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
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (04/15/85)
wjr@utcs.UUCP (William Rucklidge) writes: > Unfortunately, in Keegstra's case, the people he was exposing were > not able to critically examine this information: as their teacher, he was > presumably viewed as a source of knowledge and, as the testimony of some > of the students seems to indicate, the beliefs he was spreading were accepted > by the students. This was, of course, reinforced by the necessity that they > do assignments about the Jewish conspiracy etc., and the fact that they > received better marks for agreeing with him. > What I don't understand (in this respect), is, where were the student's parents during all this? Surely, something as virulent as the hearings lead us to believe would have been *really* obvious to the parents (other teachers, the principal etc). I know one thing, if my child ever came home spouting such garbage, I wouldn't sit back and let it continue. Surely it could have been stopped before it got this far. Schools do have the ability to impose sanctions upon school topics without reliance on more global restrictions upon freedom of speech. If I recall correctly, this action was initially prompted by a Jewish group, not anyone connected with the school. Somewhat of a poor commentary on the good sense of small towns in Canada I guess. cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) says: > Laura says she knows an Arab person whose family died in the 6-day war, > and as a consequence hates Zionism, and by extension all Jews. (or words > to that effect). She then goes on to wonder about the possibility of being > legislated into not hating Zionism/whatever. > > Another group of postings suggest banning/rewriting separate works as the > Bible, certain movies, and so on. > > Both sets of postings widely miss the mark. The laws in question here > (177 and the other one) have nothing to do with banning books, but with > telling lies (in the face of readily and universally verifiable fact) > to the purpose of harming the reputations/livelihoods of people being > lied about. The discussion has strayed from the particular laws in question to a more general discussion of how best to handle similar incidents. > In no way can the laws be interpreted as acting on works produced more than > (say) five years ago. Shirley Temple is safe, since the movies are 40 years > old. The bible is safe for both reasons of age, and because the laws in > question specifically don't apply to religion. I wasn't talking about these laws in particular, rather the intent of them. Shirley Temple movies (etc.) aren't safe - they've been restricted already (although unofficially). Does anybody remember seeing the Bill Cosby film on them? Why should the Bible be safe from such laws anyways? If we attempt to restrict publication/spoken word representations of false material, it shouldn't matter *when* it was written, nor should it matter on whether the material is religious in nature. I was speaking in terms of the material itself, not necessarily with respect to criminal proceedings against the writer (just try prosecuting someone who is dead!). > In fact, the laws are reasonably safe, since one way to beat a conviction > is to satisfy the jury that you acted in good faith. However, given the > overwhelming amount of evidence (and a lack of conflicting evidence worth > mentioning) about the holocaust, someone maintaining that it didn't happen > is either mentally ill or is a viscious, criminal scum out to propogate > mindless hate. True. Was the court able to prove either? Because of the verdict they evidently chose the latter. My fear is whether the conviction was based upon the legal requirements, or personal bias of the jurors. > Given the amount of concern expressed by nearly everyone about possible > misuse of these laws, it is clear that the independent, impartial judiciary > must be very careful and forthright. Many people have the fear that someday, > the government will turn into a monster and use laws like this to hunt > certain people down. I, for one, don't think this too likely for some > rather obvious reasons: If the government is in this state, there are plenty > of more powerful tools it can use (such as the war measures act) that > it would simply be wasting its time otherwise. Yes, that is a good argument. But, then again, most monsters started out small. -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/15/85)
In article <420@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP writes: >Why should the Bible be safe from such laws anyways? If we attempt to >restrict publication/spoken word representations of false material, >it shouldn't matter *when* it was written, nor should it matter on whether >the material is religious in nature. I was speaking in terms of the >material itself, not necessarily with respect to criminal proceedings >against the writer (just try prosecuting someone who is dead!). Theoretically the Bible should not be safe, however, Christians make up a not insignificant percentage of the population and I imagine that any government that tried to force rewriting of the Bible by charging the various publishers would become so unpopular that they could kiss off the idea of holding office again for a long time. J.B. Robinson
jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) (04/18/85)
I have read several recent contributions about the Zundel case
in can.politics, and I have noticed the following argument:
Hitler was openly racist, and when he was ignored, he eventually
succeeded in carrying out a massive genocide of Jews.
