Naturally, the work was not carried on without problems and opposition. At Hull, Quebec, in 1932, three pioneers were arrested and falsely charged with distributing seditious literature. They handled their own cases before Judge Achim, following directions from Brooklyn as to the procedure to be followed, and were blessed with victory. Convictions could have meant sentences of from five to 20 years!

It was also in the year 1932 that pioneer Frank Lyster was arrested in Sherbrooke, Quebec. Moreover, in that year, a mobbing took place at Lachine, Quebec. Janet MacDonald, one of the special pioneers then serving there, recalls that mobs of 200 and 300 would form in some towns. She adds:

“When we would wend our way through the crowd, some would become more aggressive than others and would kick or punch us. The finale was to come at Lachine. Brother Demorest was hurled down a flight of stairs by an angry son of an alderman. I was working on the opposite side of the street and was informed of the occurrence by a man who was favorable and who advised that I leave the district. Demorest and I both decided to leave at the same time, but had difficulty in getting through the mob and, when we finally got to where the car had been parked, we found that it was not there. Howard (my husband) and the two other brothers had gone to get police protection, which was flatly refused. We had only waited for a few minutes when he returned. When Brother Demorest and I endeavored to get in, an egg-throwing barrage took place. A store owner had pushed a whole crate of eggs out into the street for the mob to use. It was in January and as the eggs broke, they froze, making a very unsightly car.”

The Witnesses managed to get away without personal injury, aside from what happened to Brother Demorest. Later, a case was made of this. One of the leaders of the mob was fined and had to pay the costs for damage to the car.

There were also instances of the police trying to interfere with a house-car group working in the Maritimes. The officials tried to make it appear that the pioneers were doing a commercial work and needed a license or permit. This happened at Newcastle, Dalhousie, Bathurst, Campbellton, Grand Falls and Edmundston, New Brunswick. The interference never developed beyond the stage of going to the police station, however, because Daniel Ferguson and Roderick Campbell had obtained from an official in the capital a letter acknowledging that our work was not of a commercial nature. Usually, when that letter was shown to the police, they took no further action against us.

A CLOSER LOOK AT QUEBEC

As already noted, during the 1930’s Quebec was becoming a battleground for freedom of worship. And who was behind the persecution of true Christians there? Well, if any doubt remains in your mind, take a closer look at our activities in that province during that eventful decade, and the identity of the principal opposers of Jehovah’s people will become evident.

There was much opposition to our work in Quebec during the winter of 1931. Sometimes Alfred Ouellette was picked up by the police daily (at times twice a day) and taken to the station for questioning. This also happened to Ovila Gautheir. Often the police would say: “We received a call from the priest [who said] that you are not authorized to do this work.”

In 1932, Quebec authorities began using against us the ancient false charge of sedition​—this in cases involving only differences in religious views. (Compare Acts 24:1-8.) The first of such cases in Canada was heard at Hull, Quebec, where Emery St. Amour and Wilfrid Spicer were falsely charged with distributing seditious literature. However, the magistrate dismissed the charge.

In the fall of 1933, a cavalcade of 40 cars bearing 158 Witnesses departed from Montreal after an assembly and made their way some 160 miles (260 kilometers) to Quebec City. At 6:30 the next morning, each one was at his preassigned place and ready to begin a quick distribution of three free booklets in French. Within an hour and a half, 45,000 booklets had been spread throughout the city, causing quite an uproar among the priests. Thirty Witnesses were rounded up and falsely charged with ‘seditious conspiracy.’ Imagine that!

Only six of these Witnesses were finally committed for trial. The first of these cases to be heard was that of pioneers George Barrett and George Brodie. During their six-day trial before a judge and jury at Quebec City, the prosecution called as witnesses two Catholic priests and two Protestant clergymen, who said that, in their opinion, the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses was seditious. Yes, there was a conviction. The accused were fined $300 each or an additional five months in prison. This case was unsuccessfully appealed to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which decided that criticism of the Catholic Church by Jehovah’s Witnesses was sedition. So, appeal was next taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reversed the conviction on the purely technical ground that the indictment was improperly drawn. Hence, the decision of the Quebec court that criticizing the Church constituted evidence of sedition was not reversed and remained part of the law of Quebec.

In view of this, Jehovah’s Witnesses could be convicted of sedition whenever they distributed a publication disagreeing with Catholicism. The authorities recognized this, and sedition charges became common, with convictions resulting in almost all these cases from 1935 to 1940.

BANNING RUTHERFORD’S RADIO LECTURES

In 1933, at the instigation of the Anglican clergy, the Canadian Radio Commission again sought to throttle the Kingdom message over the airwaves. This time the ban was on all recorded lectures of Judge J. F. Rutherford. Please note that personal opinion had crept into the official notice of the Commission to radio stations throughout Canada. It said:

“Speeches of one Judge Rutherford, foreign antisocial agitator, must not be broadcast by Canadian stations until the continuity or records of same are submitted to the Canadian Broadcasting Commission for approval. Signed, Hector Charlesworth, Chairman.” (Italics ours.)

But who was urging Charlesworth on in this course? The Telegraph, Journal of Saint John, New Brunswick, reported: ‘Hector Charlesworth, chairman of the Radio Commission, stated a dignified complaint had been received from a group of Anglican clergymen in St. John.” (Italics ours.) This report named some of these clerics.

A mighty campaign of protest against the radio ban commenced across the land. It got under way with the distribution of 1,350,000 copies of a four-page “Important Notice to the People” to acquaint them with the facts of the matter. Then a petition was circulated from coast to coast. There were 406,270 signers, and it got much publicity in the press. Parliament was flooded with letters of protest and letters of resolution from labor and other organizations. The petition was presented to the Governor-General and this sparked debate in Parliament. The Prime Minister promised to look into the matter, but nothing was done about it.

The determination of Charlesworth to make the ban stick is shown in his response to a station that wanted to take a fair-minded approach to the matter and also preserve itself in difficult times financially. The Golden Age (predecessor of Awake!) reported:

“One of the Canadian stations sent Mr. Charlesworth a telegram stating, in effect, that ‘while we do not agree fully with Judge Rutherford’s talks, we have failed to find anything of anti-social or communistic nature. The tenor of his broadcast is directed against other forms of religion and extolling his own creed which we would call fundamentalism. We believe we should accept broadcasts of all nature in the interests of free speech as long as they do not conflict with democratic government. In these times the loss of revenue is a hardship upon us.’ Supplementing this telegram the station called up Mr. Charlesworth to get permission to continue the broadcast for at least two weeks anyway, and the answer was, ‘Not a chance.’”

Our work was moving ahead. Yet, it seems that 1936 was a year of crisis. There were troubles inside and outside the organization. On every hand there was opposition in the field. Around Chéticamp, Nova Scotia, people threw hot water and even buttermilk on publishers of the Kingdom. In Ste. Anne des Chênes, Manitoba, a mob mistook the automobiles of some American tourists for those of a group of Witnesses and pelted the cars with stones, eggs and tomatoes. Residents of the town were rightly embarrassed. In Quebec fierce opposition to our work continued.