Lamb v Benoit

Last updated

Lamb v Benoit, [1959] SCR 321 was a legal case that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. Lamb, a Jehovah's Witness, was arrested for distributing religious pamphlets in Verdun, Quebec, in 1946, along with three other members of the religion. She was accused by the plaintiff of distributing copies of Quebec's Burning Hate, but the Supreme Court found no evidence of that specific pamphlet being distributed. [1] Lamb was detained for a weekend without access to legal counsel. [2] Local authorities offered to release Lamb if she would not hold them responsible for her detention, but she refused. She was then charged with conspiracy to publish sedition, but this was dismissed by a trial judge and that decision was upheld when appealed. [1] Justice Abbott, a common law justice, concluded that the police officers had violated a Quebec statute through not acting in good faith. [3] She was awarded $2,500 in damages. This was cited by Kent Roach, writing for the University of Toronto Law Journal, as an example that "courts were more generous in accessing damages than they are today under the Charter". [4]

Contents

Background

Non-Catholic religious minorities were persecuted after World War II, particularly during the Duplessis era. Jehovah's Witnesses were considered to be a "seditious" and "subversive" religion. Through the Padlock Act and other legal measures, the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses were legally restricted. In 1947, Jehovah's Witnesses launched a preaching campaign condemning these restrictions and advocating the rights of religious minorities. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec responded to this campaign with increasing severity through the control of "subversive" materials. Individual municipalities also passed legislature restricting religious activities. Rabbi Solomon Frank, a founding member of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), advocated for the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses, criticizing Quebec's government of being "anti-democratic." [5]

In 1953, the case of Saumur v Quebec (City of) (1953) 25 CR 299 (in which a Jehovah's Witness challenged a Quebec City bylaw prohibiting public distribution of literature without a permit) left the question of religious freedom undecided as: "both Parliament and the provinces could validly limit freedom of worship providing they did so in the course of legislating on some other subject which lay within their respective powers." [6] This decision was part of a series of cases the Supreme Court dealt with concerning the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses under the Duplessis government of Quebec. Previous to this there was the case of R. v. Boucher [1951] S.C.R. 265 that upheld the right to distribute pamphlets.

Subsequent to Saumur was the case of Roncarelli v Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121. The court held that in 1946 Maurice Duplessis, both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by ordering the manager of the Liquor Commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah's Witness who was an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Roncarelli provided bail for Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for distributing pamphlets attacking the Roman Catholic Church. The Supreme Court found Duplessis personally liable for $33,123.56 in damages plus Roncarelli's court costs. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have been heard by Supreme Courts throughout the world. The cases revolve around three main subjects:

The Implied Bill of Rights is a judicial theory in Canadian jurisprudence that recognizes that certain basic principles are underlying the Constitution of Canada.

The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, also known as the "Quebec Charter", is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975. It received Royal Assent from Lieutenant Governor Hugues Lapointe, coming into effect on June 28, 1976. Introduced by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, the Charter followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.

The Act to Protect the Province Against Communistic Propaganda, commonly known as the "Padlock Law" or "Padlock Act", was a law in the province of Quebec, Canada that allowed the Attorney General of Quebec to close off access to property suspected of being used to propagate or disseminate communist propaganda. The law was introduced by the Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis and made it illegal to "use [a house] or allow any person to make use of it to propagate Communism or Bolshevism by any means whatsoever". This included printing, publishing or distributing of "any newspaper, periodical, pamphlet, circular, document or writing, propagating Communism or Bolshevism". Violations of the Act subjected such property to closure by the Attorney General, including the locking of access doors with padlocks, against any use whatsoever for a period of up to one year and any person found guilty of involvement in prohibited media activities could be incarcerated for three to thirteen months.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ivan Rand</span> Canadian politician and Supreme Court judge

Ivan Cleveland Rand was a Canadian lawyer, politician, academic, and justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He has been described as 'probably the greatest judge in Canada's history'.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe their allegiance belongs to God's Kingdom, which they view as an actual government. They refrain from saluting the flag of any country or singing nationalistic songs, which they believe are forms of worship, although they may stand out of respect. They refuse to participate in military service—even when it is compulsory—and do not become involved in politics.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

The beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses have engendered controversy throughout their history. Consequently, the denomination has been opposed by local governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian denominations consider the interpretations and doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses heretical, and some professors of religion have classified the denomination as a cult.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span> Overview of religious freedom in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<i>Saumur v Quebec (City of)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Saumur v Quebec (City of) [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 is a famous constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down a municipal by-law prohibiting the distribution of literature to the public.

<i>Roncarelli v Duplessis</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, was a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The court held that in 1946 Maurice Duplessis, both Premier and Attorney General of Quebec, had overstepped his authority by ordering the manager of the Liquor Commission to revoke the liquor licence of Frank Roncarelli, a Montreal restaurant owner and Jehovah's Witness who was an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec. Roncarelli provided bail for Jehovah's Witnesses arrested for distributing pamphlets attacking the Roman Catholic Church. The Supreme Court found Duplessis personally liable for $33,123.56 in damages plus Roncarelli's court costs.

<i>R v Boucher</i> Freedom of expression case of the Supreme Court of Canada

R v Boucher is a Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court overturned a conviction for seditious libel on the grounds that criticizing the government was a valid form of protest.

Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.

Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law prohibiting the distribution of handbills from door to door violated the First Amendment rights of a Jehovah's Witness, specifically their freedom of speech. The ruling was 5-4 and deemed trespassing laws a better fit for the town imposing the ordinance.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring door-to-door salespersons ("solicitors") to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.

Jehovah's Witnesses experienced religious persecution in Canada during World War II because of their evangelical fervour and objection to compulsory military service. In 1940, Jehovah's Witnesses were banned as an illegal organization under the War Measures Act.

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a town ordinance's provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with town officials and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.

The Grande Noirceur refers to the regime of conservative policies undertaken by the governing body of Quebec Premier Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis from 1936 to 1939 and from 1944 to 1959.

Scientology has been subjected to considerable regulation in Russia.

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right in Canada, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference, but it was not always so.

References

  1. 1 2 Lamb v. Benoit et al.; [1959] S.C.R. 321 (January 27, 1959) (Report). Canadian Government News.
  2. ↑ The Protection of Fundamental Rights by the Constitutional Court. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. 1996. p. 241.
  3. ↑ Fowler, Dulcey (1973). "The Canadian Bill of Rights-A Compromise between Parliamentary and Judicial Supremacy". The American Journal of Comparative Law. 21 (4): 716. doi:10.2307/839085. JSTOR   839085.
  4. ↑ Roach, Kent (2019). "The disappointing remedy? Damages as a remedy for violations of human rights". University of Toronto Law Journal. 69: 38. doi:10.3138/utlj.69.s1.002. ISSN   0042-0220. S2CID   212951717.
  5. ↑ Rainville, Paul-Étienne (2018). "Au nom de l'ordre ou de la liberté? Le Congrès juif canadien face à la répression des libertés civiles et des droits des minorités religieuses au Québec (1945–1954)". Canadian Historical Review (in French). 99 (2): 196–224. doi:10.3138/chr.99.2.02. ISSN   0008-3755. S2CID   159979384.
  6. ↑ Russel, Peter (1989). Federalism and the Charter: Leading Constitutional Decisions. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 300.
  7. ↑ Scott, Stephen A. (2006-02-07). "Roncarelli v Duplessis". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2021-04-21.

General references

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.