dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (05/12/88)
[ Toronto Star, May 12, 1988. Page 1 lead story. By Paul Bilodeau ]
For the second time in three years, a jury has found Ernst
Zundel guilty of publishing false statements denying the
Holocaust.
Zundel, defiant and unrepentant after hearing yesterday's
verdict, said he fully expects to go to jail when he is
sentenced tomorrow morning by Judge Ron Thomas.
Zundel vowed to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court of
Canada if necessary -- "As long as the Canadian taxpayer
is willing to foot the bill for my political prosecutions."
But the Carlton St. publisher had to share the spotlight with
an angry Holocaust survivor whose family was slaughtered after
the Nazis swept into Yugoslavia.
While Zundel was being interviewed by reporters outside the
courthouse, Dr. Boris Altshtater shouted that he lost 90 per cent
of his family in Nazi concentration camps.
The Jewish man's passionate denouncement overshadowed Zundel's
repeated assertion that the Holocaust was a "hoax" and that
Canadians were "mentally ill" for believing the Nazis exterminated
Jews in World War II.
The portly, balding Zundel, 49, had showed little emotion when
the six men and five women returned a guilty verdict shortly
before 5 p.m. yesterday, after deliberating 17 hours over two days.
...
Zundel was charged in 1984 in a private prosecution brought by
Sabina Citron of Toronto, a survivor of Nazi death camps and
founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association....
"They might have questions about the Holocaust, but that does
not give them the right to say Jews are hoaxers and swindlers,"
Citron told the Star in an earlier interview...
In March, 1985, after a sensation seven-week jury trial, Zundel
had been sentenced to 15 months in jail for publishing [the]
32-page pamphlet, *Did Six Million Really Die?* District
Court Judge Hugh Locke also banned him from making public
statements on the Holocaust for three years.
But the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the conviction
last year and ordered a new trial, citing legal errors Locke
made during the trial. [The most substantial error was the
charge to the jury, where the judge told the jurors they could
convict if they found Zundel had no honest belief in the truth
of the pamphlet; the Court of Appeal ruled that the jurors should
have been charged to convict only if they found Zundel knew
the contents were false. -DS]
The retrial began Jan. 18 to a packed courtroom but little
media attention. [The Star carried a daily article of about
12 column inches on page 2, reporting progress. But all the media,
in response to complaints about their handling of the last trial,
refrained from sensationalizing the ridiculous defense testimony. -DS]
Judge Thomas ... used the Court of Appeal judgment as a guide
to avoid the pitfalls of the first trial.
He excluded evidence about Zundel's right to "freedom of expression"
which the appeal court said did not apply to this case. [I've
dealt with the reasons in a previous posting. Essentially, the
concept doesn't apply to known falsehoods. -DS]
[Defence lawyer Douglas] Christie called for a mistrial -- one of
five such applications he made during the trial -- after Thomas took
"judicial notice" of the Holocaust. Thomas ruled that the Nazi
extermination of millions of Jews "is so notorious as to not to be
the subject of dispute among reasonable persons."
The ruling seemed to nullify the theme of Zundel's pamphlet,
but it did not prevent Christie from calling 23 witnesses, most
of whom denied the Holocaust.
Crown Attorney John Pearson, relaxing after the jury verdict
yesterday, said he was pleased that he had achieved both his
objectives -- to ensure Zundel got a fair trial, and to make
sure the jury understood the prosecution evidence.
Pearson argued that Zundel did not really believe what he published
-- that the Holocaust was a huge hoax perpetrated by Zionists to gain
advantages for the state of Israel.
Pearson told the jury that Zundel was really out to clear the Nazi
record of its worst atrocity: the planned extermination of six million
Jews.
The prosecution was made more difficult because Zundel did not testify,
as he had done in his first trial. The jury was left to speculate on his
motives for publishing the pamphlet.
But Pearson showed the jury books that Zundel wrote praising Adolf
Hitler, and called Holocaust historians and an international
Red Cross delegate as witnesses to show the many false and misleading
statements in the pamphlet.
...
Christie, who had cultivated the media during the first trial, has
refused all comment, greeting reporters with a vacant stare.
