Meaning: The quote "There was no censorship of the press: in general, the War Measures Act could have been made even more radical" is a statement made by Robert Bourassa, a Canadian politician who served as the 22nd Premier of Quebec. The quote refers to the implementation of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 in Canada. The October Crisis was a series of events triggered by the kidnapping of two government officials by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), a militant separatist group in Quebec. The crisis led to the invocation of the War Measures Act by the federal government, which granted sweeping powers to law enforcement and the military in response to the perceived threat to national security.

Bourassa's statement reflects his perspective on the government's handling of the October Crisis and the measures taken under the War Measures Act. By asserting that there was no censorship of the press and suggesting that the Act could have been more radical, Bourassa is providing his assessment of the government's response to the crisis and implying that even more stringent measures could have been justified or implemented.

The War Measures Act, which was originally enacted during World War I, empowers the government to take extraordinary measures in the interest of national security and defense. When it was invoked in 1970, it resulted in widespread arrests of individuals suspected of involvement with the FLQ, the detention of hundreds of individuals without charge, and the suspension of civil liberties. These actions sparked significant controversy and debate regarding the balance between national security and individual rights, particularly in relation to freedom of the press.

Bourassa's assertion that there was no censorship of the press may be viewed in the context of the broader debate over the limits of government power during times of crisis. While it is true that the War Measures Act did not explicitly include provisions for press censorship, the Act's provisions for the suspension of civil liberties and the expansion of police powers raised concerns about the potential for infringements on freedom of speech and the press. Some critics argued that the Act's broad scope and the government's actions during the crisis had a chilling effect on media freedom, even if formal censorship was not imposed.

Moreover, Bourassa's suggestion that the Act could have been more radical raises questions about the balance between security measures and individual rights. While the government's response to the October Crisis was widely seen as a drastic and controversial step, Bourassa's statement implies that there were those who believed even more severe actions were warranted. This perspective underscores the complex and contentious nature of the October Crisis and the differing opinions on the appropriate use of government authority in times of perceived national threat.

In conclusion, Robert Bourassa's quote reflects the complex and contentious nature of the government's response to the October Crisis of 1970 in Canada. His assessment of the War Measures Act and its implementation sheds light on the debates surrounding national security, civil liberties, and the role of the press during times of crisis. The quote serves as a reminder of the enduring significance of the October Crisis and its impact on Canadian society and governance.