clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/11/85)
Maybe a better way to deal with Zundels is to extend the libel
definition to include "groups" instead of just individuals.
Then, the onus would be on the Zundel to *prove* his assertions.
This is probably a lot easier on the courts (and us) than having
to have the Crown prove that the Zundel knew it was false and
was doing it to incite hatred. Then you can sue them into oblivion.
Also, presumably, you could also institute "court orders" on further
publication, and then criminal charges apply if he persists.
These probably would be nastier sentences too - contempt of court
has a higher maximum penalty doesn't it?
The only problem is that this could cause millions of "harassment"
suits and bog the courts down completely. That is, if they aren't
already.
I don't like 177, because it makes a complete zoo out of our courts and
I cannot possibly see how they can manage to successfully prosecute
under this law. I am surprised (*and* pleased) that they actually
managed to make the charge stick. I do hope that they deport him.
God knows what will happen with the other one starting up now.
--
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/11/85)
if you prosecute Zundel, not becuae of ``inciting hatred'' but because of ``publishing something that is untrue'' then you have effectively killed the book industry. Nobopdy is going to publish anything but fiction because it will be too much trouble to hire a board of experts who will testify that there was ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that the manuscript was true. And where do speculative works fit in? Religious writings? The question is should ``inciting hatred'' be a crime? Committing acts of violence against my neighbours should be, and inciting acts of violence -- but should just hating them be? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dave@lsuc.UUCP (04/11/85)
In article <407@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: ||Maybe a better way to deal with Zundels is to extend the libel ||definition to include "groups" instead of just individuals. ||Then, the onus would be on the Zundel to *prove* his assertions. ||This is probably a lot easier on the courts (and us) than having ||to have the Crown prove that the Zundel knew it was false and ||was doing it to incite hatred. Then you can sue them into oblivion. This is a good idea and was suggested by several speakers at the community rally held at the O'Keefe Centre following Zundel's conviction. It's very hard to define who the libelled party is, though, and who should be entitled to act for the group if there's any divergence of opinion in how to approach it. Should any Jew be able to sue Zundel? Any Holocaust survivor? When the group which is being harmed is large enough to constitute a "public", then laws aimed at protecting the public come into play, which is how it got into the criminal courts. But yes, the standard of proof would be much lower. ||Also, presumably, you could also institute "court orders" on further ||publication, and then criminal charges apply if he persists. ||These probably would be nastier sentences too - contempt of court ||has a higher maximum penalty doesn't it? Yes; contempt of court has unlimited penalties, in the discretion of the court. It's not a criminal charge, but a court-ordered matter. If a libel conviction were obtained, an injunction against further publication (such as Judge Locke issued anyway) would go with it. || ||The only problem is that this could cause millions of "harassment" ||suits and bog the courts down completely. That is, if they aren't ||already. Not really a problem. Our court system awards costs against a losing party, and "solicitor-and-client" (full) costs against a losing party who instituted what the court considers a frivolous suit. || ||I don't like 177, because it makes a complete zoo out of our courts and ||I cannot possibly see how they can manage to successfully prosecute ||under this law. I am surprised (*and* pleased) that they actually ||managed to make the charge stick. I do hope that they deport him. ||God knows what will happen with the other one starting up now. I don't think 177 will be applied except in the most blatant of cases, such as this one. The Keegstra charge is under s. 281.2 (incitement of hatred against an identifiable group) rather than s. 177 (wilfully spreading false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest). Dave Sherman (a lawyer but not speaking for...) The Law Society of Upper Canada -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/11/85)
In article <5459@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: ||if you prosecute Zundel, not becuae of ``inciting hatred'' but because ||of ``publishing something that is untrue'' then you have effectively ||killed the book industry. The key words in s. 177 are "wilfully", "that he knows is false", and "injury or mischief to a public interest". These three requirements make it awfully hard to prosecute under that section. "Wilfully" requires an intention to do exactly what is prohibited by the section. The others are self-explanatory. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/11/85)
In article <5459@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >if you prosecute Zundel, not becuae of ``inciting hatred'' but because >of ``publishing something that is untrue'' then you have effectively >killed the book industry. Nobopdy is going to publish anything but fiction >because it will be too much trouble to hire a board of experts who will >testify that there was ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that the >manuscript was true. And where do speculative works fit in? Religious >writings? We don't want people writing falsehoods with a "Non-fiction" label! I don't think that this would happen - after all, we do have libel/slander laws and that hasn't killed the book industry nor has it prevented people writing about specific people. I see no effective difference between saying "individual X" is a criminal and "group Y" is criminal. Where you say "reasonable grounds to believe that the manuscript is true" is *not* the point - the point is "does it direct unfounded accusations at someone or some group?" Speculative works are not by definition a libel or slander of anyone (eg: Von Daniken's books). Speculative works about the criminal activities of a group *might be*. You might have a point about Religious writings - not about truth, but about accusations. Hence, under this interpretation of libel/slander, we might see the Talmud, Koran, Bible, etc. purged of their intolerant "not-us-they're-bad" garbage. I personally wouldn't mind this (except for "archival, of historical interest copies"). > >The question is should ``inciting hatred'' be a crime? Committing acts >of violence against my neighbours should be, and inciting acts of >violence -- but should just hating them be? As a specific example of why "inciting hatred" should not be a crime in itself, consider the inciting of hatred by Jews against Nazi war criminals (NWC). They do and I think that is justified. Hating someone should not be a crime - it is *not* a crime to hold any particular belief in this country no matter how absurd that the belief is. Noone has the right to force anyone to change their mind about something (true or not). It is violence, prompted or not by personally held beliefs, that should be actionable by law. And, if we can prevent people from publishing untrue accusations via libel and slander laws, a lot of the hatred that we see will never take root. Violence, with or without justifiable hatred/reasons, is not normally condoned in this country anyways - it is always subject to legal sanctions. If some accusations are provably true (speaking in general, not specifically of Zundel), then publication should be allowed. Inciting hatred via publication of demonstrably true statements seems perfectly reasonable to me where the hatred is directed against the person(s) responsible. Before you get all excited about the previous statement, please reread it, and see the following examples: 1) If I can prove that person(s) X (John Doe, blue-ha
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/11/85)
In article <5459@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >if you prosecute Zundel, not becuae of ``inciting hatred'' but because >of ``publishing something that is untrue'' then you have effectively >killed the book industry. Nobopdy is going to publish anything but fiction >because it will be too much trouble to hire a board of experts who will >testify that there was ``reasonable grounds'' to believe that the >manuscript was true. And where do speculative works fit in? Religious >writings? We don't want people writing falsehoods with a "Non-fiction" label! I don't think that this would happen - after all, we do have libel/slander laws and that hasn't killed the book industry nor has it prevented people writing about specific people. I see no effective difference between saying "individual X" is a criminal and "group Y" is criminal. Where you say "reasonable grounds to believe that the manuscript is true" is *not* the point - the point is "does it direct unfounded accusations at someone or some group?" Speculative works are not by definition a libel or slander of anyone (eg: Von Daniken's books). Speculative works about the criminal activities of a group *might be*. You might have a point about Religious writings - not about truth, but about accusations. Hence, under this interpretation of libel/slander, we might see the Talmud, Koran, Bible, etc. purged of their intolerant "not-us-they're-bad" garbage. I personally wouldn't mind this (except for "archival, of historical interest copies"). > >The question is should ``inciting hatred'' be a crime? Committing acts >of violence against my neighbours should be, and inciting acts of >violence -- but should just hating them be? As a specific example of why "inciting hatred" should not be a crime in itself, consider the inciting of hatred by Jews against Nazi war criminals (NWC). They do and I think that is justified. Hating someone should not be a crime - it is *not* a crime to hold any particular belief in this country no matter how absurd that the belief is. Noone has the right to force anyone to change their mind about something (true or not). It is violence, prompted or not by personally held beliefs, that should be actionable by law. And, if we can prevent people from publishing untrue accusations via libel and slander laws, a lot of the hatred that we see will never take root. Violence, with or without justifiable hatred/reasons, is not normally condoned in this country anyways - it is always subject to legal sanctions. If some accusations are provably true (speaking in general, not specifically of Zundel), then publication should be allowed. Inciting hatred via publication of demonstrably true statements seems perfectly reasonable to me where the hatred is directed against the person(s) responsible. Before you get all excited about the previous statement, please reread it, and see the following examples: 1) If I can prove that person(s) X (John Doe, blue-haired people, Nazi war criminals, home computer phreaks; pick one or more) ALL kill people then hatred against them *is* justified. 2) Even if I can prove that *some* members of (racial group, tall people, people who have home computers) kill people, then hatred against them AS A GROUP is *not* justified. The problem, as I see it with my "ideal view" is that many people tend to interpret the "some x" as "all x". However, that is not a problem with the publisher per-se, but the recipients. The recipients should be held responsible for *their* interpretation of the publication. Through proper education of our children regarding such idiocies like "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons" the situation will improve. We all have a responsibility here! As a specific example within the current context, it is perfectly reasonable for Jews to hate Nazi war criminals and publish true material inciting hatred against them (as *some* unquestionably do, with full justification), but *not* reasonable for them to publish material implicating *all* Germans or people who weren't even born then. Such material is demonstrably false, and can be handled by libel/slander laws protecting groups. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/11/85)
