New!  CANADA How The Communists Took Control, Alan Stang’s Full Article Now Online!

CANADA How The Communists Took Control

By Alan Stang

CANADA How The Communists Took Control By Alan Stang, 1971

CANADA How The Communists Took Control By Alan Stang, 1971

It’s very exciting to finally be able to offer a complete scan of the original American Opinion offprint of Alan Stang’s “CANADA How The Communists Took Control,” published in 1971 at Belmont, Massachusetts.

The document has been hard to find.  It’s in two rare-book collections in Montreal, but the scanning fees demanded were prohibitive.  The cheapest was $5.00 per numbered page, the dearest $25.00 per numbered page.  So, till now, I’ve had to make do with the poorly scanned partial copy that I found online many years ago.

Inspired by this article, my first “Stang” site went online around 2011 in powrhost, a free WordPress host that doesn’t exist any more.  In fact, it was a miracle that I moved to a different host, a paid host, when I did.  Powrhost gave no notice before it went offline, taking all its web sites with it.

The Stang site then went up for about 18 months at Visiba, a host I would never recommend due to endless vandalism to my web sites on their servers.

I put a backup version of my Stang site into localhost (xampp) on July 11, 2014 and used it to launch this current site in the free service at, the same year.  A couple of weeks ago, I paid to upgrade to basic hosting (all it really does is remove the toe-fungus ads), and it comes with a new domain.  In fact, allcheapweb (wild west domains; secureservers) stole the first domain,, on the last day before it expired, and it seems to now be in the hands of some Japanese guy who has put a junk site on it.

I shopped for Stang’s “Canada” item online again this week, not expecting to come up with it after all these years of nothing.  I needed a nice clean scan of the telegram of Jean-Louis Gagnon in the centerfold for the next segment of my article on Paul Fromm, a faux  conservative spy for the national police of Canada reporting to none other than Lester Bowles Pearson (Soviet agent) and Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Red Millionaire), heading our communist-penetrated federal government of Canada.

But, this time, I got lucky.  There were at least three copies for sale through Amazon.  But Amazon denied my attempts to buy any of the three, claiming no delivery to Canada!

I searched online again because I’ve learned something:  many sub-sellers of Amazon, and of other book dealers online, feature the same document at multiple retailers.  Lo and behold, I found the Stang reprint right away at Willis Monie Books ( for an amazing $5.00 USD (five yankee bucks)!  I added ten more yankee bucks for International Priority Mail and received it hand-to-hand from the postman (or should I say post-lady) today, Friday, November 1st, 2019, in great condition.

Monie did a good job of wrapping the little offprint in clear cellophane and stiff cardboard slid into a padded bubble envelope.  That’s nice service for five bucks.

Robert E. Updike (signature)

The original offprint is tiny, only about 6″ x 9″ folded, stapled and trimmed.  The front cover is navy blue and white with black text.  Everything else is black and white.  The signature of the previous owner in very elegant handwritten script is on the cover, between the title and Stang’s name as author.  The signature seems to be Robert E. Updike.  So, Bob, if you’re out there, thanks very much for the copy!

I’ve scanned it at 200 dpi (removed the signature from the cover scan) and OCR’d the little pamphlet, then put it online for free at SCRIBD, thus the pamphlet is embedded, above.  The original of the pamphlet, which I no longer need, has been donated to the Quebec Archives.  They have one copy in preservation at their Rare Books facility in Montreal; now they have another.

Also fun to have are the full-page ads at the back of the brochure for two books by Western Islands, G. Edward Griffin’s The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations; and The C.F.R. [The Council on Foreign Relations] Conspiracy To Rule The World  by Dan Smoot.  A third ad makes me want to go shop for this one:  Robert Welch’s The Politician, first out in 1963.

I hope you enjoy the new word-searchable, complete copy of CANADA How the Communists Took Control by Alan Stang, hosted here at “No Snow in Moscow,” the Canadian web site in Stang’s honor.  The pamphlet is also embedded on the About tab, top menu.

Oh, yes, and one great perk that came with the issue is the short blurb inside the front cover.  “About the author” says:

Alan Stang is a former business editor for Prentice-Hall, Inc., and has written, produced, and done research for network radio and television.  Mr. Stang is an AMERICAN OPINION Contributing Editor and is author of the Western Islands bestsellers, It’s Very Simple and The Actor.  Author Stang, who earned his B.A. at City College of New York and his Masters at Columbia University, spent months researching this article and interviewed authorities on the scene in Canada.

Reprints of this copyrighted article, Canada  by Alan Stang, are available at the following prices:  One to 99 copies, three for one dollar; 100-999 copies, twenty-five cents each; 1,000 or more copies, twenty cents each.

This article first appeared in AMERICAN OPINION magazine, a Conservative journal of opinion in April of 1971.  The subscription rate for AMERICAN OPINION, to any address in the United States, is ten dollars per year; twelve dollars to other countries.  For either reprints or subscriptions, address:

Belmont, Massachusetts 02178

Paul Fromm’s Edmund Burke Society was a National Police operation under Soviet Agent Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Part I)

Who is F. Paul Fromm?

This article will attempt to figure that out.  To that end, I ask:  If an organization is set up as a police front, isn’t whoever set it up working for the police?  And for those behind the police?  Who, in this case, happen to be Communists.

The answer to the question turns on whether or not the tactics of the EBS in May of 1971 were intended to protect Soviet Agent Lester Bowles Pearson, and the whole federal government apparatus in Canada from a communist clean-out.

Part I:
The Edmund Burke Society:  A Police Front.
A Police Front of the Communist-Penetrated
Federal Government

Alleged Policy of the EBS
F. Paul Fromm

Paul Fromm – His Edmund Burke Society was a national police operation under Lester Bowles Pearson

“One of the cardinal principles adopted by the EDMUND BURKE SOCIETY from its very foundation was that we would co-operate with other conservative and anti-communist groups.  We might feel that other groups might be too wishy-washy, too outspoken, poorly informed, or participating in dead-end causes or activities.  We vowed that we would seek to co-operate with such groups in areas of common interest.  We would not spend our time in fratricidal bickering and hair-splitting.  The fight against our strong and common enemy is far more important than petty differences as to method or personality.”

— By F. Paul Fromm, B.A., writing in “Only Pawns in their Game“, Straight Talk!, Volume III, Number 1, September 1970

That principle is echoed throughout the issues that Fromm edited.  But, notwithstanding this nobly phrased sentiment, Fromm as editor of Straight Talk!, “The Official Bulletin of the Edmund Burke Society”, and his writer Jaanus Proos, in their May 1971 issue, viciously attacked American anti-communist Allan Stang with lies bordering on slander, and mealy-mouthed tactics of the kind typically used to silence valid information exposing Communists.  In other words, these “free-speechers” lied about Stang and defamed him to squelch him.

Is God a Racist? Stanley R. Barrett

The fundamental assumption in Barrett’s book is that it is an outrage for “White” people to try to prevent their own extinction.

The Edmund Burke Society, according to left-wing author-professor Stanley R. Barrett, was a national security and police front set up in 1967 by more than one national security agency of Canada. Not mentioned by Barrett is the fact that Lester Bowles Pearson was then prime minister and Canada’s national police report directly to the prime minister and to the Justice department.

Also not mentioned, Barrett may not have known, Pearson was a Soviet agent exposed in the U.S. McCarran hearings and to the FBI by Elizabeth Bentley, while defecting from Soviet military intelligence, the GRU.  The U.S. McCarran hearings followed and were prompted by the Gouzenko spy trials in Canada.  Those “spy trials” left many questions unasked, and many spies untried, as three successive prime ministers put a squelch on most of the Gouzenko materials.  Those three prime ministers were Freemason John George Diefenbaker; Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson; and Communist Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  As of this writing, there is no indication the squelch was ever lifted.  Download the “Forerunners” segment of Is God A Racist?; it contains the grudging admission of Barrett that Fromm’s EBS was a national police front.

At the time of the Fromm-Proos attack on Stang, in May of 1971, the EBS would have been controlled by national police reporting to Communist Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and to Trudeau’s red Solicitor General (who also reported to Trudeau) Jean-Pierre Goyer.  In his April 1971 “Canada” exposé, Stang profiled Mr. Goyer:

Another thing you need if you are imposing a dictatorship is control of the police.  In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are controlled by the Solicitor-General.  So Trudeau made Jean-Pierre Goyer the Solicitor-General — when Parliament was not in session and could not question him.  Goyer, it goes without saying, was a regular contributor to Cité Libre. [Trudeau’s pro-Soviet review.]  Isn’t everybody?  He was once arrested for staging a sit-in outside the office of the Premier of Quebec.  He has been involved in several pro-Communist fronts.  And he has attended Communist meetings behind the Iron Curtain.  Like his friend Trudeau, he is a revolutionary.

This is the man now running the national police of Canada.

This is the man who is the “Boss” of the Edmund Burke Society when Proos attacks Allan Stang in May of 1971 to discredit Stang’s intended exposure of Soviet agent Pearson.

In fact, Fromm-Proos buffered their attack on Stang by admitting (an apparent tactic) the truth of Stang’s write-up on reds in the federal government, including  his exposé on their own secret boss, Goyer:

“Nevertheless, against these disadvantages, Stang has put together a commendable summary, covering the highly questionable backgrounds of Trudeau, Gagnon, Goyer, the F.L.Q., Praxis Corporation, and the “peace” Movement; dealing with facts long familiar to regular readers of STRAIGHT TALK!”

But, why the attack on Stang?  Stang and the John Birch Society planned a mass-mailing to Canadians to expose communist Pearson.

That Canadian mass-mailing intended by Stang and the JBS who published Stang’s Canada article in American Opinion in April 1971, is the target of paragraph one of the Fromm-Proos assault on Stang in the May 8th, 1971 issue of Straight Talk!, Volume III,Number 8.  Said Proos, with F. Paul Fromm, B.A. as Editor and Kastuś Akula, by the way, Associate Editor:

In the April issue of AMERICAN OPINION, the John Birch Society’s monthly publication, there was a 27-page article titled “CANADA: How the Communists took control”.  Its author, Alan Stang, diagnosed Canada to be in the same position today as Cuba was after the Castro takeover in 1959.  In its missionary zeal, the U.S.-based Birch Society has undertaken to warn the Canadian people of the impending disaster via a mass-mailing (around 100,000 copies) of the article to professionals and businessmen in Canada.  The scheme is to be financed through $25,000 raised in Canada and a like amount drawn from J.B.S. funds.

That mailing is what Fromm and Proos were afraid of.  The effect of their attack on Stang could only protect  Pearson from 100,000 letters to Canadians that would have exposed him as a Communist.  Imagine the inquiry and the federal clean-up that might have ensued in Canada if that mailing had been done.  Not only Pearson, but Goyer, Trudeau and the rest of the appointed and elected Reds would have been outed.

Moreover, Fromm had set up the Edmund Burke Society as a national police front under Communist Lester Pearson, thus, the attack on Stang to halt the mass-mailing spared Fromm and his EBS from exposure as faux “conservative” tools of the same band of Communists.

Jean-Pierre Goyer

Jean-Pierre Goyer was Solicitor General of Canada from Dec. 22, 1970 to Nov. 26, 1972

Jean-Pierre Goyer was Solicitor General of Canada from December 22, 1970 to November 26, 1972, in charge of the national police and national security of Canada.  Those were the national police agencies (plural) who set up the Edmund Burke Society in 1967 under Pearson and Goyer’s predecessors; Goyer himself reports to Communist Pierre Trudeau at the time Proos and Fromm attack anticommunist Alan Stang to protect Pearson — and the whole federal level — from a mailing to expose the Communists.

Obviously, Mr. Goyer was in charge of the “security” of the undisclosed Communists (and their handlers, the multinationals and the international bankers) who had (and still have) their grip on Canada.

Brian Ruhe has titled a filmed interview with Paul Fromm:  “Brian Ruhe & Paul Fromm: Jews Created the Canadian Nazi Party in 1965”.  The two parts of the film online, labeled part 1 of 1 and part 2 of 2, don’t actually deal with that subject, perhaps the middle was cut out that explains how the Jews supposedly did it.  But Fromm at the end of the film agrees with Ruhe that he likes the title “Brian Ruhe & Paul Fromm Jews Created the Canadian Nazi Party in 1965.”

By the end of part 2, Fromm states the Canadian Jewish Congress founded the Nazi party, and then eventually destroyed it, and that it was done as a pretext to pass hate-speech laws in Canada.  Fromm offers no details as to the modus operandi  of the Jews in setting up their little Nazi party.

We do know, from Adrien Arcand writing in 1965 in DOWN WITH HATE! that the royal commission on hate propaganda was a vehicle of the Canadian Jewish Congress; and that the CJC’s ex-president on that Hate committee, “Mr. Saul Hayes, Q.C., of the CJC”, made some enigmatic statements in a CJC publication concerning the Vatican Council II and the consequent future of Communism.  Devout Catholic Adrien Arcand wrote:

M. Hayes est aussi écrivain, à l’occasion.  L’été dernier, il faisait publier sa prose en première page du “Bulletin du Cercle Juif, organe officiel français du Congrès Juif Canadien.  L’occasion de son intervention littéraire était importante, il s’agissait de nous faire savoir ce que lui ou le CJC pensait du Concile Oecuménique Vatican II.  Entre autres considérations et conclusions du grand événement mondial, M. Saul Hayes écrivait donc (No. de juillet-août 1964):

Mr. Hayes is also a writer, on occasion.  Last summer, he published his prose on the front page of the “Bulletin du Cercle Juif“, the official French organ of the Canadian Jewish Congress.  The motive of his literary intervention was important, it was to let us know what he or the CJC thought of the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.  Among other considerations and conclusions from the great world event, Mr. Saul Hayes wrote (July-August issue, 1964):

Dans de telles conditions, la civilisation occidentale et chrétienne ne peut plus dominer le monde et le catholicisme doit faire face à de nouvelles forces tels (sic) que le communisme et l’athéisme”.

In such conditions, Western and Christian civilization can no longer dominate the world and Catholicism must confront new forces like Communism and atheism”.

I know from my own research that the other CJC ex-president on the Hate Committee, Maxwell Cohen, was a pro-red Zionist; according to a brief to the federal government in 1956, Cohen was paid to smear Senator Joseph McCarthy by the Canadian CBC and various publications.  That news comes from Ron Gostick, with whom Fromm claims to have been associated.  Thus, the royal committee on hate propaganda seems to have been a vehicle of pro-Communist Jews.  All the more so, if Judaism cannot be separated from Communism, the latter being a device of the former to achieve the aims of the Talmud.  Please read Arcand.

Now, if Mr. Fromm is willing to say that the Jews set up Canada’s Nazi party in 1965; he cannot then deny the viability of the accusation quoted by Barrett that he himself set up the Edmund Burke Society as a national police front (more below).  Nor the observation by me that he did it under Soviet agent Lester Bowles Pearson as his primary employer, and therefore that Paul Fromm and his EBS were a conduit for communist moles, and merely pretended to attack the Communists.


Author Stanley R. Barrett, in his book, Is God a Racist?, describes the founding of the Edmund Burke Society (EBS), which he says at pages 70-71 was set up as a national police front via campus security.  There is a copy of some of the book in google books online.  It was originally published in 1987 by the University of Toronto Press.  I got myself a used paperback from Amazon for about two bucks, ISBN 0-8020-6673-9; I have a 1989 reprint. You can download the extract, “Forerunners”.  Here are the relevant excerpts:


/ 49

“In February 1967 three young men sat around a counter at a coffee shop in Toronto’s Lord Simcoe Hotel.  They had just attended a meeting of the Canadian Alliance for Free Enterprise (CAFE), an organization inspired by the conservative writings of Ayn Rand.  The shared view of the three men was that CAFE was a ‘talk group’.  They believed, in contrast, that the danger of communism and the disintegration of Western society demanded action.   The upshot was the decision to establish a new organization, one that could canalize ‘militant conservative activism.’  In this way was born The Edmund Burke Society.

The three founding members were Donald Andrews, Paul Fromm, and Leigh Smith, at the time public-health inspector, University of Toronto student, and secondary-school teacher respectively.  Although all three were solidly middle class, their backgrounds were quite different, as were their eventual right-wing careers.  Andrews, born in Yugoslavia, came to Canada under circumstances that can only be described as poignant.  His father, a partisan during the Second World War, had been killed by German soldiers.  His mother married a Canadian serviceman and emigrated to Canada, leaving behind her son, whose whereabouts were unknown.  Finally, she located him, with the help of the Red Cross, and at the age of about ten Canada became his new home.  Fromm, whose father was an accountant for an oil company, was born in Colombia [Bogota], although his ancestry is French Canadian and German.  Only Smith was born in Canada, the youngest of a large family in Quebec.”



/ 53

“There is little doubt that the college campuses, especially the University of Toronto, were the center of Edmund Burke Society activity, and that the man of the hour was Paul Fromm.”



/ 70

“I now turn to a rather sensitive issue:  the possible involvement of the police in establishing the Edmund Burke Society.  In 1982 while carrying out research in British Columbia, I came across a document that threw quite a different light on this organization.  According to the document, the Edmund Burke Society was actually set up as an instrument for Canada’s security services in order to draw out the left wing and crystallize its right-wing opposition.  The kingpin behind all this was supposedly a military man, trained at one point by a CIA anti-subversive squad, who had been active in university-campus security for the armed forces in the late 1960s.  Working along with him was a ‘red squad,’ a common term in police circles for a group of people organized and trained to infiltrate organizations, act as agents provocateurs, and generally undermine the left wing by various ‘dirty tricks.’

How serious [sic] should one take these charges?  At the outset it must be pointed out that most of the information in the document consists of the speculations of a man who had been fired from the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation for allegedly showing a cabinet document to the Native Council of Canada (he later won a court case for wrongful

/ 71

dismissal).  It could reasonably be argued that this man had no reason to love the state bureaucracy.  And yet, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that lends plausibility to his accusations.  There are, for example, newspaper reports of his dismissal and trial, as well as the military man’s role in campus security.  Several of those said to belong to the ‘red squad’ were, indeed, members of the Edmund Burke Society.  Moreover, I know for a fact that at least two of them have over the years been police informers.  Finally, the document itself was submitted to an inquiry about the RCMP by a Progressive Conservative MP.  If the charges in the document are fanciful, the person who prepared it should be congratulated for his imaginative powers.  However, if the RCMP and other police agencies did not control the Edmund Burke Society behind the scenes, perhaps there will be someone in the top echelons asking:  why not?!”

Note the activity here:  “According to the document, the Edmund Burke Society was actually set up as an instrument for Canada’s security services in order to draw out the left wing and crystallize its right-wing opposition.”  Our Communist-occupied federal government appointed Fromm to “crystallize” and “draw out” two opposing sides.  Note that Fromm’s career will be occupied in efforts to “crystallize” and “polarize” two more opposing sides:  the “Rest of Canada” (in the form of political parties opposed to Quebec) … in order to “negotiate” the dismantling of Canada with the red political party created in Quebec by the Pearson fed in 1967, meaning, necessarily, the North American Union; because the reds are aiming for decentralization of the nation-state into city-states, Communist  multicultural city-state regions under a one-world government).

Barrett concludes in the middle of the next section:

“[…] the Edmund Burke Society’s significance should not be underrated; it provided the training ground for the two principal figures who were to dominate the scene during the years ahead:  Andrews on the far right and Fromm on the fringe right.”

The fact that Barrett did not footnote this material — obviously to protect his “right-wing” “racist” theory — adds credibility to the allegations.  His theory being, in the chapter “Forerunners”, that the tiny Canadian Nazi party (1965) and Fromm’s Edmund Burke Society (1967) were grass-roots operations that were symptomatic of what Barrett considers “right-wing” extremism taking root in Canada.  Perhaps Barrett was concerned that if he didn’t at least make the admission that the EBS was a police front, someone else might find “the document” that he himself had found, and discredit his book.

Despite Barrett’s blackout on the identities of the men involved in his grudging exposé, I have managed to identify the man who was fired from the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, whom Barrett says exposed the EBS as a police front.  That man was Walter Rudnicki.

And I have managed to identify the MP who I think submitted Rudnicki’s document to an inquiry about the RCMP.  That man was Frank Oberle, Senior, a Progressive-Conservative MP from Prince George-Peace River.

In this short segment from the Commons Debates of October 31, 1977 (pages 487-488) (you can find them online in, Oberle Sr. says:

“Hon. members will recall the case I made when my friend, Walter Rudnicki, was indeed tried and convicted without a chance to defend himself.  A brilliant civil service career was destroyed.  His family life was interrupted by this government simply because he was identified as a subversive.  He was fired from the public service.”

That identifies Oberle as linked with Rudnicki.  A very strong indication that I do have the right MP is the additional material in the same Federal Hansard from October 1977, where Oberle provides the House of Commons with a useful snapshot of Canada’s multiple security forces, and identifies the civilian force that Barrett calls the ‘red squads’ which were used along with the EBS in the campus-based police operation at U of T to set up a right-wing front in Canada.  Our PC member from Prince George-Peace River, in the Commons Debates of October 31, 1977, narrates.  (See Hansard, page 487.)

Mr. F. Oberle:
Commons Debates of 31 October 1977, page 487

Commons Debates of 31 October 1977, page 487

Top left column of the page of Hansard above:

“Let us for a moment consider what is meant by the term security forces.  Take a look at some of them.  We must be specific.  Apart from the RCMP law enforcement agency, the federal agency, there is, of course, what we know as the security service which is responsible to the Commissioner of the RCMP but which has a very special task, that of reacting to subversives, terrorists and so on.  This is an intelligence agency within the RCMP.

Then there is another security force which is called the security analysis group and which operates under the auspices of the Solicitor General.  Perhaps I may quote a former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), explaining its functions on September 21, 1971.  He said the purpose was to study the nature, origin, and causes of subversive and revolutionary action, its objectives and techniques, as well as measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats.


Furthermore, the task of this particular security force is to compile and analyze information on subversive and revolutionary groups and other activities, to investigate the nature and scope of the internal threat to Canadians, and to plan measures to counteract those threats.  The Solicitor General told us repeatedly that this particular group was not an operational group.  We know better.  As my hon. friend from the Yukon has clearly shown, this group is indeed an operational police force.  It recruits and trains agents to provoke actions within unions and on university campuses, to infiltrate right wing and left wing societies, to encourage them to demonstrate on the streets, and to promote acts which are normally illegal

Now that we have an idea as to the kind of security forces which are operating in this country I ask the question:  why is it necessary sometimes, as the Prime Minister says, for these agencies to break the law?”

We have thus identified as fact, thanks to a sitting MP, that security services of Canada do recruit “agents” “on university campuses” for clandestine operations.  Fromm was on a university campus (Saint Michael’s College, U of T) when he set up the Edmund Burke Society in 1967, and which Barrett grudgingly admits was a national security front.

The two worst Communists openly denounced by EBS were in fact running the EBS through control over Canada’s national security and police apparatus in 1971
when Fromm and Proos attacked Stang to stop the mass-mailing

Solicitors General over RCMP et als, over EBS
Lawrence Pennell under Pearson July 7, 1965 – April 20, 1968
John Napier Turner under Trudeau April 20, 1968 – July 5, 1968
George James McIlraith under Trudeau July 6, 1968 – December 21, 1970
Jean-Pierre Goyer under Trudeau December 22, 1970 – November 26, 1972

It’s interesting that a fifth Solicitor-general in office after the Western Guard has taken over from the EBS in an attempted “purge of police spies” according to author Stanley R. Barrett, is none other than current president of the World Federalists, the “Liberal” Warren Allmand, a signatory to the UNPA, a world petition for an elected assembly at the United Nations.

This “elected” world government (forced into place by two banker-financed wars to set up the League of Nations and then the U.N.) would cement the century-long coup on our countries with the appearance of democracy, called “democratism” by Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Warren Allmand under Trudeau November 27, 1972 – September 13, 1976

Francis Fox, Solicitor-general after Goyer and also under Trudeau, appears in the October 31st Hansard of the Commons Debates on the RCMP question.  Fox was in office (now a cabinet post) from September 14, 1976 – January 27, 1978.

According to Wikipedia (page last modified on 9 December 2016, at 00:56):

“The Solicitor General of Canada was a position in the Canadian ministry from 1892 to 2005.  The position was based on the Solicitor General in the British system and was originally designated as an officer to assist the Minister of Justice.”

In February of 1967  when Paul Fromm and his colleagues founded the Edmund Burke Society, Louis Cardin was justice Minister; barely two months later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Justice Minister.

However, Trudeau was present with Pearson from the outset.  Having been elected from the “safe” (majority Jewish) Mount Royal riding in Montreal, Red Pierre assumed the facade of a Member of Parliament on November 8th, 1965.  On arriving in Ottawa, Trudeau was appointed parliamentary secretary to Soviet agent, Prime Minister Lester Pearson; Trudeau became Justice Minister on April 4, 1967.  In March of 1967, the Edmund Burke Society held its first public meeting (Barrett, p. 52).

Moreover, when Trudeau worked for Pearson, the design was already in place to catapult Trudeau into the PMO, underlining the organic alignment between Communist Pierre Trudeau and Soviet agent Pearson.  Sources indicate that Pearson was dying of cancer.  That nonetheless changes nothing of the fact that Pearson danced a quick-step to keep Canada under control in the hands of a trusted protégé.

As Alan Stang observes in his April 1971 article, a manoeuvre he calls “The Big Switch” took place.  Czar-like, Trudeau inherited Pearson’s top office by default.

Indeed, Trudeau was both Prime Minister and Justice Minister in December of 1967 when Pearson announced his intention to retire and Pierre stepped into Pearson’s shoes as de facto  Prime Minister of Canada.  The whole of Canada’s national police and security establishment thus reported to Pierre Trudeau, the Communist.  It had previously reported to Lester Bowles Pearson, aka “Mike”, a Soviet agent.

If you don’t believe Trudeau was a ommunist, read his editorials in Le Devoir  in 1952.  See my exclusive English translation of Trudeau’s 7-part series, “I’m Back From Moscow”, on his communist-financed trip to the 1952 Moscow economic summit, a Soviet intelligence front.  Yes, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, while employed in Canada’s Privy Council Office as a junior researcher and adviser to Prime Minister Louis Saint-Laurent (who told the U.N. in 1946 that it was “the basis” of the coming “world government”), led a Communist delegation organized by the Communist Party of Canada to a Moscow Economic Summit organized by V.V. Kuznetsov of Soviet Intelligence.

Allan Stang, in CANADA How The Communists Took Control, paints this picture of Pierre Trudeau, an obviously Communist junior adviser at the time of his employment in the Privy Council Office of Louis Saint-Laurent:

“Indeed, so obvious was the nature of the forthcoming conference that in December, 1951, then-Canadian Justice Minister Stuart Garson warned all Cabinet Ministers that it was a Communist operation, and advised that government employees should not attend.

The conference was held in April, 1952.  Of the 471 delegates, 132 were from officially Communist countries.  Observers at the time estimated that 300 of the remaining 339 were known or suspected Party members – which left 39 or so for window dressing.

Marcus Leslie Hancock, one of the six delegates from Canada [led by Trudeau], says the Canadian delegation was organized by the Canadian Communist Party, which also paid the delegates’ bills.  Hancock, then a Communist, says that everyone else he knew in the delegation was also a Party member.”

In April OF 1968, a Liberal convention picked Pierre Elliott Trudeau as Pearson’s official successor.  Apparently proving that Canada has no real intelligence; it has long been hijacked.

Along with the Prime Minister’s Office, Trudeau inherited control of the national police, which necessarily included personal supervision of an operation known as The Edmund Burke Society.

An Effort to Purge “Police Spies”

Barrett accounts in part for the emergence of the Western Guard out of the Edmund Burke Society, starting at page 75 (and keep in mind, Barrett has admitted the allegation that the EBS was a police front; but he now sails on, presuming it was merely a grass-roots movement):

“The emergence of the Western Guard was a clear sign that the radicals in the Edmund Burke Society had won out over the more moderate sector, and a direct consequence was the resignation of several members, notably Paul Fromm.  Although Fromm eventually went on to establish a variety of organizations that paralleled the philosophy of the moribund Edmund Burke Society, he remained a member of the militant Western Guard for almost three months after the council decision had been taken to create it.  At a banquet held in Toronto in April 1972, attended by a leading member of the Ku Klux Klan, from Michigan, Fromm gave the opening address (Toronto Sun, 1 May 1972).  In that same month, he spoke to a group of high-school students in Arnprior under the auspices of the Western Guard (Straight Talk, vol. 4, no. 7, April 1972).  The announcement of the name change had appeared in the March issue of Straight Talk, but in the April issue Fromm [page 76] was still listed as the Editor.  It was not until the next issue (May-June 1972) that he ceased being the editor, and a note appeared announcing his resignation.  No other comment was made then, but in the July issue there was a lengthy report on his resignation, revealing that it had been a very bitter affair.  Apparently, there had been an agreement whereby Fromm would promise not to establish another right-wing organization, nor would he announce his resignation from the Western Guard to the press.  However, Fromm did in fact give a press release, and Western Guard officials were of the opinion that he was trying to reconstruct the Edmund Burke Society, and to retain Straight Talk as its organ (Fromm had the mailing list for subscribers.  Moreover, they claimed that Fromm had made off with $400 from the Western Guard treasury.  The parting shot was the accusation that he had arranged to have a female member of the right wing arrested at one of his meetings in June 1972.  This was a friend of Geza Matrai, the man who attacked Kosygin in 1971.”

Barrett now returns (page 77) to the allegations of (Walter Rudnicki) referred to at the end of his previous chapter.

Finally, an intriguing explanation for the emergence of the Western Guard, as well as for Fromm’s resignation, concerns the alleged involvement of some of Canada’s police agencies in establishing the Edmund Burke Society in the first place.  According to the document about this matter referred to in the last chapter, a faction of the Edmund Burke Society eventually rebelled against the police agencies’ close control over its activities.  This faction expelled Fromm and and the principal (undercover) police agent, and founded the Western Guard.  The latter, of course, was to be free from police influence, but the document in question states that some members of the ‘red squad’ remained in the Western Guard.  Moreover, by 1975, an agent provocateur had worked his way into the organization, eventually playing a crucial role in putting Andrews behind bars.  I suppose it could be argued that the determined actions on the part of the police to imprison Andrews merely confirmed that the had earlier been in control of the right-wing organization, and were miffed when the Western Guard shunted them aside.  That, however, strikes me as far-fetched.  Somewhat more plausible evidence of the involvement of the police, but still far from concrete, was Fromm’s own statement that he resigned partly ‘because of the growing lack of security in the Western Guard’.  Indeed, at a Social Credit meeting at the end of February 1972, members of the newly formed Western Guard reportedly informed the Socreds that the change had been made ‘as a move to purge police spies and other undesirables’ who had managed to infiltrate the Edmund Burke Society (Globe and Mail, 28 February 1982).

Barrett manages in that last scenario to make it seem as though Fromm himself was opposed to the police infiltration.  This contradicts Barrett’s earlier observations, drawn from the (Rudnicki) document, that (1) the EBS was set up as a police front, and not merely infiltrated later, although subsequent infiltration did take place; (2) Fromm was the man of the hour when the campus agent for the national police saw to the setting up of the EBS.

Said Baarrett at page 53:

“There is little doubt that the college campuses, especially the University of Toronto, were the center of Edmund Burke Society activity, and that the man of the hour was Paul Fromm.”

Unless Fromm himself, from the University of Toronto campus, was a police agent, and a stoolie for the reds under Pearson who needed to create and polarize “left” and “right” movements in Canada (obviously to use  them); then the EBS could not have been set up; neither of the other two visible founders was from a campus.  Therefore, Fromm’s alleged statement that he resigned from the Western Guard over ‘security’ (police-spy) issues, would be self-serving and tactical.

However, what is truly interesting about the “police spy” allegations in the (Rudnicki) document that Barrett refers to, are the known facts that:  the EBS was set up by the national police (for a federal government under penetrated Communist control) in 1967.  And Pierre Elliott Trudeau, while a cabinet minister in the same Pearson cabal was part of a “secret committee” at Power Corporation of Canada which also in 1967 ordered René Lévesque to set up the Parti Québécois (PQ).  These are two federal operations:  a designer Communist party for Quebec; and a designer “far-right” party for the “Rest of Canada”.

The Parti Québécois is communist; its 1972 manifesto is Communist (free download in the sidebar).  You could hardly set up a Communist party to break up Canada without also creating right-wing subversion in the rest of the country, ready to “negotiate” with it after a “Yes” in a referendum.


To wrap this segment up, referring to the 100,000-piece mailing planned by the John Birch Society (“The John Birch Society Looks at Trudeau:  A Review by Jaanus Proos”, Straight Talk! Volume III, Number 8, May 1971), Janus Proos warns:

“Should the scheme come to fruition, flooding our nation with yet another round of ‘hate literature’ against our swinging P.M., both the ‘CANADA’ article and the J.B.S. will be smeared to no end.  Of concern to active Canadian anti-communists, particularly the Edmund Burke Society, is the overflow of indignation and disbelief that will reach beyond the J.B.S. to the entire anti-communist movement, in fact, to anyone suggesting that communism poses a threat to Canada.”

Yes, do not mass-mail 100,000 warnings to the Canadian electorate that Pearson is a Communist, it will “harm” the anticommunist movement!  It won’t be believed!  The hypocrisy of this line stands in stark contrast to the reality known to Editor Mr. Paul Fromm and apparently soon forgotten by his readers.  Note that Proos says “yet another”.  When had a mailing been done before?

In his 2005 obituary entitled “Ron Gostick, R.I.P.”, penned for On Target, journal of the Australian League of Rights (ALOR) and published on 26 August 2005, Paul Fromm pats Gostick on the back for a far bigger mass-mailing exposing none other than Red Pierre Trudeau in 1968.  Here is Paul Fromm, verbatim:

“In 1968, a new comet flashed across the firmament of Canadian politics.  His name was Pierre Trudeau.  The press promoted him as a fresh breath in Canadian politics, a change from the World War I generation of old war horses like John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson.  Trudeau, Canadians were told, was trendy, irreverent, prone to wearing a cape or posing holding a rose rakishly in his mouth.  Pat Walsh, a veteran as an undercover agent in communist circles in the Province of Quebec, recognized Trudeau and some of his associates.  He’d briefly flirted with the NDP.  Trudeau was far more to the left than the press was telling Canadians.  Ron Gostick did an extraordinary thing.  While the press gushed about Trudeau image and antics, he actually read what Trudeau had written and researched his activities.  He found in Trudeau an admirer of Castro and Mao, a man who had visited Red China in the early 1960s at the depths of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ famine, and returned gushing with admiration.  Ron Gostick published his findings and, assisted with the list of Liberal convention delegates supplied by the disgruntled Paul Martin Sr’s campaign, he began to circulate his warnings.  Hundreds of thousands of the relevant pamphlets were distributed.  In Toronto, Tory Senator Wallace McCutcheon funded the reprinting of perhaps 60,000 leaflets derived from Mr. Gostick’s work by the fledgling Edmund Burke Society of which I was a member.

I had first met Mr. Gostick the year before at a lecture at a downtown hotel.  I was immediately impressed by his knowledge and methodology:  quoting important sources and offering an illuminating commentary.  Mr. Gostick’s warning about Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s affection for communism, his totalitarian streak and his eagerness to change Canadian society brought him a torrent of abuse.  He was denounced as a “hatemonger.”  As has happened in so many instances since, his opponents didn’t say he was wrong, didn’t argue with his facts.  They simply hollered ‘hate’ and said he shouldn’t have said those things.  Within a few years, it became obvious that Ron Gostick’s warnings were more than valid.  Not until the early ’70s did a few right of centre journalists like Lubor Zink and Peter Worthington dare to say what Ron Gostick had said in 1968.”

My, oh my.  Alan Stang “dared” to say it of Pearson in 1971 and was flamed for it by Proos and Fromm, whose EBS had allegedly participated in that same Gostick mass-mailing.

Proos alleged the mailing would damage the anticommunist movement.

In “Frightening Canadian Federal Elections,” for The New Times, Vol. 34, No. 7, July 1968 (Australian League of Rights — ALOR), Eric D. Butler gives a different history of that mailing of Pat Walsh’a material on Trudeau by Gostick, and its outcome.

First, so effective was the mailing on Trudeau by Gostick that Butler reports, in his highlighted opening paragraph:

“Mr. Ron Gostick, director of the Canadian League of Rights, played a major role in the elections.  If it had not been for the tremendous campaign initiated by Mr. Gostick, the Trudeau victory would have been astronomical.  But as Mr. (Eric) Butler reports, there is every sign of a major conservative grass-roots upsurge.”

Butler then tells the story of the “Frightening” Canadian elections of 1968, the Trudeaumania, the exploitation of teenagers with a spectacle approaching mass mysteria in some quarters, the absence of a platform, and Red Pierre Trudeau’s “deep and well-organized support inside the mass media”.  However, said Walsh:

“… a development of the greatest significance started to take place.  There was an increasing flood of demands right across Canada for The Canadian Intelligence Services issue on Mr. Trudeau.  The flood reached tidal proportions and Canadian Intelligence Publications could not meet the demand.  Some groups were authorized to reprint.  Others did not bother to seek permission to republish.  A grass-roots development was now taking place, which had broken the boycott of silence by the mass media.  Mr. Trudeau’s strategists then decided that something had to be done.”

F. Paul Fromm, B.A. and Janus Proos obviously knew how successful a mass-mailing could be.  While Proos claimed it would harm the anticommunist movement, he forgot to say that the mailing the EBS itself took part in (unless they delivered their own 60,000 copies to a dumpster), created not disbelief but tremendous interest among Canadians who had been betrayed by their left-leaning media.  The truth comes out when Eric Butler writes about the “Frightening Canadian Federal Elections”.

Proos and Fromm smeared American anticommunist Alan Stang to prevent a Canadian mass-mailing.  They smeared him to protect Soviet agent Pearson, and the Communist penetration of the federal government for which they, themselves were working.

They smeared Allan Stang by alleging he had published a forgery in CANADA How The Communists Took Control!  Said Proos:

“A telegram, reproduced on the article’s centerfold, reputed to have been sent by Jean-Louis Gagnon is an outright forgery.  A similar telegram was sent but not this one.”

Stang’s head must have spun, the telegram he published in American Opinion was identical to the telegram Straight Talk!  published in a parallel issue that same month of April 1971.

In the next installment of this exposé on Paul Fromm, stooge for the Reds, I will show you the two identical telegrams.

… To be continued.

Read Eric D. Butler’s “Frightening Canadian Federal Elections,” for The New Times, Vol. 34, No. 7, July 1968 (Australian League of Rights – ALOR)

Read some of the material Pat Walsh and Ron Gostick circulated on Red Pierre Trudeau in 1968:  ““Trudeau Spearheading Fabian Takeover””, Canadian Intelligence Service (private publication) VOL. 18 — NO. 3 Flesherton, Ontario, March, 1968

In the sidebar:  Exclusive English translation of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec, under “industrial democracy,” the “true heir to Karl Marx” on the program of the Socialist International.

SUBSCRIBE.  I’m a researcher.  What I learn, you learn.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Fidel Castro met in 1960:  The Real Canoe Escapade Revealed in Trudeau’s DVD Memoirs

Once upon a time in Canada, you and I were lied to, over and over again.  The Trudeau fairy tale is one long lie from start to end.  Official accounts of Trudeau’s 1960 canoe stunt off the Florida Keys are just one instance of the endless fabrications that have been sold as “history”.  Here is the real story, from Red Pierre, himself.

Communist Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Communist Dictator Fidel Castro reminisce together for Trudeau's Memoirs

Communist Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Communist Dictator Fidel Castro reminisce together for Trudeau’s Memoirs about their meeting together in 1960.  Castro is saying, You should have brought me “an aircraft carrier.”

Trudeau Memoirs - DVD set, co-produced with staff of the CBC

Trudeau Memoirs – DVD set, co-produced with staff of the CBC

UPDATE!Download Key West Canoe Coverage 1960 in a zip file.

Read the stories here:  Canadians Plan Canoe Trip To Cuba By Don Daniels.


When Did Pierre Trudeau and Fidel Castro
meet for the first time?

The Official Story:  they first met in 1976

Robert Wright, the author of Three Nights in Havana, contributed an opinion piece to The Globe and Mail on 26 November 2016, updated 11 April 2017; accessed 2 October 2019:  “Castro and Trudeau:  a famous, but also fraught friendship.”

In a three-paragraph segment, Wright establishes the “first time” Trudeau and Castro “crossed paths” (1970) and their subsequent alleged first meeting on a state visit to Cuba when Trudeau was prime minister:

“Pierre Trudeau’s and Fidel Castro’s paths crossed for the first time in 1970, when the Canadian government sought to negotiate the exile of members of the FLQ, who had kidnapped British trade commissioner James Cross.  Fidel Castro obliged the Canadian PM by providing a refuge, and in a private letter Mr. Trudeau later extended his heartfelt gratitude.

In January, 1976, when it looked as though the United States was about to lift its trade embargo and normalize relations between Washington and Havana, Pierre Trudeau embarked on a state visit to Cuba.  Practically from the moment he stepped off his Armed Forces Boeing 707, Mr. Trudeau, his wife Margaret and his newborn son Michel endeared themselves to Fidel Castro and vice-versa.  Three days later, it became obvious that the two leaders had become fast friends.”

The National Post is a bit more precise, although the title is half the length of the article:  “No, internet, Fidel Castro isn’t Trudeau’s real father.  The Canadian prime minister just really, really looks like him” by Tristin Hopper, February 14, 2017, 1:59 PM EST; Last Updated February 14, 2017 6:08 PM EST.  Accessed 2 October 2019.  Two paragraphs of note:

“Meanwhile, any personal contact between Castro and the Trudeaus was still years away.  By early 1971, the only real contact between the prime minister’s office and Cuba had been a 1970 exchange of letters during the October Crisis to arrange the exile of FLQ terrorists.

The spear-fishing trips, the ‘Viva Castro!’ speeches, the glowing descriptions in Margaret and Pierre’s autobiographies; those would all come following Pierre and Margaret Trudeau’s first meeting with Castro in 1976.”

The REAL Story:  Pierre and Fidel met in 1960

Sixteen years before their alleged first meeting in 1976, Pierre Elliott Trudeau “encountered” Fidel Castro while apparently only pretending to “fail” in a bid to row a three-man, home-made canoe to Havana.

The true historic moment is revealed in a 1-minute, 25-second clip from Volume I of Pierre Trudeau’s DVD Memoirs, featured at this page along with a transcript.

The voice-over is apparently by Terence McKenna, who according to the production credits at the end of the full-length installment, wrote and narrated the Trudeau Memoirs for this big-production 10-GB epic sold on DVD.

The documentary was produced by Les Productions La Fête Inc. in association with The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and La Société Radio-Canada (the French-language CBC) with the participation of Téléfilm Canada. Trudeau himself, interviewed in studio and filmed revisiting the scenes of his past with old red colleagues, Gérard Pelletier and Fidel Castro, collaborates in this production to commemorate his life.

Someone has put the whole first segment, Trudeau Memoirs V1, at Youtube.  The 1960 canoe-trip to Cuba is in that segment @ 36 minutes 24 seconds in.  If it’s missing from Youtube, you can view the full-length Volume 1 of the Memoirs here:

If the canoe clip excerpt is missing from YouTube, you can view it here:

Download the canoe clip in a zip file.


[ Male Voice-over by Terence McKenna: ]

Some of Trudeau’s travels in the 1950s contributed to his reputation as a radical.  He didn’t worry about it.  He attended an economics conference in Moscow and wrote about it for Le Devoir.1  He would eventually visit Communist China, and he came here to Cuba in the early days of the Castro regime.  All this at a time when anti-Communist hysteria was raging in North America.

His 1961 [sic] attempt to row a gerry-rigged canoe from Florida to Cuba was a source of great amusement to Fidel Castro, whom Trudeau encountered at the time, and with whom he eventually developed a close friendship.

[ A retired Trudeau, at a table with Castro, is heard reminiscing in Spanish. ]

[ Male Voice-over by Terence McKenna continues, clearly interpreting the Spanish conversation: ]

Trudeau was accused of trying to smuggle arms to the Cuban revolutionaries in his canoe.

Castro says it would have been more useful at the time if Trudeau had brought him an aircraft carrier.

[ Trudeau and Fidel embrace and take leave of each other. ]

[ Male Voice-over by Terence McKenna continues: ]

Trudeau’s trips to the Communist world and his reputation as a radical are amusing now; but back then, they had serious consequences.


The Year Trudeau met Castro was 1960, and
Here’s the Proof

Terence McKenna says “1961” is the year of Trudeau’s “attempt to row a gerry-rigged canoe from Florida to Cuba”.  The year is wrong.  It could have been a typographical error, or a slip while McKenna was reading the script he wrote.  But, the canoe stunt and the Quebec election of Jean Lesage both took place in 1960.  I have an article here on that election:  “June 22nd 1960 — the Election of Jean Lesage”.  Also see:  “The Quebec Elections of 1960 – Lesage Minority ‘Liberals’ Make First Attempt at a Communist Plan”.

Other Trudeau biographers and sources on Trudeau confirm the canoe escapade took place in 1960.  Here are some of them:

Max and Monique Nemni, two official biographers of Pierre Trudeau (and two fellow Reds), confirm the year of the canoe escapade was 1960 in Trudeau Transformed: The Shaping of a Statesman 1944-1965.  (Volume Two of Trudeau, Son of Quebec, Father of Canada, translated by George Tombs, A Douglas Gibson Book, McClelland & Stewart, 2011)  They also identify Trudeau’s two rowing companions:

“With all this excitement, one might think that Trudeau would stay in Quebec, at least until the elections.  But no.  He threw himself into a crazy scheme, dreamed up and meticulously organized by Alphonse Gagnon, director of Gagnon Frères, a Chicoutimi furniture store.  On April 29, 1960, the Key West Citizen of Florida reported that three men — Alphonse Gagnon, Pierre Trudeau, and Val Francoeur — planned to take a canoe from Florida to Cuba in twenty-four hours:  ‘The technique calls for one man paddling in conventional fashion while another lies backward in the boat and rows with oars attached to his feet.  The third man rests.  They plan shifts of two hours on the oars and one resting and will switch positions for each shift.’  These daredevils for­tunately took the precaution of being escorted by another boat.  On Monday, May 2, the Montreal Star reported the adventure had come to an end:  They had covered 50 miles of the 90 miles distance across the rough Florida straights (sic) when they quit Saturday night.  The three said they would have continued if the salt water had not put their flash­lights out of commission.  They feared they might lose their escort boat in the darkness.’  Trudeau returned to Quebec and became active once more in the struggle to bring about democracy in Quebec.”

The millionaires brought flashlights that weren’t water-proof on a sea-going exploit.  Sure.

Before we move on, I have to clarify, When the Nemnis say “Trudeau returned to Quebec and became active once more in the struggle to bring about democracy in Quebec,” they mean “industrial democracy,” also called “participation” or “worker control,” the form of communism at that time in Tito’s Yugoslavia and long promoted in Canada by the NDP (Trudeau’s first political party).  This is the same “participation” referred to in Quand nous seront vraiment chez nous (I now call my English, “When we are truly on our own”); see my translation of the 1972 PQ manifesto, linked in the sidebar.  This is what the “separatists” (communists) have been working on for decades and still is the goal today:  third-world Communism for Canada.)  Sometimes, things are so bad, all I can do is make a cartoon about them; this link is caricature and satire based on the truth (industrial democracy):  Jagmeet Singh, the NDP and World Government.

Back to the canoe.  I contacted the Key West Citizen of Florida newspaper, hoping to buy a scan of their article, and any follow-up.  However, the Citizen hasn’t got those old issues any more.  Library and Archives Canada claims not to have them, either.  Local Key West libraries also claimed they were not on microfilm, which despite the listing to 1976 only goes to 1954.

The Montreal Star article quoted by the Nemnis was titled:  “Stormy Seas Spell Defeat for Canoeists”.  It appeared on Monday May 2nd, 1960 on page 49.  The issue is preserved on Microfilm:  Roll 664, The Montreal Star, 1960 May 1-15, NJ.FM.821, AMICUS No. 8404664 by Preston Microfilming Services, 2215 Queen St., East, Toronto, Ontario, M4E 1E8.

Robert Wright, in his book, Three Nights in Havana, excerpted for the National Post (Latest Edition) on 28 Apr 2007 as “Halfway to Havana” (Press Reader) notes:

“On the first day of May 1960, just a year after Fidel Castro’s visit to Montreal, two 40-something Canadian millionaires and a 30-something friend set out to paddle a homemade canoe from Key West to Havana.”

The Ottawa Citizen of January 12, 2008 confirms the year as 1960:

“On the first day of May 1960, Trudeau and two other Montrealers tried to paddle a home-made canoe from Key West to Havana.  No match for the powerful currents, pound­ing waves and blistering sun of the Strait of Florida, the three exhausted Canadians agreed to abandon the crossing the next day.”

Trudeau’s other official biographer, John English (fellow member of the CIIA, Canadian branch of the international bankers’ world-government front in London, the RIIA, headquarters of the Rhodes Scholarships—the CFR in the USA being a “sister institute”), confirms the canoe-trip year as 1960:

“Certainly, he made himself difficult to contact — a small canoe in the middle of the ocean could not have been more impossible to reach — as the forces of opposition to Duplessis swelled behind Lesage and his team.

Once the Cuban canoe escapade was over, Trudeau returned to Montreal and wrote an editorial in Cité Libre  that appeared before the election of Jean Lesage on June 22, 1960.”

Nino Ricci, in his ‘Extraordinary Canadians:  Pierre Elliott Trudeau,’ confirms the canoe escapade took place during the 1960 election campaign in Quebec:

“Even Cite Libre  was slipping from him, caught up in a factionalism to which his own anti-nationalist views had given rise.  The moment had come for change, and he had not been part of it.  When the chance had come to replace the Union Nationale after Duplessis’s death, several of Trudeau’s colleagues and friends had run for the Lesage Liberals as René Lévesque had.  Trudeau, however, had been down in Key West during the campaign, attempting to paddle to Cuba in a homemade canoe.  Lévesque later claimed that Trudeau, too, had been asked to run, but others said he had never been approached.”

And, one more time:  the naive Edith Iglauer, who gushes over Trudeau, is recorded by The Free Library in “Pierre Trudeau: Champion of a Just Society” (Circa 2000):

“The attraction of Cuba for Trudeau began as early as 1960, when he made a legendary if unsuccessful attempt when he was forty with two Montreal friends to row in an experimental canoe from Key West, Florida, to Havana.  Trudeau is said to have lain on his back in the vessel, working oars with his feet while his two companions steered and rowed with what would appear in photographs to be traditional oars.  The second morning out, about half way across the turbulent Florida Straits, three very seasick men gave up.”

As we now know from his DVD Memoirs, the “attempt” was indeed “successful”:  for “Trudeau encountered” Castro at the time.

In his book, Three Nights in Havana, excerpted for the National Post (Latest Edition) on 28 Apr 2007 as “Halfway to Havana”, author Robert Wright sums up the canoe stunt:

“When he [Trudeau] was fished out of the Straits of Florida on that balmy spring day in 1960, he betrayed no disappointment about the failed crossing.  ‘That would call for a demonstration of emotion,’ re­called Don Newlands, the cam­eraman in the shrimp boat, ‘and that was not in him.’”

Trudeau “encountered” Castro on “May Day,” 1960

If Trudeau, according to Newlands, “betrayed no disappointment about the failed crossing,” perhaps he had not been disappointed; because the canoe trip was the front and not the objective; the objective being achieved.  And that was for Trudeau to meet Castro at a critical moment in Canada’s history being crafted by these two men.  The claim the trip had “failed” would avert all risk of Trudeau’s later being linked with Castro’s FLQ, once it emerged.  For, Castro was recruiting and training the terrorists to be loosed on Canada when Trudeau and he had their “encounter” … apparently on “May Day”.

And what is May Day? 

Observed in many countries to celebrate the coming of spring, May Day is observed in Russia and related countries in honour of labour.  A telegram sent by Jean-Louis Gagnon to a Communist May-Day rally in Montreal on May 1st, 1946 illustrates the importance of May Day to Communists.  Here is the English translation published by Alan Stang in the John Birch Society’s offprint of Stang’s April 1st, 1971 “CANADA” article in American Opinion (look for my post, “Singing tomorrows”):

“On this first post-war victorious May Day we
can foresee the victory of the working
class STOP Fraternal greetings to all trade
union leaders STOP Let us go forward to Peace STOP
Long live the glorious Soviet Union STOP Long live
singing tomorrows

Personally, I prefer the classic definition: “An internationally recognized distress signal via radiotelephone (from the French m’aider, “help!”)”.

What are the odds that Trudeau and friends were cruising over the Strait to Communist Cuba … on May Day … just as a lark to ridicule the Balseros (more below)?

When Pierre ascended the Throne of Canada, Stang reports he “created Information Canada, named Gagnon to run it at $40,000 a year. … And he (Jean-Louis Gagnon) is a dues-paying member of the Communist Party.”

Fred Rose, a Soviet spy convicted of espionage and jailed for treason was Gagnon’s boss in the Party.  Igor Gouzenko, who defected from the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, revealed that Jean-Louis Gagnon had supplied Soviet Colonel Zabotin with the information that the exact date of D-Day was June 6, 1944.

D-Day was the date of the Allied landing in France in World War II.  World War II is another kettle of fish.  What misguided country would enter a war with Stalin as their ally?  But, anyway.

We have, I think, corrected Terence McKenna’s typographical error.  The sentence he wrote now reads:

“His 1960 attempt to row a gerry-rigged canoe from Florida to Cuba was a source of great amusement to Fidel Castro, whom Trudeau encountered at the time.”


Pierre Trudeau sets out on May, 1960, canoe trip from Key West to Havana

Pierre Trudeau sets out with two companions on his unsuccessful (sic) May, 1960, canoe trip from Key West to Havana.  PressReader, “Halfway to Havana” by Robert Wright.

In our final extract above, from “Halfway to Havana,” author Robert Wright confirms that the Nemnis’ “escort boat” for the canoeists was indeed a “shrimp boat”.  Shrimp boats off the Keys in 1960 looked like this:

Two girls standing in front of shrimp boats - Key west, Florida. Two girls standing in front of shrimp boats - Key west, Florida.

“Two girls standing in front of shrimp boats – Key west, Florida.”  Photographed in February, 1960.  Source:  Barron, Charles Lee, 1917-1997. Two girls standing in front of shrimp boats – Key west, Florida. 1960. Black & white photoprint, 4 x 5 in. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory. , accessed 1 October 2019.

There were only two vehicles on the Straits according to every version of the story:  the home-made “gerry-rigged” canoe, and a “shrimp boat”.

Based on that information, there is only one conclusion.  The shrimp boat, the escort boat, made it to Havana late in the day on May 1st, 1960.  Or Trudeau met Castro far out at sea off the radar.

“The Donald Gordon Incident” (November-December 1962)

“The Donald Gordon Incident” (November-December 1962)

The failed canoe stunt is a fairy tale, a cover-up for the real expedition on the shrimp boat, precisely to meet Castro.  The date of that meeting fits in perfectly with the timeline my research is producing.  I have Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his communist friends in league with the federal government to revolutionize Quebec by a referendum in the early 1960s.  My research post, in development, centers on the false-flag event we call “The Donald Gordon Incident” (November-December 1962).  Another name for it might be, the communist mobilization of the non-communist population.

(The “DGI” was scripted by Trudeau, published in his pro-Soviet CITE LIBRE in early 1961, play-acted by Canada’s number one bureaucrat, Donald Gordon, pulled off by the federal government and a parliamentary committee, with Trudeau’s Communist friends running both major French dailies who escalated it with riots and near-riots led by Trudeau’s Marxist law student, Bernard Landry, and by communists in the street.  That is how the Reds got a “royal commission” they could use to crack the Constitution and replace it; that’s how the Red carpet was unrolled to bring in the FLQ to sharpen the need to break Confederation.  And the reason, as always:  You need all the powers to construct a Communist Plan.  An independent State of Quebec would have had all the powers.  Subscribe and look for it.)

The story told in the DVD Memoirs, that the US Coast Guard suspected the men of trying to “smuggle arms in their canoe” is a cartoon to make you laugh and stop thinking.

Referring once again to author Robert Wright in his excerpt for the National Post “Halfway to Havana”:

“When he [Trudeau] was fished out of the Straits of Florida on that balmy spring day in 1960, he betrayed no disappointment about the failed crossing.  ‘That would call for a demonstration of emotion,’ re­called Don Newlands, the cam­eraman in the shrimp boat, ‘and that was not in him.’”

But, Trudeau wasn’t “disappointed.”  The crossing didn’t “fail.”  Trudeau’s DVD Memoirs tell us he “encountered” Castro “at the time”.


The Trudeau canoe stunt was a gesture of ridicule toward people who were desperately trying to escape the communist-humanist paradise of Fidel Castro.  Thousands of Cubans are reported to have drowned in the attempt to flee.

Before the boat people of Vietnam, there were the Balseros of Cuba.

Before the boat people of Vietnam, there were the Balseros  of Cuba.  Tens of thousands of them left the island on rafts made from recycled materials.  Thousands of them perished at sea.

Blogger Richard Martineau, in “Le penchant de Pierre Trudeau et de ses fils pour la tyrannie” (“The fondness of Pierre Trudeau and his sons for tyranny”) describes the Cuba toward which Trudeau and friends were rushing via canoe and shrimp boat in May of 1960.  Says Martineau:

En 1960, alors que des milliers de Cubains assoiffés de liberté bravaient la mer à bord d’embarcations de fortune, Trudeau, lui, a fait le chemin inverse :  il a tenté de joindre Cuba à bord d’un canot en partance de la Floride !

In 1960, when thousands of Cubans thirsting for liberty braved the sea aboard makeshift rafts, Trudeau was going the other way:  he tried to reach Cuba aboard a canoe bound from Florida!

(Rappelons qu’en 1960, on a répertorié 631 condamnations à mort, 146 fusillés et 70 000 prisonniers politiques à Cuba.  Pour le respect des droits de la personne, on repassera …)

(Remember that in 1960, there were 631 death sentences, 146 executions by firing squad and 70,000 political prisoners inventoried in Cuba.  As to respect for individual rights, we’ll skip it …)



Georges Schoeters, Teaching Assistant, Université de Montréal

Georges Schoeters, Teaching Assistant, Université de Montréal

Louis Fournier, a Sorbonne-trained French-Canadian journalist and partisan of the Marxist left, called jailed FLQ terrorists “political prisoners”  We already know that both Schoeters and René Lévesque met Castro in Montreal at the end of April 1959.  Fournier documents the sequel to the Schoeters meeting:  the beginning of training in Cuba for Schoeters, a future leader of the first cell of FLQ terrorists.  Said Fournier:



Georges Schœters est une sorte de marxiste humaniste, surtout tiers-mondiste.  Il a effectué un voyage à Cuba aux débuts de la révolution, en août 1959, en compagnie d’une douzaine d’étudiants de l’Université de Montréal où il vient de terminer sa scolarité de maîtrise en science économique.  Le groupe, invité par l’Institut national de la réforme agraire, a rencontré Fidel Castro et le commandant Camilo Cienfuegos.  À l’automne 1959, Schœters retourne à Cuba pour travailler pendant quelques mois à la réforme agraire.  Il y rencontre alors Che Guevara.”

Georges Schœters is a kind of Marxist humanist, above all a third-worldist.  He took a trip to Cuba at the beginning of the revolution, in August of 1959, accompanied by 10 students from the Université de Montréal  where he had just completed his Masters in Economics.2  The group, as guests of the Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agrariae (National Institute of Agrarian Reform), met Fidel Castro and commandant Camilo Cienfuegos.  In the Fall of 1959, Schœters returned to Cuba to work for a few months at agrarian reform.  At that time, he met Che Guevara.”

In Last Stop Paris:  The Assassination of Mario Bachand and the Death of the FLQ, author Michael McLoughlin places Georges Schoeters in Cuba in 1960.  Speaking of others (Raymond Villeneuve, Gaston Collin and André Garand), McLoughlin says:

“Three weeks later, the three would-be revolutionaries ran out of money and were taken under the wing of ICAP, the Cuban Insti­tute for the Support of Peoples, the organization that in 1960 gave hospitality to Georges Schoeters, two years before he became a founder of the FLQ.  They were given free room and board and 250 pesos a month.  There was, of course, a price for such generosity.  ICAP was an arm of the Cuban Tourist Bureau, which was an arm of the General Intelligence Directorate (DGI), the Cuban intelli­gence service, so it was not a typical tourist agency.  One of its roles was to invite to Cuba foreigners who had the potential to become agents of influence after they returned home.”


Pierre Elliott Trudeau met Castro on May Day in 1960 while the first cell of the Communist Front de Libération du Québec  was being hand-picked and groomed in Cuba.  Why admit it now?  At the end of his life, his vanity got the better of him.  He wanted to leave a note at the scene of his crime, in grand contempt for those he had betrayed.  The victims he had charmed with his lies would surely never notice it.

This admission, in Trudeau’s DVD Memoirs, shatters the Trudeau myth.  He manipulated his way to power to consummate from above the treason he commenced below.

Pierre had a busy year in 1960.  First, he met Castro who was organizing the FLQ to attack Canada.  Then he got the Reds to vote Liberal when Jean Lesage was planning a communist regime for Quebec and a referendum to secede to do it.  Then Pierre went to Beijing to celebrate the victory of the Reds imposing their power on mainland China.  That was not a State visit.  That was a personal visit by Communist Pierre, supporting his own cause.


This is the dictator that Pierre and Margaret found charming and sexy when they allegedly “first met” him, the year Castro was filmed below (1976):


(We Warn You)

[Fidel Castro:]  “If the Cuban government were to dedicate time to doing terrorism, and to respond with terrorism to terrorism, we believe that we would really be very effective terrorists.”

[Audience:  wild applause (compulsory)]

“Let no one be mistaken.  If we were to dedicate ourselves to terrorism, with all certainty, we would be very effective.  But the fact that the Cuban Revolution has never applied terrorism, doesn’t mean that we never will.

We warn you.”

[Credits:]  Discurso de Fidel Castro por el 15to aniversario del MININT en el Teatro Carlos Marx, La Haban, 6 de junio del 1976.

Discourse of Fidel Castro on the 15th anniversary of the MININT, in the Karl Marx Theatre at Havana on 6 June 1976.

The Ministero del Interior (known as MININT) is Cuba’s state agency responsible for internal security.

In Canada on 26 April 1959, Belgian immigrant Georges Schoeters met Fidel Castro at the Montreal Airport.  Schoeters would go three times to Cuba to be trained by Castro to set up the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) and recruit other terrorists.

English translation by cubacenter The Center for a Free Cuba (CFC) at YouTube.

MUSIC:  Life is So Short.
Artist:  Shane Newville
Album:  Beats Collection Vol. 1

Thanks, again, to cubacenter, for the great translation.  A decade later, it still packs a punch.  This video was produced at Montreal on 21 April in 2009.

For more information on the planned end of Canada, visit:


1. Trudeau’s 1952 7-part series on the Moscow conference is now available in English from NoSnowInMoscow, and also at AntiCommunist ArchiveI’m Back From Moscow, by Pierre Elliott Trudeau (1952).

2. “A very interesting Belgian source online who did in-depth research published in 2013, says that Schoeters finished his Masters while in prison for an FLQ bombing that took a life.  Christophe Lamfalussy of La Libre Belgique says that on early release, Schoeters was put on a plane and expelled from Canada on 25 September 1967.  Then, in 1968, (translation):  “Schoeters obtained his Masters in Economics from the Université de Montréal because he had been able to pursue his studies in prison.”  (“Georges Schoeters, le Belge qui voulait libérer le Québec”).  Schoeters therefore did not have a Masters when he went to work for Castro.  We have a battle of sources here, and frankly, I’m more inclined to Mr. Lamfalussy because unlike Fournier, the Belgian doesn’t appear to have an agenda.  Lamfalussy in French:  “Schoeters obtient cette année-là de l’université de Montréal une maîtrise en sciences économiques car, en prison, il avait pu poursuivre ses études.”

– 30 –

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.