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, theremaining 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."
Want to Know More?
Read Saumur v. Québec (City of)
The 3 Minute Guide to the BNA Act 1867
| 