If we ignore Zundel and co., it will lead to another similar
tragedy.
Now I am not an expert on the conditions in Germany before WW II,
but the aforementioned argument strikes me as rather simplistic.
If we let parallels of this kind guide us, we will fight yesterday's
battles, which are irrelevant today. Racism was generally acceptable
in Germany (and in other countries, including Canada no doubt) 50 years
ago; it is not today. If racism were as respectable today as it was then,
sending Zundel to prison wouldn't make it less so.
On another topic: In connection with the suggestions relating to
"group libel" laws, will someone please enlighten me about the Canadian
libel/slander law: If my uncle kills your father, and I publicly declare
that my uncle did NOT kill your father, is that a slanderous statement
under the law?clewis@mnetor.UUCP (04/19/85)
In article <7197@watdaisy.UUCP> jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) writes: >I have read several recent contributions about the Zundel case >in can.politics, and I have noticed the following argument: >> Hitler was openly racist, and when he was ignored, he eventually >> succeeded in carrying out a massive genocide of Jews. >> If we ignore Zundel and co., it will lead to another similar >> tragedy. The main problem with this sort of argument is that we have left out the question of "power", "influence", and "what can *we* do about it".) Hitler was head of a powerful political party in another country. Before he was elected leader of Germany, people in other parts of the world would have known very little about him (except for possibly immediately before the election). Don't forget, this was before television and before most people even had radios (early 30's). I personally believe that the main reason why Hitler was elected was his approach to the catastrophic economic situation (have you seen the pictures of people having to have wheel-barrel loads of marks to by a loaf of bread?). Unfortunately, (as noted below), racism was largely tolerated throughout the world, and, to a certain extent, only those in Germany knew about the racism part. In a way, Zundel is very much like the pre-election, pre-party Hitler. There are several very important differences though. The most important things are: 1) Zundel's only thesis is racism. 2) The country that Zundel is in (Canada of course) is made up of a mixture of races, and has a very high level of awareness and communication about racism. 3) Most people (90% or more) totally reject his thesis (re Holocaust and conspiracy) Thus, could you possibly think that Zundel (or any like him) could possibly obtain a position of power? The possibilities of abuse of legislation directed against the sort of things he says are too high. Especially if the powers are strong enough that such people can suppress dissent if by some remote possibility such people do become powerful. It's usually safer to down-play the crap that such as him spew, and make sure that your education system is firm enough to educate people to reject un-substantiated claims. Then, your protection is that people such as him simply cannot get into positions of power. Persecution of such people just makes martyrs - everybody loves a martyr. Most of the major ("non-lip-service") democracies (since the war) have been pretty good at preventing such people obtaining power (except for the occasional McCarthy or Paisley). Even Reagan isn't all *that* bad. After he was elected, his racism became supported by legal sanctions not just the loonies that agreed with him. At this point the police/military came into the picture. And, police and military people have to follow orders even if they disagree with them - on penalty of being shot (as in Hitler's Germany). There were no other choices available to most - what would you do? I know what most people would do. People, particularly those with children, are simply not that suicidal. We can see this happen elsewhere too: Poland, South America etc. At this point, now that Hitler was elected, what is the rest of the world supposed to be able to do? Protest? Lots did (elsewhere in the world). What did it achieve? Nothing - even now, what do protests achieve when directed against the major policies of very powerful governments other than your own? Protests don't work even against your own government when they violently suppress them. What other options were available to other governments? 1) covert operations. This was before governments realized how effective it is, and before the CIA existed. 2) economic sanctions were not particularly effective at that time when directed against countries as powerful as Germany. Economic sanctions severe enough to have any sort of effect would have prompted Hitler to attack long before anyone else was prepared for it. Besides, as in the US, some of the most powerful corporations and individuals were actively supporting Hitler (eg: Henry Ford and JFK Senior) 3) War. At the time, governments were less inclined to interfere with other countries' internal affairs than the US is now. Thus, fortunately, the internal persecution of Jews was not sufficient to provoke a war. I say fortunately, because if Britain and/or France had attempted to attack Germany they would have been clobbered. Neither one was prepared for war. Germany had been (more or less secretly) gearing up for war since Hitler was elected. They DID start gearing up for war, but continued hoping that Hitler would "go away". Memories of WW I were just too strong. The US was not a factor, due to their policy of isolationism, corporate support of Germany, technical difficulties of mounting a US-only invasion, some distrust of Britain (dating from 1776), and the fact that the US simply wasn't that particularly powerful militarily (until the factories got going). After all, until the late 1930's, the US relied upon Britain for military (particularly naval) protection. But, remember, that Britain (shortly afterwards most of the Commonwealth) and France DID declare war on Germany for aggression against Poland. There were many counter movements to Hitler, but they just simply didn't succeed (eg: assassination attempts by high level military officers). In fact, once elected, the ONLY way for Hitler to have been stopped short of war would have been to have a German citizen assassinate him. None of Hitler's fellow crazies could have continued to hold power after an assassination (eg: Goering, Himmler, Bormann). Probably the most likely event after an assassination would have been the takeover by the military - eg: Canaris, Doenitz etc., and the active racism (and the war if the assassination happened during the war) would have probably stopped immediately. > >Now I am not an expert on the conditions in Germany before WW II, >but the aforementioned argument strikes me as rather simplistic. >If we let parallels of this kind guide us, we will fight yesterday's >battles, which are irrelevant today. Racism was generally acceptable >in Germany (and in other countries, including Canada no doubt) 50 years >ago; it is not today. If racism were as respectable today as it was then, >sending Zundel to prison wouldn't make it less so. > >On another topic: In connection with the suggestions relating to >"group libel" laws, will someone please enlighten me about the Canadian >libel/slander law: If my uncle kills your father, and I publicly declare >that my uncle did NOT kill your father, is that a slanderous statement >under the law? No, I don't think so. I think that libel/slander only applies when the declaration is intended to damage someone's reputation. Your example has you defending someone's reputation. Even though you may be damaging the reputation of the accusor, the law (as I understand it) would balance weight of the possible damage against the context (murder). Clearly, the possible damage is very minor compared to the context. If the murder is a "fact" (eg: proved in a court of law), usually the courts don't prosecute these things as "contempt of court". (They can can't they? They can certainly prosecute claims of incompetance directed against the court) -- Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321
dave@lsuc.UUCP (04/19/85)
In article <7197@watdaisy.UUCP> jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) writes: || If my uncle kills your father, and I publicly declare ||that my uncle did NOT kill your father, is that a slanderous statement ||under the law? That isn't the issue which gives rise to the question of libel. Zundel's publications claim that the Holocaust did not happen, and that it was invented by Jews and Israel to extract billions of dollars in reparations from West Germany. That, in many people's view, is a libel of the entire Jewish people and particularly all Holocaust survivors. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
jkpachl@watdaisy.UUCP (Jan Pachl) (04/23/85)
Chris Lewis (clewis@mnetor.UUCP) writes (in response to W. Rucklidge), in reference to Keegstra's case: > What I don't understand (in this respect), is, where were the student's > parents during all this? Surely, something as virulent as the hearings > lead us to believe would have been *really* obvious to the parents > (other teachers, the principal etc). I have found an answer to this question in the May issue of Saturday Night, in an article about Keegstra and his students. According to the author (R. M. Lee), parents and other teachers did know what Keegstra was teaching. Many (most?) did not object. The article says that when Keegstra was fired from his teaching job, 128 parents and former students signed a petition to overturn the firing. The population of Eckville is supposed to be 700.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/24/85)
In article <611@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >That isn't the issue which gives rise to the question of libel. >Zundel's publications claim that the Holocaust did not happen, and >that it was invented by Jews and Israel to extract billions of >dollars in reparations from West Germany. That, in many people's >view, is a libel of the entire Jewish people and particularly all >Holocaust survivors. In that case perhaps, for consistency's sake, all libel cases should be tried in the criminal court? J.B. Robinson
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (04/29/85)
The point of prosecuting Zundel (and Keegstra) is to stop
society from swinging back to the type of environment wherein
it could happen again. The fact that everythings nice and anti-
racist today, doesn't mean it'll stay that way.