The long trial appeared to take its toll on the lawyer from Victoria.
Almost from the outset there were heated exchanges between the judge
and Christie, who adopted an aggressive stance toward the judge's rulings.
[Comment: I'm reporting this for information purposes. We've been
through the debate about the appropriateness of convicting Zundel
many times on the net. Unless you have something entirely new
to add which hasn't been said before, let's not start that whole
debate again. Clearly, Canadian law as in force today in Ontario
permits convictions for wilfully publishing news that the accused
knows is false and that is likely to cause injury or mischief
to a public interest. -DS]
David Sherman
(a lawyer, but not speaking for)
The Law Society of Upper Canada
--
{ uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!daveevan@brambo.UUCP (Evan) (05/13/88)
Two trials so far and Zundel plans to appeal again ... I'd be fascinated to know who's paying his considerable legal fees... Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.uucp
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/13/88)
I have a few more questions about the case: 1) How did the prosecution prove that Zundel's book would cause mischief or harm? What are the criteria for deciding this? Does the law outlaw any sort of hoax, even if it isn't done for material gain (in which case it would be fraud.)? While it would obviously weaken the defence case to assert that nobody would be swayed in their opinion by such poppycock, it's an interesting thing to consider. 2) Can one get a copy of "Did 6 Million Really Die?" to judge for one's self? I would guess not. I have heard it is actually mostly quotes from other books with the same assertion. Who publishes these books? It shames me to be a citizen of a country that has jailed somebody for publishing lies. If you libel, you don't go to jail, you stop publishing, print disclaimers and/or pay a remedy. You don't get a criminal record. This goes far beyond any concept of "group libel." Telling lies without intent to defraud should be a tort, not a crime. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (05/13/88)
In article <406@brambo.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >Two trials so far and Zundel plans to appeal again ... >I'd be fascinated to know who's paying his considerable legal fees... Zundel gets support from the whole peculiar range of neo-Nazi, white power and anti-semitic groups. Paul Bilodeau, who covered the whole trial, had a whole page in the May 12 Star on page A20 (same issue as the one which reported the conviction) in which he reported on some of the undercurrents of the trial. It drew out some very warped people in support of Zundel. I called Bilodeau yesterday (mostly to compliment him on his reporting throughout), and he told me he's never been so close to raw hatred and blind antisemitism as he has through this trial. He found it very disturbing. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (05/13/88)
In article <1640@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >1) How did the prosecution prove that Zundel's book would cause > mischief or harm? What are the criteria for deciding this? I don't know how this was addressed in the second trial. The conclusion that it was "likely to cause mischief or injury to a public interest" (specifically racial harmony) was upheld by the Court of Appeal in the first trial, and so it's possible this was considered a matter of law and not left to the jury to decide. > > Does the law outlaw any sort of hoax, even if it isn't done for > material gain (in which case it would be fraud.)? The Criminal Code provision covers just what I've quoted. A separate provision deals with promoting hatred of an identifiable group. > While it would obviously weaken the defence case to assert that > nobody would be swayed in their opinion by such poppycock, it's > an interesting thing to consider. Yep. > >2) Can one get a copy of "Did 6 Million Really Die?" to judge for one's self? > I would guess not. I have heard it is actually mostly quotes from other > books with the same assertion. Who publishes these books? Samizdat Publishers, Zundel's company. I have no idea whether you can get it from him. > >It shames me to be a citizen of a country that has jailed somebody for >publishing lies. If you libel, you don't go to jail, you stop publishing, >print disclaimers and/or pay a remedy. You don't get a criminal record. And I might argue that it would shame me to be a citizen of a country that would do nothing about those who publish the vilest lies specifically for the purpose of inciting hatred against Jews. And we might both be right, for we are talking politics and not law. Which means we're not going to get very far talking about it on the net. >This goes far beyond any concept of "group libel." Telling lies without >intent to defraud should be a tort, not a crime. There is an intent to defraud, not for immediate material gain (as would be the case with false advertising, for which criminal penalties DO exist and nobody complains) but to promote the neo-Nazi ideology and racial hatred. It's not clear to me why this is less offensive than merely wanting to make a buck. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave