has done far more than to “merely” invade the “exclusive” provincial Education power.  Major mega-movie-length series productions, edified by the CBC web site, have revised Canada’s history while offering course plans and “educational” packages to teachers Canada-wide.  Thus, the CBC conscripts teachers to indoctrinate, meaning brainwash, Canadian children at the expense of their parents, the taxpayers, both federal and provincial.

But with what are they indoctrinating our children?  Well, if you were the Soviet Union, having feigned collapse with intent to penetrate and merge with socialized and restructured western countries (as warned by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn), imagine your advantage if the children of these countries could be made to grow up not merely believing their nation was on the brink of collapse, but literally expecting and accepting that it was going to happen.  And that this feigned collapse of their own countries was the signal for the long-planned Communist restructuring to carry off the merger.

In Canada, our children are being brainwashed to view the Communist dismantling and restructuring of Canada as inevitable.  This is not “education”.

This is what the CBC has accomplished for the benefit of world Communism and the advance of the underground Soviet Union, with its “history” segment on the “struggle” of the (Communist) Parti Québécois with (Communist) prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, entitled:  “A Fragile Unity”, produced by Canada’s man on the KGB payroll, Mark Starowicz.

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

Mark Starowicz’s Red demoralization of Canada: A Fragile Unity

The images above, top-down, are taken from [1] the 1968 organization by René Lévesque of the (Communist) Parti Québécois, implying, of course, the 1980 referendum conducted by him unlawfully as contrary to Confederation; [2] Pierre Elliott Trudeau of the “secret committee” of Power Corporation which appointed Lévesque to set up the PQ; and [3] the 1982 false “patriation” which overthrew the lawful Parliament and Legislatures of Canada using the Sovereign as the front to pull it off.  The title of the episode, “A Fragile Unity”, however, impliedly refers to the 1995 referendum, also unlawful, also under the PQ, and which most likely was rigged, but failed nonetheless thanks to a last-minute Canada Rally organized by a local businessman.

The “patriation” image implies what those behind the scenes know; had the 1980 referendum pulled off a “Yes”, United Kingdom, under the pretense of constitutional “amendment” of the British North America Acts (1867 et seq), was to pass a “law” “patriating” a new constitution disassembling Canada into a string of “associated” proto-Communist banana republics.

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests

CBC producer Mark Starowicz promised a KGB agent he would act on behalf of Soviet interests

In 1975, Progressive-Conservative Member of the Canadian Parliament, Tom Cossitt (for Leeds) tried repeatedly to open an inquiry into the KGB’s Konstantin Geyvandov, a Pravda  correspondent, and money received from him and promises made to him by CBC producer, Mark Starowicz:
According to just one of his interventions in federal Hansard, on the 12th of June 1975, the Hon. Thomas Charles Cossitt said in the House:

Mr. Speaker. I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), the following motion:

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt, a Canadian hero.

The truly Honorable Mr. Tom Cossitt,
a Canadian hero.

That a special committee of this House be set up forthwith to investigate all activities of Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov while he was in Canada, that the committee be charged with examining all connections with this matter on the part of Mark Starowicz, executive producer of the CBC program “As It Happens”, that the committee be given power to summon any persons whatsoever as witnesses that it deems advisable, that files on the matter including those of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, External Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police showing the activities of Geivandov, Starowicz, and others, be produced to the committee and, finally, that such files, pending examination by the committee, be forthwith placed in the safe custody of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada to guarantee their safety from destruction for political or any other purposes whatsoever.

In 1979, the irrepressible Mr. Cossitt is continuing his effort to launch a formal investigation:

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity as a result of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) this morning at his press conference, that there was concern within the CBC regarding an individual who allegedly assisted a KGB representative in Canada, and I might add that this individual had been previously identified in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general of Ontario as CBC producer Mark Starowicz.  I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):

Whereas CBC producer Mark Starowicz assisted KGB agent Konstantine Geyvandov in compiling information on certain persons, allegedly on six different occasions, and also promisedto act on behalf of Soviet interests“, that the CBC be required to give a public explanation as to why Mark Starowicz continues as producer of the public opinion influencing program “Sunday Morning” and, finally, as to why he is being considered at this very moment to head all CBC national news and public affairs programming.

In 1983, on Friday, March the 4th, another Progressive-Conservative Member, the Hon. Elmer MacIntosh MacKay (for Central Nova) picks up where Mr. Cossitt left off (I have not cited all of Mr. Cossitt’s interventions).  Mr. McKay will quote newspaperman Peter Worthington quoting the RCMP.

Madam Speaker, some years ago the then Member for Leeds [Mr. Cossitt] noted for the first time in this House the name of CBC producer Mark Starowicz in connection with the expelled KGB agent, Konstantin Geyvandov, who masqueraded in Ottawa as a Soviet journalist.  Two years later the Attorney General of Ontario quoted in the Legislature an RCMP document according to which a Canadian media person over a period of five years was selling Geyvandov reports at clandestine meetings.  Next day CBC producer Mark Starowicz identified himself as the person who, between 1970 and 1973, had accepted money for reports written for a Soviet correspondent in Ottawa.

Three months later Peter Worthington published excerpts from an RCMP document dated March 24, 1976, as well as this passage:

The RCMP report says Pravda’s man in Ottawa, Geyvandov, was expelled from Canada after persuading a Canadian journalist to act on behalf of Soviet interests when reporting Canadian political events. …

I am strongly inclined to believe that the Canadian media person in the McMurtry statement and the Canadian journalist in the report referred to by Mr. Worthington are the same person.  I wrote about it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).  He is reluctant to reveal the man’s identity.  In the meantime, CBC keeps on its payroll a senior executive who, by his own admission, was also on the payroll of a Soviet official and who, I strongly suspect, is the same person identified by the RCMP as acting on behalf of Soviet interests.

I do not believe at this stage that the Liberal Government with its track record –

Two sad ironies:  there has been a Southern-Rhodesian-style coup on Parliament under Trudeau in 1982.  Canada, long occupied, has been dealt a pounding blow.  Men (quoted below) who would be legitimate Members of the House are apparently not aware, although the coup was admitted by one of its perpetrators in 1982, Barry Lee Strayer, in his pair of Cronkite Lectures to a university law faculty.

The other sad irony:  Mr. McKay is not among friends in the House.  The “Madam Speaker” to whom he has addressed his plea is Jeanne Benoit Sauvé, future Governor General of Canada (representing the post-coup Queen) and the wife of ex-Forestry Minister Maurice Sauvé under Soviet agent prime minister Lester Pearson.

Sauvé sat on the Friday-night “secret committee” at Power Corporation where the plans to set up the (Communist) PQ and put (Communist) Trudeau in power to negotiate with it, were incubated.

In fact, both Jeanne and Maurice Sauvé were involved in a Communist front put in place in the 1950s by Soviet-infested British Secret Intelligence (MI6) and the Communist-staffed CIA, at the prompting of British Fabian socialist Sir Stafford Cripps.  The World Association of Youth (WAY), with Member of Parliament Maurice Sauvé as its first president, and his wife at his side, organized youth to help federalize Europe (destroy the nation-state).  In Canada, after 9/11, a similar group emerged under the wing of Sauvé’s Communist PQ:  the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), devoted, like WAY, to subverting our youth to restructure the continent for a federalized North American Union on the EU model.

We can see that for nearly a decade, decent men tried to expose Soviet tool, Mr. Mark Starowicz.  However, I am of the view that the above-said Mr. McMurtry is not to be classed among them; the grounds will appear.

In Ontario Hansard of December 9th, 1977, provincial justice minister, the Hon. Mr. Roy McMurtry, while withholding the name of Mr. Starowicz, had nonetheless to admit:

“… the RCMP concern with individuals in the Waffle was increased when it was found that a Canadian news media person, closely associated with leading people in the Waffle, was meeting clandestinely with Konstantin Geyvandov, a Russian KGB intelligence officer who, between August 1968 and September 1973, operated in Canada as a Pravda correspondent.”

McMurtry continued:

“The RCMP investigation confirmed that this Canadian provided reports to Geyvandov during these clandestine meetings and on at least six occasions was paid money by Geyvandov.  Amongst other things, the Canadian was specifically asked by Geyvandov to provide reports to him on the NDP and the Waffle.

“… The RCMP believed that Geyvandov’s purpose in seeking such reports was to assist the Russian KGB intelligence service in deciding whether the Waffle group or any of its members were worthy of further attention by the KGB.”

The Hon. Mr. Gaunt interjects:

“Now a pipeline right to the Kremlin.”

Ontario justice minister Roy McMurtry in the Ontario Legislature on the 9th of December 1977, failed to name Mark Starowicz, though he had to know his name.  McMurtry seems to me to protect Starowicz when he refers to him simply as “a Canadian news media person”.  McMurtry names the Soviet agent, but not Mark Starowicz, who has been on the KGB’s payroll.

The Kitchen Accord

The Kitchen Accord:  L-R:  Roy McMurtry, Marxist Jean Chrétien,
Saskatchewan’s Roy Romanow — the authors of the Kitchen Accord (1979)

Then, in 1981, McMurtry shows up in the media during the (false) “patriation” as one of three men in the photo at the time of the so-called “Kitchen Accord”.  The “Kitchen Accord”, incorrectly described as an agreement to patriate the Constitution (in the propaganda which serves as “news” in Canada), was in fact a “federal-provincial” agreement to overthrow the Parliament and Legislatures for a new form of non-sovereign government.  It was nothing less than a Southern Rhodesian-style coup d’état, a leftist coup on Canada.  However, it was not challenged, at the UN or elsewhere, and I believe that is because Mrs. Windsor leant herself as the front, visiting Canada personally to “proclaim” it as a constitutional amendment, which it was not.

And here is Roy McMurtry in the middle of it, in the guise of a “justice minister”, lending his title, his name and his face to it.

This suggests to me that McMurtry is a left sympathizer; that he deliberately protected Starowicz by withholding his name from the Ontario Members.  (In fact, I haven’t got any earlier Ontario Hansard than the one I’ve quoted, and which is posted online.  It is always possible that McMurtry mentioned Starowicz on another occasion, but to date I have nothing to suggest that he did.)

Now, McMurtry’s payoff for the “Kitchen Accord”:  a distinguished career under the 1982 coup d’état constitution, culminating in his appointment as Chief Justice of Ontario, the courts now, of course, imposing the illegal Charter.  At his law firm’s web site (Hull & Hull LLP, 2016), the now-retired McMurtry

“was deeply involved in the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  During that period, he also served four years as the Solicitor General for Ontario.”

The law firm also says:

“In February 1996, he [McMurtry] was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario, a capacity in which he served for over 11 years until May 30, 2007.”

That places Mr. McMurtry in the Ontario provincial driver’s seat during the artificial “law suit”, Lalonde v. Ontario 1, concocted out of the wholly staged, “SOS Montfort” protest, for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping with a non-appealed concocted “judgment” of an Ontario court of record, the so-called “unwritten principles” of the 1998 “secession” opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s non-judicial advisory board, to make them look like “law”.  The “principles” then form the basis of the federal Clarity Act, a counterfeit “statute” intended to force Canada to dismantle itself, while authorizing the international community to “recognize” a string of UDIs.  And thus will end Canada’s so-called “fragile unity” (according to former executive producer at the CBC, Mark Starowicz).

In recent results on Google, both Mr. McMurtry and Mr. Starowicz collected their official recognitions fromConfederation Center of the Arts (See:  Previous Symons Medal Recipients:) “Canada”:

In Conclusion

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is the ultimate, entirely subversive tool of political control exerted over the educational and communications systems of a target country by a hostile foreign power.  Sun Tzu would be awe-struck.

1  Lalonde c. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 56 OR (3d) 577 [Not online];  Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé), 2001 CanLII 21164 (ON CA);

Wicked Willy: The Chancellor of the West German Government

Foreword: This old reprint from 1971 shines a light on the so-called “Willy Brandt”.

“Wicked Willy” was written over a decade before René Lévesque asked Brandt to admit the veiled Communist Parti Québécois (PQ) to the Socialist International (SI), whose mandate is world government.

Willy Brant and David Rockefeller, 18 June 1971

Interesting image from 1971 of Willy Brandt with Soviet-apologist David Rockefeller of the Chase Bank which helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In 1964, Rockefeller called for “free trade” between USA and Canada. That was an early step toward North American Soviet Union

Source: Straight Talk! Published by the Edmund Burke Society

Editor: F. Paul Fromm
Associate Editor: Kastus Akula
Writers: E.B.S. Members and friends
Directors: The Council of the E.B.S.

The Edmund Burke Society is a movement dedicated to preserving and promoting the basic virtues of Western Christian Civilization — individual freedom; individual responsibility; a self-sacrificing love of country; and a willing­ness to work and pay one’s own way and not be a burden on others. These virtues have made our civilization great. Communism, socialism, and welfare-state liberalism are tearing it apart. The Edmund Burke Society stands for a regeneration of Western Civilization and firm action against all its enemies.

The E.B.S. is financed mainly through small donations from generous Canadians. Straight Talk! is produced by voluntary labour.

Volume III No. 6, March 1971


The Chancellor of the West German government is a dan­gerous threat to Western Christian civilization. The following are a few quotations inserted into the American Congressional Record from a document by Congressman Rarick, entitled Willy Brandt:

“How did Herbert Frahm, the illegitimate son of a shopgirl in the Baltic Ger­man port of Lubeck, a member of the Red Falcons and functionary of the far-left Socialist Workers’ Party, said by an old acquaintance to be ‘as close to Red as you can get without actually being Red’, be­come, in less than five years, Willy Brandt, a ‘correspondent’ with the Communist forces in the Spanish Civil War, under a forged Nor­wegian passport?…

How did Willy Brandt, a German hiding out the war in Sweden, become a naturalized Norwegian while the government of Norway was in exile in London?…

How did Brandt next surface as a Nor­wegian reporter at the Nuremburg Trials acting as a go-between and translator for half of the foreign press corps?

How did Brandt next appear at Allied headquarters in Berlin, not as a German, but as a Norwegian Major in 1946?” The record goes on and on and on…


Afterword: Interesting that Communist René Lévesque was a ‘correspondent’ with the American forces in WWII. Reporters, editors, journalists and correspondents are frequently occupations of choice for spies and agents. This gives them news control, to slant what we hear and read. They are at the nerve center of current events, able to re-write history as it happens.

Quebec’s left and far left have typically had their agents in all our press and broadcast media, which for lack of a better term, creates a grave conflict of interest. For example, in 1963, a reporter from the La Presse newspaper used $5,000 to bail an alleged FLQ terrorist, Françcois Mario Bachand, out of jail. Bachand then vanished.

The reporter had helped to make the news; but his job was to observe and report the news, not get involved.

Reporters must influence the course of events by getting at the truth of events as best they can. Too much involvement in making events is a conflict of interest.

In the 1950s and 60s in Quebec, La Presse owners fired journalists who were exposed as Communists and were slanting the news. These Reds also wrote for leftist magazines. In response to the firings, other journalists involved in subversive activities began to publish in the local Red press under pseudonyms.

A specific example is the historically documented use of pseudonyms by La Presse reporters contributing to an extreme left new journal being launched from the basement of André Laurendeau’s home by two Trudeau-Pelletier friends and employees at the pro-Soviet Cité Libre who were about to quit CL to lead an FLQ terrorist cell.*

Laurendeau’s son also wrote for the review they were launching in Laurendeau’s basement: Révolution Québécoise. Moreover, at the time, far-left Laurendeau was co-chairing Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson’s Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

This means that by at least this one channel — in my view, there must have been others — a pipeline existed directly from Pearson through Laurendeau to the about-to-be Communist terrorist leaders.

The Pearson government was supposedly fighting the terrorist infiltration; however, it could also have been “placing orders” for “designer violence” at particular times to suit a developing agenda.

Pearson’s main agenda — which has been the agenda ever since — was to restructure Canada, using Quebec as the pretext. Now, how would a Red like to restructure Canada? Something along the lines of the Soviet Union? That’s what the infamous “Bi & Bi” Commission was for. To lend a “legalistic” facade to an unconstitutional policy to destroy the founding peoples of Canada for Jewish-Bolshevik multiculturalism fed by illegal mass immigration. The Reds were turning Canada into a tribal, multicultural Soviet-style region, one careful stage at a time.

The pretext for the Bi & Bi Commission was the Communist FLQ terror in Quebec which began in early 1963.

Communist terrorist activities were always mis-portrayed as those of “ultra-nationalist French Canadians”. In other words, in Canada’s press and media — tightly controlled, then as now — it was made to seem as though millions of Quebec Catholic conservatives hated “racist”, “imperialist” Canada and wanted out.

However, the majority of French Canadians never supported the terrorists; and therefore, Pearson’s desire to accommodate “Quebec’s aspirations” (pretending the terrorism was an ethnic revolt) was in fact a Communist at the top using Communist terrorists at the bottom as an excuse to replace Confederation with the new world socialist system. And pretend this was being done as a “favor” to millions of French Canadians who would never have requested it, and would never have approved of it, had they known.

* Louis Fournier, F.L.Q. Histoire d’un mouvement clandestin (1982). See Chapter 6, the segment Révolution québécoise (Vallières et Gagnon), page 91. Fournier is a partisan of the left; he calls the FLQ killers “political prisoners” when they are jailed. Nonetheless, there is a lot of useful information in this book, which is free online at

Trudeau & Vallières: A Socialist Soap-Opera?

Foreword: I have discovered a student newspaper from the 1960s with some fascinating information on the Red Menace in Canada. Here begins a new series of posts, which will be identified by the tag “Historical Reprints”. I will add tags later. Library with the free wifi is closing!

Trudeau & Vallières: A Socialist Soap-Opera?

October 1969 proved to be a trying month for Prime Minister Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (“a herd of anes savants to file in when the division bell rang”), largely because of two major embarrassments. The first was having a subpoena served upon him to appear as a character witness in the hearing of a petition for bail for Pierre VallièresMontreal, along with his Secretary of State, the suave Gerard Pelletier (“any suspicion of witch-hunting or McCarthyism will be dealt with immediately”). The second major headache for the Lord Protector of the Realm was the charge levelled by the Chairman of Montreal’s Executive Committee, Lucien Saulnier, that the federal Company of Young Canadians was engaged in “subversive activities” and that “Federal Government funds were supporting a Communist campaign to overthrow Canada” (Cf. TELEGRAM , Oct. 14, 1969). In this charge, Mr. Saulnier was to be seconded by dozens of municipal administrations in la Belle Province, and it was to receive dramatic amplification from T.R. Anthony Malcolm, Vice-President of the Quebec Section of the Liberal Federation of Canada and Co-Chairman of the anti-secessionist Canada Committee, when he told a flabbergasted meeting of the Town of Mount Royal Women’s Club (Trudeau’s home town) that “training, finance, and assistance of every sort is being given members of the separatist movement in Quebec by sources in Cuba. In addition, funds and assistance are also funnelled into Quebec from Algeria.” He also charged that El Fatah, the Arab fascist terror organization in the Middle East was coordinating its work with that of Quebec’s national socialists, and had contributed $1,500.00 to help iinance “Operation McGill” last March. The block-buster, as far as Trudeau was concerned, however, was his publication of a list of 27 alleged Maoists who have been or still are on the federal payroll as employees of the Company of Young Canadians. It was a fine example of courageous McCarthyism, and Mr. Malcolm is to be heartily commended for having had the guts to speak out.


To deal with the first of these items, l’affaire Vallières, and Trudeau’s connection with it, a little excursion into recent history is required. In a sense, one might say that it all began with veteran Stalinist agent, Jean-Louls Gagnon (recently appointed as Co-Chairman of the Roval Commission on Bilingualism & Biculturalism by Trudeau), who had fled to Brazil in 1945 when the historic Gouzenko revelations had exposed the seditious activities of two of his close comrades, Fred Rose (“The Communist Party of Canada carries on despite persecution”) and Professor Raymond Boyer (“I made contributions”), and returned to Canada in 1948.* With the heat off, he resumed his political work, and two years later become editor of the Quebec Liberal.Party LA REFORME. Ten years later (1958), he became editor of the prestigious family newspaper, LA PRESSE, of Montreal, the largest French language daily in the new world. It was he who originally hired Pierre Vallières to join the staff of LA PRESSE. A vicious, pugnacious young leftwing nazi and anticleric, Vallières had refused to sit for his examinations for his B.A. because he considered that the religious and philosophic examinations were offensive to his fanatic and unyielding atheist faith. In 1962, Trudeau’s old buddy, Pelletier, became editor of LA PRESSE, and kept Vallières on staff. To appreciate the full significance of these years, the early sixties, and of the cast of characters in this sordid chronicle, it is important to remember that from 1960 to 1965, “secret meetings” were convened in Pelletier’s suburban Westmount home, involving, apart from Pelletier himself, such stirling citizens as Rene Levesque (“Too many people are playing with violence like sorcerers’ apprentices”), who was then Minister of Natural Resources in the LeSage Cabinet (it was in the course of these meetings that Levesque decided to socialize Quebec’s power companies), Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Jean Marchand (“To regard me as a stranger in Quebec is as stupid as it is ridiculous”), and … Jean Louis Gagnon (Cf. DAILY STAR, April 8, 1968; TRUDEAU: A MAN FOR TOMORROW, by Douglas Stuecing, with John Marshall & Gary Oakes; Clarke. Irwin & Co., Toronto, 1968). Pelletier, who was collaborating closely with Trudeau in editing the latter’s highbrow little magazine, CITE LIBRE, was probably instrumental in bringing Vallières to Trudeau’s attention and getting him to hire Vallières to work on the magazine in September 1963. He stayed with it until March of the following year, 1964, when he walked out with eleven (!!!) other writers who disagreed vehemently with Trudeau’s thesis that Trotskyism could only be built in Canada through the instrumentality of

the federal government (“a change of attitude to federalism still seems to be required within the ranks of Canadian socialism”). Vallières and his friends, par contre, were opting for the official leftist line according to which the secessionist movement in Quebec was to be warped into the pattern of those phoney “national liberation” enterprises by means of which the Red warlords hope, in time, to convert Quebec into a continental Cuba, cut off from the federal Canadian state, and which, in the global chessgame of Stalinist geopolitical strategy, would secure them a northern flank in their long term plan to encircle and isolate the United States of America, their ultimate, Number One target. It was two months later, in May (1964), that Trudeau published his famous essay, SEPARATIST COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARIES (which now forms the final chapter of his book, FEDERALISM AND THE FRENCH CANADIANS), thereby sealing the rift with his former friends who repudiated his federal strategy in favour of the phoney “separatist” line, designed to consign Quebec to the status of a province of the Socialist Camp. Let us remember, however, that just as Trudeau had not disputed the validity of the pro-Peiping and anti-American purposes of his demon­strator-antagonists at the Seaforth Armouries in Vancouver, similarly he does not and never has reproached these “separatist counter-revolutionaries” for their Trotskyism, out merely for their refusal to submit to his federal strategy (“If the whole of the Canadian electorate could miraculously be converted to socialist ideals in one fell swoop, there would be no reason to discuss strategy”). Like the quarrel oetween the Kremlin and Mao, from the point of view of Canadian freedom, this too is basically what someone has called “a quarrel about funeral arrangements.” A year later, upon invitation of Pearson’s then Secretary oi State, Maurice Lamontagne, (“Federal Liberals should arop their opposition to the ‘two nations’ concept and ‘special status’ for Quebec — battles they have already lost — and concentrate on federal planning for the age of abundance”) and accompanied by his buddies Pelletier and Marchand, Trudeau moved into the leadership ranks of the federal Liberal Party, in a strategically Fabian move which was to vault the Trotskyite trio to the pinnacle of political power in this country.

The extraordinary intrusion of these notorious non-Liberals (no French-speaking Riding would accept Trudeau as a “Liberal” candidate; he had to be “parachuted” into MOUNT ROYAL, a carpetbagging manoeuvre bitterly resented by veteran Liberals) into the Pearson administration did raise a few knowledgeable eyebrows: one political observer charged the Liberals “with forcing Canadians down the road to socialism”, and that “The Government is not leaning to the left, it’s rushing pell-mell to the left.” The entrance of the “three wise men” into the Liberal ruling junta, he said, was “a clear sign that the Pearson Government had swung hard to the left.” Referring directly to Messrs. Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, he did not mince his words: “They are all Socialists, and they are all on record as being opposed to the Prime Minister and the present Government.” Ron Gostlck? Lubor Zink? Charles Lynch? Some besotted “McCarthyite”? Fasten your safety belt: it was no less a progressive than the National President of the Progressive Conservative Association, Dalton Camp (Cf. TELEGRAM, Oct. 6, 1965). Of course, In 1965, it was still safe to say such things. At that time those who were sujsequently to abdicate their reason and submit to the irrational cult of Trudeaumanic chauvinism didn’t know Trudeau from a dyspeptic dentist from Trois Rivieres; the Machiavellian “Messiah” had not yet been revealed to the gentiles.


However, back in 1963, Vallières was a very busy young Maoist, having played a leading role in the founding of the Marcusean magazine PARTI PRIS (“Side Taken”), soon to become notorious for its juvenitarian Jacobinism, its aura of “revolutionary” action, and its espousal of “the language of hatred… which led us to Marxism…” (Cf. ANDRE MAJOR, essay, WEAPONS IN HAND, in Stalinist symposium, QUEBEC STATES HER CASE, MacMlllan of Canada, Toronto, 1964) and which was to eclipse Trudeau’s CITE LIBRE in Quebec’s leftist literary firmament. (In the course of its colourful career, the latter had featured some picturesque contri­butors indeed, among whom were to be found Prof. Raymond Boyer, convicted Stalinist spy, Stanley Ryerson (“‘Marxist interpretation of the History of Canada”), leading theoretician of the Canadian section of the Communist Party and editor of the MARXIST REVIEW, Pierre Gelinas , Quebec director of Agitation and Propaganda for the Party, as well as the TELEGRAM’S Trudeaumaniac-in-Residence, John D. Harbron (“The big corporations knew the CCCL wes dominated by men of a basic ideology geared to socialism, some of it of the virulent European variety”), and author of THIS IS TRUDEAU

(Longman’s Canada Ltd., Don Mills, 1967). PARTI PRIS was launched at the University of Montreal which is to Quebec what Simon Fraser is to British Columbia, a seething cesspool of Maoist propaganda and intrigue. Vallières has revealed that “some members of the FLQ were present”, at its birth, as was Michel Chartrand of the Quebec CCF-NDP, now known as the Parti Socialiste de Quebec. So closely was Vallières associated with PARTI PR1S and the Maoist Klatsch publishing it, that an article of his was featured in its iirst Issue (February 10, 1963). Note the date: February; the following autumn he joined Trudeau and Pelletier at CITE LIBRE. By 1965, Vallières was editor of yet another Machiavellian mag, REVOLUTION QUEBECOISE.

By 1966, the Maoist FLQ was alive and well, and the nation was shocked and horrified at the wave of bombings and terror it unleashed in Quebec. The directors ol its terror apparatus were Vallières and Charles Gagnon, formerly a Professor of Literature on the Social Science Faculty of the U. of M. Gagnon was also one of the bosses of the Maoist-controlled UNION GENERALE DES ETUDIANTS DE QUEBEC (UGZQ), which spawned the Student Workers of Quebec, the Quebec counterpart of the Company of Young Canadians. He was also the official coordinator of the Bureau d’amenagement de I’Est du Quebec, (Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau) (BAEQ) which is affiliated with the federal project, ARDA. By then, Vallières and Gagnon were running PARTI PRIS, and the U. Of M. Campus had become notorious as the principle recruiting ground for FLQ terrorists. They were also active in the People’s Liberation Movement, apparently formed from a number of Maoist groups, one of which was the Independent Socialist Committee, founded by Mario Bachand, now residing in Havana. Bachand is a convicted terrorist, a veteran of the Company of Young Canadians, which, according to Anthony Malcolm, is still paying the rent on the headquarters of his Committee at 2100 rue St. Denis in Montreal! One of the leaders oi the PLM is Stanley Gray (“fascists” who is so popular with the Canada Council, and who is planning mass demonstrations before the Palais de Justice in Montreal in November to demand the release of Messrs. Vallières and Gagnon, and other fascist fifth columnists facing criminal charges. (No shrinking violet lie.) PLM is alleged by Mr. Malcolm to be in close contact with Quisling Robert Favreau, now resident in Moscow, and a former leader of the Part y’s Komsomols (Young Communists) in Quebec. Bachand checked out for Soviet-occupied Cuba last spring, following “Operation McGill” last March, which Malcolm alleges was partly financed by El Fatah, (Now, do you understand. Rabbi Feinberg?). The PLM serves as the visible, above-ground, “legal” front for the FLQ, distinct from its undercover apparat, according to classic Communist formula.

In September of 1966, Vallières and Gagnon were arrested in New York, where they had picketed the United Nations with placards announcing that they were on a hunger strike, which was supposed to have something to do with winning success for the FLQ’s campaign of Red terror in Quebec. They successfully stalled extradition to Canada on murder charges for many, many months (they probably decided to go to New York to avoid arrest in Montreal), while almost a dozen Red terrorists were arrested and tried in Montreal. Among them was Serge Demers who described himself as a leader of the FLQ’s “action network” and who testified at his trial that a training camp for red fifth columnists was in operation near Montreal, where they were drilled in the living thoughts of Mao Tse-tung (The Sino-Japanese war gives us, the Chinese Communists, an excellent opportunity for expansion”) and the late and unlamented Che Guevara (If the rockets had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of the USA, including New York”).

In March 1963, Vallières was brought to trial for the murder on May 5,1968 of 64 year old Therese Morin, a receptionist at the La Grenade Shoe Co., when a bomb was exploded on her desk at the Company’s office by a terror squad commanded by Vallières. In the course of the trial, he was identified as “the leader of a Quebec guerilla band that trained in a bush camp in the Laurentians in 1966” where police found a cache of arms and explosives (Cf. TELEGRAM, March 4, 1968, page 10). Gagnon, Vallières’ partner in Communist crime, was also charged in the same murder, as well as with manslaughter in the death of 16 year old Jean Corbo, an agent of the FLQ who was killed by the premature explosion of a bomb he was detailed to plant on the premises of the Dominion Textile Co. in Montreal’s St. Henri quarter in July of 1966. Gagnon (“better late than never”) was acquitted of the latter charge last April, and is presumably awaiting trial in the Morin case.


Readers of this bulletin may recall mention of the Vallières case in our issue for June 1968, when our then columnist, “El Gusano”, pointed out that “Trudeau appeared on a list of proposed witnesses given to Mr. Justice Yves Leduc by Pierre Vallières in the course of his trial for murder last March. Nothing more was heard of this, of course, for Trudeau was Minister of Justice! …The Vallières trial is perhaps one of the most important political-criminal events in Canada today, yet our press maintains a virtual silence about it. Why is that, do you suppose? the same xxxxxxx we published our first and now famous Trudeau Fact Sheet, EAST WIND OVER OTTAWA, which referred to Vallières’ attempt to have Trudeau called as a character witness in his defence, and which asked, “did (Trudeau) testify? Was he ever called?” Well, the answer would seem to be: no, he wasn’t, and it is scarcely difficult to understand his reluctance to having his former protege focus a spotlight of public scrutiny on these sinister seditious associations of his recent past. In March 1968, Vallières was conducting his own defence, a role which permitted him to grandstand histrionically in the grand Marxist manner (maybe that’s where Gary Perlv got the idea), and he submitted a list of proposed character witnesses which included, apart from Glorious Pierre, a number of members of the faculty of the U. of M., Gerard Pelletier, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to External Affairs Minister Paul Martin [Senior: ed.] (“I have been caught in the generation gap”), and Marcel Pepin, who runs the Maoist-controlled Congres des Svndicaux Nationaux (Congress of National Trade Unions). Vallières was convicted in April of last year, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The following month, May, a couple of dozen well-known actors and singers staged a benefit at Montreal’s Gesu Theatre under the auspices of secessionist singing star, Pauline Julien and Jacques Larue-Langlois, a producer with the Canadian Broadcasting Cor­poration (Radio-Canada) who was fired last year, and alleged by Anthony Malcolm to be a contact man between Quebec’s national socialists and the American Black Panther Party, which is suspected of providing financial aid and training in arson and sabotage to FLQ terrorists (the Demers trial revealed that Vallières and Gagnon travelled extensively abroad, and often the FLQ held top level strategy meetings in that historic quaint old Quebec town, Rochester, N.Y., where contact with the Black Panthers would have been absurdly convenient). Called “Poems and Songs of Resistance” (why not “of Liberation”?), the money to be raised by the benefit was to finance Vallières’ appeal for a new trial. Among the dlstinguished participants were such luminaries as the actress Ginette Letondal, Helene Loiselle, and Lionel Villeneuve. The tone of the circus was set in the opening tableau: “All the artists stood on stage listening to an actor recite the words of the judge who sentenced Vallières. And then one by one, each artist spoke the names of all those who, since 1960, have been sent to jail for terrorist activities in support of the separatist movement… The sentiment ran from simple independence to revolution that would establish a socialist state in Quebec (for which there was mention of Castro and Mao and the rest of today’s revol­utionary heros).” (Cf. Gordon Sheppard, TELEGRAM, June 1, 1968). The fascist fervour of the audience knew no bounds when the Quattuor du Nouveau Jazz Libre swung into a groovy jazz rendition of that famous old French-Canadian folk song, L’Internationale.


Last September 24th (1969), five Justices of the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that Vallières be granted a new trial (for which no date has yet been set). Now repre­sented by hotshot lawyer, Robert Lemieux (who last spring defended convicted terror­ist Pierre-Paul Geoffroy, who had pleaded guilty to all charges when arraigned, and who has been granted leave to appeal his sentence of life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal), Vallières had subpoenas served on Messrs. Trudeau and Pelletier to testify on his behalf in a hearing of his petition for bail, and it must have shaken these gentlemen to have this nagging ghost pop up again to place their respectable “Liberal” image in jeopardy once more.

Subsequently, on October 6th, Judge Paul Trepanier entertained a petition from the President of the Quebec Bar, no less, Maitre Jean Martineau, acting for the PM [Trudeau] , requesting that his illustrious client be dispensed from complying with the subpoena, which dispensation seems to have been granted. (It is amusing to note, parenthetically, that on Sept. 17th last, the Union Nationale** Cabinet in Quebec city named Trudeau a Queen’s Counsel in honour of his “26 years of law practice”. These venerable old Duplessistes must have had their tongues in their cheeks; in his whole lifetime Trudeau has never opened a law office, and has practiced about as much law, in those 26 years, as the late Robert F. Kennedy did in his lifetime, i.e., hardly any at all! Quoth Quebec Minister of Justice, Remi Paul: “It simply means that the Bar of the Province of Quebec is proud to see one of its members in such high office.”


If this dispensaton established some kind of legal precedent (which it may very well have done), it could scarcely be more astonishing than the fact that a Prime Minister of Canada should be subpoenaed as a character witness in a bail hearing for a convicted collectivist killer, whose anarcho-statist crimes have been committed in the course of his seditious services in a fascist fifth column pursuing the anti-Western purposes of the Red warlords of the Socialist Camp!

Trudeau’s affidavit requesting dispensation from his legal obligation to appear was interesting, to say the least: “I am unable to provide any evidence whatsoever which would be pertinent to the petition of the defendant, Pierre Vallières; I do not believe I have seen or spoken with the defendant for five years; The only times I had occasion to speak with him involved the magazine CITE LIBRE, which the defendant managed for some months; I did not know the defendant before having met him in the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph…” Brave words, bravely uttered, but it is surely stretching credulity to the point of absurdity to expect us to believe that Vallières got the job at CITE LIBRE, Trudeau’s pet project for a number of years, by answering a Help Wanted ad in LA PRESSE! In his effort to strike the right muted key in his affidavit, Trudeau, as usual, overdoes it, and plunges into bathos with the same grand style he made famous during the election campaign at Motel swimming pools: “I am a mere citizen, and as such, subject to all the laws of my country,”, but. my appearance in court for the hearing of the defendant’s application would cause me to waste, uselessly, a part of the time which I must devote to my duties…” How’s that for humility? “a mere citizen… subject to all the laws of my country”! (Vancouver papers, please copy! ).

Needless to say, this did not go down too well with Maitre Lemieux, who nevertheless demonstrated some surprising naivete (or pretended to): “How can the Prime Minister ask to be excused from testifying? He doesn’t know the questions we wish to ask him”, which is precisely why, of course, Trudeau is bending every effort to avoid being dragged to the witness stand. When he attempted to argue the cogency of his client’s subpoena, Lemieux didn’t get too far with Judge Trepanier. “At the time of the changeover of authority in the management of CITE LIBRE”, he began, “we are in possession of a speech which Pierre-Elliott Trudeau…”, at which point the judge cut him off, asserting that he would hear all arguments in the course of the hearing, and then decide if the PM’s presence” at the hearing would be required. (Everyone, but everyone, is trying so hard to be considerate to Mere Citizen Trudeau, to spare him any avoidable embarrassment.!).


Annoyed at the Court’s apparent acceptance of Trudeau’s disclaimer, Maitre Lemieux did not mince his words when interviewed by the CBC’s network radio news broadcast, THE WORLD AT SIX, in which he pointed out that Trudeau had hired Vallières in 1963 to work on CITE LIBRE, that Vallières was then employed by Pelletier at LA PRESSE, that Tiudeau was busy on the faculty of the U. of M. at the time, and that they were a cosy threesome who “did everything together”. Outside the courtroom, Jacques Larue-Langlois (vide supra), Chairman of the.Comite d’aide au groupe Vallières et Gagnon, (Committee for Aid to the Vallières-Gagnon Group) distributed a leaflet with the plaintive lament, “Thus does the Prime Minister coldly turn his back on a former comrade and collaborator.” The whole episode is reported in MONTREAL MATIN (October 7th) under the by-line of Roger Guil featuring the intriguing headline: TRUDEAU TRIES TO WEASEL OUT BUT GERARD PELLETIER WILL BE THERE! With characteristic French-Canadian impishness, the editor has inserted a crosshead in the story which is from the Bible: the words of St. Peter denying the Saviour in the courtyard of the High Priest, “I do not know the man!” Without wishing to minimize the gravity of l’affaire Vallières and the serious crimes with which the man is charged, the whole episode does smack of… of what? Pinkerton abandoning Madame Butterfly? Father Flanagan turning his back on Mickey Rooney? So many comic parallels suggest themselves… However, in the real, sober, no-nonsense world of Stalinist subversion and sedition, in the murky, Machiavellian atmosphere of the fever swamp of Quebec’s militant Left, peopled by morally retarded intellectuals, dilettantes, and hard-headed godless gangsters, there is nothing funny about Pierre Vallières and what makes him run, and in the final analysis, there is nothing funny about Trudeau. Nor can we be amused at the failure of our English-language press to keep us informed on what must surely be the hottest political story since l’affaire Munsinger. To our knowledge, not one Toronto paper has had the journalistic wit to get an interview with Vallières counsel, Robert Lemieux, a young man who has something to say, something which all Canadians have a right to know about.

– 30 –