Thanks for the ideas Dave, In article <592@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <407@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >||Maybe a better way to deal with Zundels is to extend the libel >||definition to include "groups" instead of just individuals. >any divergence of opinion in how to approach it. Should any Jew >be able to sue Zundel? Any Holocaust survivor? Why not? Sure. Though, in this particular case, it might be better for it to be limited to one group (or small number of groups jointly) at a time. Much like the Ontario Govt's refusal to further act against Morgantaler until the appeal is heard. An appropriate organization to initiate such action would be the largest Canadian Jewish group (B'nai Brith?) or, some group that might approach it a little more objectively (The Canadian Council of Christians and Jews?) (Note: I don't know very much about either group, I was just throwing them in as organizations that seem appropriate from their titles) >Yes; contempt of court has unlimited penalties, in the discretion >of the court. It's not a criminal charge, but a court-ordered matter. >If a libel conviction were obtained, an injunction against further >publication (such as Judge Locke issued anyway) would go with it. Is a "court-ordered matter" sufficient to allow deportation proceedings? (As I think that a criminal conviction is?) >Not really a problem. Our court system awards costs against a losing >party, and "solicitor-and-client" (full) costs against a losing party >who instituted what the court considers a frivolous suit. Can this process occur very early in the proceedings? Eg: the first day? Does this happen often now? >I don't think 177 will be applied except in the most blatant of >cases, such as this one. The Keegstra charge is under s. 281.2 >(incitement of hatred against an identifiable group) rather than >s. 177 (wilfully spreading false news that is likely to cause >injury or mischief to a public interest). I have confused the laws - sorry. 177 I like (preventing people yelling "fire" in a theatre). s.281.2 I don't like (what if the hatred is justified? - during a justifiable war (yes, there are such things when you consider the reasons for one of the sides, but most wars aren't justified from either side). > >Dave Sherman -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/11/85)
In article <410@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: || An appropriate ||organization to initiate such action would be the largest Canadian ||Jewish group (B'nai Brith?) or, some group that might approach it a ||little more objectively (The Canadian Council of Christians and Jews?) Interestingly, this very issue has just come up on who should have status to appear before the Royal Commission investigating Nazi war criminals in Canada. The B'Nai Brith was granted full participant status; Network, the Jewish student group, was granted only a partial status on the basis that they don't directly represent any Holocaust survivors, although as a Jewish group they do have an interest in the commission's work. || ||>Yes; contempt of court has unlimited penalties, in the discretion ||>of the court. It's not a criminal charge, but a court-ordered matter. ||>If a libel conviction were obtained, an injunction against further ||>publication (such as Judge Locke issued anyway) would go with it. || ||Is a "court-ordered matter" sufficient to allow deportation proceedings? ||(As I think that a criminal conviction is?) Not to my knowledge. Contempt of court is something within the jurisidiction of the court only. Just checked the new Courts of Justice Act (in force since January 1985) - s.35(2) - contempt is punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 6 months. || ||>Not really a problem. Our court system awards costs against a losing ||>party, and "solicitor-and-client" (full) costs against a losing party ||>who instituted what the court considers a frivolous suit. || ||Can this process occur very early in the proceedings? Eg: the first ||day? Does this happen often now? No, it waits until the proceeding is over, since you have to resolve the issue before you can decide it was frivolous (although if there's no grounds for the suit, you can bring a motion early on to have the suit dismissed). || ||>I don't think 177 will be applied except in the most blatant of ||>cases, such as this one. The Keegstra charge is under s. 281.2 ||>(incitement of hatred against an identifiable group) rather than ||>s. 177 (wilfully spreading false news that is likely to cause ||>injury or mischief to a public interest). || ||I have confused the laws - sorry. 177 I like (preventing people ||yelling "fire" in a theatre). Since 177 uses the word "publishes", it wouldn't apply to yelling "fire" in a theatre; that's dealt with via the general section on public mischief. (I don't think publishing a pamphlet that said "Fire!" and handing it out in a theatre would scare too many people :-) .) || s.281.2 I don't like (what if the ||hatred is justified? - during a justifiable war There are several exceptions preventing a conviction under s. 281.2. In particular: (a) if he establishes the statements communicated were true; (b) good faith ... expressed opinion on a religious subject; (c) relevant to subject of public interest, discussion of which was for public benefit, and on reasonable ground he believed them to be true; (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada. (s. 281.2(3)) These exceptions don't apply to a charge under 281.2(1), on communicating statements in a public place and inciting hatred against an identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The exceptions apply to 281.2(2), the general "wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group" provision. So those who incite hatred against Nazi war criminals by pointing to their crimes, if they can establish their statements as true, can't be convicted. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave