Mr. BIRD:

-as to its blasphemous

character.

Mr. BENNETT:

Hear, hear.

Mr. BIRD:

Now, I take part in this

discussion in order to protect my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) from what I consider to be the' unjust objection of my friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) in trying to leave the impression that he was defending something that is monstrous.

Mr. GEARY:

Mr. Speaker, may I rise to

a point of order? I do not care particularly what my hon. friend thinks of this article, but I wish to say again that I do not think my friend from Winnipeg North Centre would like to read the article aloud, and I do not think it would sound any better if my friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) undertook to do so.

Mr. BIRD:

Well then, my hon. friend is

content to take it either way.

Mr. GEARY:

He does not' need to.

Mr. BIRD:

It is open to me to give my

opinion whether it is a nice thing to do or not. He is not the sole judge of decorum in this house.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, let me say that I do not think the point of order is well taken. True, in footnote (c) to standing order 41 it is said that:

A member while speaking must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.

The footnote is based on May, page 296. But in the present case a judicial decision is not pending; it has been rendered; and there is no power to prevent parliament passing legislation after a judgment has been rendered to rectify what may be considered an injustice or an infringement of individual liberty by such judgment. I may say that I have read the article, and although to me personally it is highly objectionable, yet this is the temple of freedom of speech. And I hope every hon. member will understand the meaning I attach to the other words that I am about to utter: This is not only the temple of freedom of speech, it is the temple of freedom of thought. I cannot prevent an hon. member from expressing his views even on a matter of this nature if he honestly and decently expresses those views. Under the circumstances I think I should give the broadest freedom possible to any member who brings before the house a subject of the nature of that now in question.

Mr. BIRD:

Mr. Speaker, I want it to be

clearly understood that I hold no brief for the language of the article, nor for the views behind that language. I may say also that out of deference to what seems to be the view of a large section of the house I have no intention now of reading the article; but I will refer to it and try to give to the house what I consider to be a fair account of its tenor.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I had forgotten to say

this in support of my ruling. The house is familiar with the famous Bradlaugh case. From time immemorial in the House of Commons in England no member after having been enrolled could take his seat without subscribing to a certain oath. Mr. Bradlaugh came, not once, not twice, but I think three times to the table of the clerk of the House of Commons and positively refused to take the oath. The same thing occurred in the case of Daniel O'Connell fifty years before. In his case the law was amended. It was also amended in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. I cite the Bradlaugh case because Mr. Bradlaugh did not believe at all in what constituted the oath. He was an atheist. To-day in England free-thinkers as well as believers can take their seat and declare what they believe in. I think the law was also amended to meet the conscientious objections of Quaker members of the British Commons. I simply state these cases to show that the greatest freedom of speech and freedom of thought exists under British institutions.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I desire to point out to you-

Criminal Code

Mr. BIRD:

Mr. Speaker, I-

Mr. BENNETT:

I am speaking to the

question of order. Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted on a charge of blasphemous libel.

Mr. BIRD:

I had the floor before, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. BENNETT:

In Mr. Bradlaugh's case the rules of the house required that the oath should be taken. He declined to take that oath; there was nothing analogous to this case in that, but he was subsequently brought before the courts and Lord Coleridge summed up the whole situation. I merely refresh your honour's memory with respect to the Brad-laugh case; there is nothing analogous to this at all. Standing at the bar of the house he declined to take the oath because he said he was an atheist and was not bound by any oath. The rules of the house required that he take an oath and he declined to do so.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The rules were amended accordingly.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, there was a statute enacted.

Mr. BIRD:

If I may be allowed to do so I will now finish what I started to say. This article is a burlesque on the story of creation; true, it is expressed in rather vulgar language, but the house can take it from me that this article expresses the story in a manner not more disrespectful than the language you might hear at any society tea table throughout this country. It is becoming customary to speak of that story with more or less disrespect. This gentleman, whoever he is, has followed the example of his betters; he has undertaken to criticize that story in a manner which, as I have said, makes his article something of a burlesque, but not one bit worse than the discussions of men who are supposed to be more respectable than he is. I could go to almost any theological college in Canada and find professors of Old Testament history who give, during their lectures, an account of the story of creation not one whit more respectable than this article. They might use more polite language, more scholarly and erudite expressions, but it would be no different in meaning. This unfortunate man happily does not belong to the elite; he is apparently some rough-mannered, long-haired individual who jumps on a soap box somewhere in the holy city of Toronto, which stands four-square against the waves of

heterodoxy sweeping over the country, a city hallowed by its staunch support of all that is orthodox and traditional both in fiscal theory and in biblical belief.

A great deal of fuss has been made about nothing; this theory of creation given in this article is commonly held from one end of Canada to the other. It is taught in our . Sunday schools and in our day schools in language which is perhaps a little more correct, yet my hon. friend thinks it terrible, and warns the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself not to read it. I can tell him that I have read it with great gusto. I was also pleasantly surprised to find how sensitive the hon. leader of the opposition is for the traditions and faith of the house; he even interrupted me in the little time I had at my disposal to deal with this matter.

Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just one observation. The hon. member who brought this bill before the house quoted in support of it articles of certain faiths. I sent out for the standard work on criminal law in Canada, Crankshaw's Criminal Code, and turned up the section in question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has already read it, but I would like to read just one or two comments which appear under that section. The first of these will be found on page 203

of the 1924 edition:

A blasphemous libel consists in the publication of any profane words vilifying or ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Old or New Testament or Christianity in general, with intent to shock and insult believers, or to pervert or mislead the ignorant and unwary; and it a publication be "full of scurrilous and opprobrious language, if sacred subjects are ti eateu with levity, if indiscriminate abuse is employed instead of argument, then a design to wound the religious feelings of others may be readily inferred. But where the work is free from all offensive levity, abuse and sophistry, and, in fact, the honest and temperate expression of religious opinions conscientiously held and avowed, it is not a blasphemous libel.

I pass on merely to read one quotation from a judgment of Lord Coleridge, who was Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of the King against Ramsay and Foote, in which he said:

If the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked, without a person being guilty of blasphemous libel.

That is the law which this amendment is designed to change.

Motion (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.

Loan of $500,000,000