brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/25/85)
While Sherman's defence of the conviction of Zundel under the criminal code is probably correct, I think it's important to question if showing that the defendant knowingly said nasty lies about a group is enough. Shouldn't the jury also be shown solid evidence that somebody, somewhere suffered a loss, and shouldn't this be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? If I say, perhaps as a joke, that some public figure has no brain cells, or make a generalization like "All Judges are corrupt" or "members of the Nazi party are all sodomites", I might be guilty under this act. I think in Zundel's case the crown should have been required to produce people who had read Zundel's writings and had their opinions changed to falsehoods by them. ------- When passing laws that restrict fundamental rights, we must always consider how they might be used by an evil government. We must ask questions like, "how could the government stretch this law to get somebody they wanted to get?" I don't think this law lives up to that test. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/29/85)
In article <449@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >When passing laws that restrict fundamental rights, we must always consider >how they might be used by an evil government. We must ask questions like, >"how could the government stretch this law to get somebody they wanted >to get?" > >I don't think this law lives up to that test. >-- >Brad Templeton I don't think you go quite far enough here, Brad. I would ask "How could the gov't stretch this law to *harass* somebody?" It really doesn't matter if they succeed in throwing me in jail -- if they can tie up my money and life for a year or two (or more), they can intimidate me and/or any observers to stop whatever it is they don't like. Otherwise I agree with what you say. Ken Arnold