Our movement, the Social Credit movement of the Union of Electors, directed by the Institute of Political Action, has always and at all times taken the greatest care to operate within the framework of our country's code of law, whether this law pertained to the jurisdiction of the federal government; the provincial government or that of municipalities.
We have not heretofore had any occasion to complain of any grave pressure from the police or any other body concerned with enforcing the law. However, recently, the movement was faced with its first taste of police aggressions against it.
In Ottawa and in Montreal, members of the Union of Electors, who were going quietly about their business of soliciting subscriptions to our two publications, Vers Demain and The Union of Electors. In Montreal on February 23, two of them were suddenly stopped by the police, arrested and hauled off to the police station. On March 13, in Ottawa, two others were arrested in the same fashion and taken to jail.
Numerous other Crediters were arrested in various parts of Montreal and hauled away to the police headquarters. But in their case, the very vigorous protest's made with municipal authorities effected their almost immediate release by orders of a superior police official.
In all cases, the complaint upon which the arrests were made was that of soliciting business without a permit.
It has happened, in the past, that we have suffered minor annoyances from the police, even to the point of there being arrests; but these matters were always settled through the police authorities. For the past seven years we had gone about work in peace. Then suddenly in the early months of 1962 the police of Montreal and Ottawa suddenly begin a campaign against us.
What had provoked the police to this outburst? Had the police of Montreal received orders from the new chief of police, Robert? This same Robert had been, until his appointment in Montreal, chief of police in Hull, the sister city of Ottawa. It is a well-known fact that he harbours little love for the Crediter's since it was Hull Crediters who had very effectively blocked his attempt to erect an expensive new police station at Hull - a project which would have cost the Hull people dearly in additional taxation. However, we certainly would never attribute to this Mr. Roberts a like course of action inspired by such an unworthy motive. No more than we would think of charging that orders to "bear down" on Crediters came from the "king" at the city hall.
Let us be charitable and put it down to the fact that Montreal police, having very little to do since they have cleaned out all the gangsters, thugs, bookies and other gamblers, and having solved all the numerous murders that made 1961 a year of carnage, were obliged to pick on inoffensive citizens who, in the eyes of the police, were guilty of committing the grievous crime of "soliciting without a permit".
Here are the series of dates outlining the history of the case here in Montreal:
February 23: Jean-Claude Turcotte and Gérard Breault were arrested by the police while they were going from door to door soliciting subscriptions to our two papers. They were taken to the police station of the district, questioned and finally lodged behind bars. Same day: They were led before the judge and accused of having solicited business without a permit. They pleaded not guilty. Their case was fixed for March 1. In the meantime they were released upon payment of bail at $25 each. March 1: They appeared in court, but the case was postponed until March 15. March 15 - Again they appeared in court with their lawyer. Again the case was postponed; this time until March 27. March 27: Again they appeared and again the old story of postponement: Until April 16. April 16: The two accused came before the court and this time the case was heard. Judgement set until May 1. May 1: Appeared again for judgement - another delay, this time until May 15. May 15: The parties reconvened at court. Our men were acquitted and the complaint of the police rejected.
The two principals here were Irenée Brun, a full-time worker from our office in Montreal; and Michel-Ange Potvin from Notre-Dame-de-Lorette in the county of Roberval. These two men were engaged in the same activity as were their colleagues in Montreal - taking subscriptions for our papers in door to door work. Here is the series of dates marking the events in their case:
March 13: Arrested by the police; taken off to the police station, they were questioned and their literature was seized. They were ordered to appear in court on March 28 and they were allowed to leave the jail after having furnished bail of $27 each. March 28: They appeared in court. The charge laid against them was that of peddling without a license. They pleaded not guilty and their case was set for April 13. April 13: They presented themselves in court and on learning that their case was going to be postponed, and not wishing to have to make a trip back and forth to Ottawa from Montreal each time the case was postponed, they decided to plead guilty.
They were fined $21 each and costs and were allowed to go.
The case for the movement was ably pleaded by Mr. Guy Guérin, a Montreal lawyer.
From the very beginning of the statement of the case for there was never any doubt as to how the case would be decided. The Montreal by-law pertaining to the necessity of having permits to solicit business, states explicitly that it does not apply to the sale of newspapers or other like publications. If such a law were to place the distribution of newspapers under the authority of the police, it would be overstepping its lawful limits.
Mr. Guérin also referred to the Bill of Rights, which expressly protects the fundamental liberties of the citizen, among others, liberty of speech, liberty of the press and freedom to communicate ideas.
The presiding judge was His Honor, Judge Ernest Simard. No one would affirm that he was likely to show himself sympathetic towards our cause.
During the giving of testimony, the matter came up of our people going from door to door. Three judge interjected with the following observation: "If they show themselves at my place I'll throw them out on their heads!
And in delivering his judgement he said: "'It is with regret that I must throw out the case." ("C'est avec regret que je dois rejeter la cause.")
Now no one, least of all ourselves, will deny that His Honor has every right in the world not to like us. And as far as we are concerned, he has every right to deliver, from the august heights of the bench, his own private opinions on our methods of working. If we make mention of these details it is not with any intention of criticizing the judge. It is simply to show how hopeless the case of the police was and how strong was our own position.
It is a fact that if the judge, in effect, pronounced himself in favour of condemning our people but found himself unable to do so; under the law of the land, this certainly shows what lack of foundation the police case had. So it is that the judgement of the court is so much the weightier if it comes from a judge poorly disposed towards us than if it came from one who had shown any sympathy towards us.
Are there two kinds of justice in this land of ours? A justice for those in privileged places; another for those who have no privilege?
Several days after our two men were arrested in Montreal, police in this same city arrested five journalists of CBC — the assistant director of news at CBMT and four others attached to the corporation's international news service.
They were arrested on the charge of having refused to move on when ordered to do so by the police. The five, like our two men, were hauled off to the police station where they were obliged to spend several hours in the cells.
However they were not obliged to appear in court, their lawyer representing them. Furthermore, the city prosecutor asked of the judge the right to withdraw the charge.
The judge readily agreed to the withdrawal of the charge, but, was most anxious to know why there had been so much delay in allowing the five their liberty on parole when there had been no question of any infraction of the criminal code.
Since the five men were journalists, it was inevitable that the affair should have received considerable publicity in the newspapers. They even took the chief, Robert to task and demanded an investigation into this matter of innocent citizen's being molested by the police - the five journalists being referred to here.
The good chief was hard put to give some reasonable explanation: Hounding little folks who have not the means to attract public attention to their plight is one thing; getting newspapers against you is quite another !
He answered by saying that the police had certainly never received any authorization to throw into police cells, citizens whose identities were known and who were being accused of nothing more than an infraction of municipal regulations. He added that had the affair concerned ordinary citizens (not newspaper men) it would have passed unnoticed by the public at large.
It was quite a different matter with our people. They were held in jail. They were obliged to furnish bail. And yet there crime had been no more serious (at the time of the arrest and in the eyes of the police) than that of the five journalists. Yet this same Robert volunteered not a word of explanation. No excuses were forthcoming. The authorities lifted not a finger to help our people.
And it was not because they were unaware of the matter. When word went out that two of our people had been arrested, the city councillors, the authorities at city hall, the mayor, the police officials, were deluged with phone calls from our people, protesting this unwarranted molestation of our men. Some, it is true, showed themselves sympathetic. But for the most part the door, figuratively speaking, was slammed in our faces. The contempt shown in the refusal, by Drapeau and executive councillor Paul Massé was a display that neither of these two would have dared shown in the case of the five CBC newsmen. Likewise, it is interesting to contrast the sollicitude of Judge Paul Champagne towards the five in that there had been delay in releasing them on parole, with the attitude of Judge Ernest Simard towards our people.
Two kinds of people — two measures of treatment in the dispensing of justice.
Less than 48 hours after the arrest of the five CBC men, the charge against them had been withdrawn and an investigation had been ordered into the conduct of the two police officers who had arrested the men.
In the case of the two men of our movement, they were in and out of court over a period of three months, which cost them a loss of money in salaries and other expenses to the sum of almost a thousand dollars. And there wasn't even a case against them as it turned out!
As the old saying goes, it is an ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good". In our case, we have definitely established once and for all that our people have the right to solicit subscriptions to our papers. They have the right to do so without molestation from the police, from the police of Montreal or any other city or village in the province.
Our movement has proven that it can stand for the rights of the individual on many occasions. Only a movement could have defended these two men and vindicated them. Most average individuals could have poorly sustained the continual delays in bringing the case to a hearing.
We want no police state in this country. We want no molestation and persecution from small time Caesars in municipal government who show their vindictiveness against those who oppose them, by abusing their office to wreak vengeance.