l_g
I need to correct the name iof the DO. It wasn't Chretien. It was Laurier Samur. Leonard Chretien has since left the WTS and co-written a book about his esperience. His book is entitled Witnesses of Jehovah" I don't have this book but it would be interesting to see what he had to say
I understand where you are coming from. Especially when it comes to the history part. But I think we have a problem when it comes to their history. They edit it to suit their needs. So what we are left with is their white-washed versions and the histories provided by those who have left.
I mentioned 3 people who were there and were involved in the events in Quebec. Coming from Montreal I assure you the JWs were extremely proud of their actions in inciting incidents and being dragged off to jail for the "witness" it would give. Their comments confirm for me that Schnell was telling the truth. The stories were almost identical to what Schnell reports - just change the place and the people. JWs in Quebec often refer to themselves as "champions of freedom" for the times they won cases in the courts in Canada.
I just found the following:
Quebec City
1949
It has often been said that politics and religion don't mix. The same could be said of the law and religion - especially in Quebec City in 1949. The Premier, Maurice Duplessis, ran the province with an iron-fist. A fist that squeezed some, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, very hard.
One who felt the strength of the premier's grip first-hand was Aimé Boucher. Aimé Boucher, a farmer and a Jehovah's Witness in the district of Beauce, was convicted of the crime of seditious libel for distributing a religious pamphlet.
The pamphlet was entitled Quebec's Burning Hate for God and Christ and Freedom Is the Shame of all Canada. It reported incidents of persecution where Witnesses in Quebec had been beaten their bibles destroyed their homes invaded their properties taken and their members wrongfully imprisoned. For example, the pamphlet declared:
"All the French Canadian courts were so under priestly thumbs that they affirmed the infamous sentence, and it was not until the case reached the Supreme Court of Canada that judgment was reversed."
The trial judge said should the pamphlet suggest - as indeed it did - that Quebec's administration of justice was biased in favor of a controlling Catholic clergy that there existed an apparent hate for God, Christ, and Freedom, then Mr. Boucher was guilty of seditious libel. The jury read the pamphlet, followed the judge's instructions, and found him guilty as charged. Moreover, the Appeal Court of the King's Bench upheld the decision. Ultimately, the quest for justice lead to Ottawa, and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Supreme Court of Canada Building
Ottawa
December 18, 1950
It was the week before Christmas when this momentous case about religion and freedom of speech closed. Although several judges disagreed, the Court held that publishing feelings of ill will and criticisms of the courts - without the intention to incite violence or resistance to the government - was not sedition. In fact, some judges saw the pamphlet as a legitimate protest against the government's mistreatment of its citizens. In short, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned his conviction and Mr. Boucher was home in time for Christmas.
But the battle between the Duplessis' government and the Jehovah's Witnesses would not end here...
Did you know?
Maurice Duplessis ruled Quebec from 1936 until his death in 1959. His two main power bases were big business and the Catholic Church. Even after WWII, the Church controlled Quebec's education systems and social services as the rest of Canada saw this trend come to a close. Often criticized for this, the government adapted a harsh view of non-Catholics, communists, workers who joined unions, and especially Jehovah's Witnesses.
Quotable quote
"Freedom in thought and speech and disagreement in ideas and beliefs, on every conceivable subject, are of the essence of our life. The clash of critical discussion on political, social, and religious subjects has too deeply become the stuff of daily experience to suggest that mere ill will as a product of controversy can strike down the latter with illegality.... but our compact of free society accepts and absorbs these differences and they are exercised at large within the framework of freedom and order..."
Justice Rand, In R. v. Boucher
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/58mile.asp
Round II - Duplessis v. The Jehovah's Witnesses
Québec City
1952
In the absence of conflict, everyone believes in freedom of speech. Yet, our belief in this fundamental freedom often seems to waver when it is used to criticize us. So was it when the Jehovah's Witnesses exercised their freedom of speech to denounce what they perceived to be wrong in Québec, in 1952.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' faith demands that they speak out against things they consider wrong - including, amongst other things, the Catholic Church. In a time when Québec was largely and devoutly Catholic, the Jehovah's Witnesses criticisms would test the province's resolution to protect the freedom of expression.
The Jehovah's Witnesses ran into opposition in the streets of Québec when they spread their message by distributing religious pamphlets. A devout Jehova's Witness, Laurier Saumur was handing out literature published by the Watch Tower Bible and Truth Society when he was arrested. He was informed that the City of Québec had a bylaw, Bylaw 184, that declared the following:
"It is...forbidden to distribute in the streets of the City of Québec, any book, pamphlet, booklet, circular, or tract whatever without having previously obtained...the written permission of the Chief of Police."
Weary of the Chief of Police's reluctance to give the Witnesses permission, Laurier Saumur had decided to, in effect, break the law. Believing he had done nothing wrong, Saumur challenged the legality of the bylaw. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Essentially, the case led the Court to ask two key questions:
- Is the bylaw a regulation dealing with the administration of the City's streets, or is it a law aimed at limiting the right to religious expression?
If the Court answers that it is the first, then Laurier Saumur will lose. - Who has jurisdiction over religion in Québec? The province or the country? (The British North America Act gives provinces the power to make laws about civil rights.)
If making laws about religion is a provincial matter, then the province has the right to make a law that limits freedom of religion. (In 1951, there is no Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say otherwise.)
Of the 9 judges, the decision required at least 5 judges to agree.
Two judges - Rinfret, the Chief Justice, and Taschereau - argued that the law's true purpose was only to manage streets.They added that the province, not the federal government, had the right to make laws about religion. Even if the right to distribute pamphlets had been an act of worship, the freedom of worship in itself was not an absolute right.
Two other judges, Cartwright and Fauteux, argued the province had the right to pass a law pertaining to its streets.They added that although this might interfere with religious expression,the law remained valid.
Although 4 justices found in favor of the by law, the remaining 5 judges ruled that the law could not stand.
They found the real purpose of Bylaw 184 to be censorship not traffic control. They also judged that freedom of religion was not a civil right under provincial jurisdiction. In the end, Laurier Saumur was found not guilty and religion became a constitutional right.
Yet, this would not be the end of conflict between Jehova's Witnesses and Duplessis's Québec...
Quotable quote
...[C]ivil rights arise from positive law but freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person, are original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of self expression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life."
Quotable quote from the trial transcript:
"Q. Do you consider necessary for your organization to attack the other religions, in fact, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews?
A. Indeed. The reason for that is because the Almighty God commands that error shall be exposed and not persons or nations.
Q. You are the only witnesses of the truth?
A.Jehovah's Witnesses are the only witnesses to The truth of Almighty God Jehovah...
Q. Is the Roman Catholic a true church?
A. No.
Q. Is it an unclean woman?
A. It is pictured in the Bible as a whore, as having illicit relationships with the nations of this world, and history proves that fact, history that all have studied in school. ...If obedience to a law of the state or nation would compel them (the Witnesses) to thereby violate God's law, they will obey God rather than men.
Q. Notwithstanding the laws of the country to the contrary?
A. Notwithstanding the laws of the country to the contrary."
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/en/timePortals/milestones/62mile.asp