Reagan's recent comment seems to indicate that he's
forgotten the lesson.robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/01/85)
In article <628@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > The point of prosecuting Zundel (and Keegstra) is to stop >society from swinging back to the type of environment wherein >it could happen again. The fact that everythings nice and anti- >racist today, doesn't mean it'll stay that way. > > Reagan's recent comment seems to indicate that he's >forgotten the lesson. It was not a bunch of wacko private citizens who committed those crimes against humanity in WW2 - It was the duly elected *government* of Germany. Does anyone really think that any group, anywhere, could possibly murder 6 million of their country's citizens without the *full* support of the government? I don't. This suggests to me that the real lesson to remember is that when a people allow themselves to be intimidated and muzzled by their government, as the German people allowed their government to intimidate and muzzle them, then that people should not be surprised when the unthinkable occurs. Needless to say, the easiest way to nip that potential problem in the bud is to *not* allow the government to assume an undue amount of power. J.B. Robinson
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (05/01/85)
In article <1039@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >In article <628@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: >> >> The point of prosecuting Zundel (and Keegstra) is to stop >>society from swinging back to the type of environment wherein >>it could happen again. The fact that everythings nice and anti- >>racist today, doesn't mean it'll stay that way. >> >> Reagan's recent comment seems to indicate that he's >>forgotten the lesson. > >It was not a bunch of wacko private citizens who committed those crimes >against humanity in WW2 - It was the duly elected *government* of Germany. >Does anyone really think that any group, anywhere, could possibly >murder 6 million of their country's citizens without the *full* support >of the government? I don't. > >This suggests to me that the real lesson to remember is that when a >people allow themselves to be intimidated and muzzled by their government, >as the German people allowed their government to intimidate and muzzle >them, then that people should not be surprised when the unthinkable >occurs. > >Needless to say, the easiest way to nip that potential problem in the bud >is to *not* allow the government to assume an undue amount of power. Well, actually, Jim, I'm afraid you've got your history a bit tangled. In fact, in any of the democratic elections held before 1933, the Nazis got a minority of the votes. But, more importantly, the reason the Nazis ever reached power was that the authority of the Weimar government was eroded to the point that no government could rule. The Weimar Republic allowed private armies (the SA and other Voelkisch storm troops were opposed by the SDP's Reichsbanner) not for some ideological reason, but rather because it lacked the political will to suppress them (there certainly were government officials who supported private armies--especially those of the right--but an account of the inability of the Weimar government to do *anything* makes for depressing reading. Finally, things got so bad (under Bruening) that the last year of the Weimar government was essentially government by decree, because of the total lack of authority the government possessed. One might argue--very strongly--that had the Reich government acted against Hitler after the 1923 putsch and sent him to prison for 10 or 20 years, without possibility of parole, he would have vanished into obscurity. Instead, even in 1923, the Bavarian government was too weak to stop him from turning his trial into a soapbox; it gave him a slap on the wrist (two years of imprisonment under quite luxurious conditions), and told him to sin no more. Now, I'm not comparing Zundel with Hitler: the latter was convicted of treason, while Zundel was only found guilty of a glorified form of public mischief (spreading false news). But the fact is that Zundel has abused his freedom of speech to harm other people, and that's where the government has to step in. I'm sure that Jim would appreciate the government acting on his behalf to protect his rights; in the same way, I appreciate the government acting (however unwillingly) to preserve my rights.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (05/03/85)
I think you've missed my point. As you said, it was an elected government. The people who voted them in didn't think they (the voters) were being 'wacko'. Some of them obviously thought the Nazi party was right about the Jews. It's the opinion/feeling which gives them the power to do 'bad' things. Do you know how most of the current politicians feel about 'muzzling' the public? How about the Attornies General? How effective is your much vaunted 'freedom of speech' against true hate? Will it keep the Japanese from being thrown in jail and stripped of their possessions again? This was the effect of the 'freedom to incite riots' back before and during the 2nd world war, on *both* sides of the 49th parallel. We, the Japanese, would probably have been quite happy to see the hate mongers of the day thrown in jail instead. It's not likely that it would have happened, but it would have been nice.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/03/85)
You know, actually, I should apologies for oversimplying the whole of German history. Yes, I know about the 'electing' of Hitler. Still, my premise is that political power, at it's base, is always a fair reflection of at least a sizable chunk of any population. You *can't* hold power unless you can back it up with muscle. This amount of muscle depends on how big the scisms are, but the 'police' are always there to enforce the majorities opinion of proper conduct (notice that I deliberately avoid the word 'Justice'). I maintain also that the proper role of the courts always has been and *should* be the maintenance of public order. Governments *never* have more power than the people under them allow. Yes, I even include Communist Russia. If the people wanted to overthrow their government, they would. As it is, I expect it to change. China's just ahead of them in that respect. To get back to Zundel's case, for all the hot air expelled over it, I doubt whether we'll see many (if any cases) again in our lifetimes. It's a low probability expectation because we *do* value freedom of speech. No, Mr. R., you are not the only one who cares about it. It's just that some of us look at more than just one aspect of life/freedom/pursuit of happiness etc.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/04/85)
* Mr O, I think *you* missed *my* point. That it was the *government* of Germany that killed 6 million of their citizens, and, now that you've brought it up, it was the *government* of Canada that unjustly interned Canadians of Japanese descent. *No other* entity would have had the power to commit those injustices. You make a valid point when you state that a government is a fair reflection of at least a sizable chunk of the population. However, that does not, and must not, give a government a license to do as it pleases. In my opinion, since governments have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate a propensity to abuse their powers, the easiest way for citizens to protect themselves from government excesses is to limit the powers of the government. ( Hopefully, the Charter will do just that. ) And if that means that such interesting pieces of legislation such as The War Measures Act get tossed out the window, all the better. I find it very interesting that the implication is being made that I am not taking a global enough view of the situation, since that is exactly what I consider those who would throw the lyers in jail to be guilty of. Yes, the vast majority of people get a good feeling from seeing Zundel thrown into the slammer. And a lot of these people would say that it is their right to not have to be confronted with his particular type of libel. However, in the process of being "protected" from "dangerous" propaganda, it is necessary to cede ever greater powers to the government. Just because the government now is at best benevolent and at worst incompetent does not mean that that will always be the case. Given the choice between letting a private citizen print all the lies he wants or allowing an entity that has historically shown itself incapable of self-policing the power to stop him, I'll go with the former every time. >Governments *never* have more power than the people under them allow. >Yes, I even include Communist Russia. If the people wanted to overthrow >their government, they would. As it is, I expect it to change. China's Russia and China are closed societies - i.e. their citizens really don't realize that things could be a lot better. However, I think both Poland and South Africa will illustrate the difficulty of overthrowing a government in a police state. They may one day succeed, but in the meantime the majority of the citizens in those countries must live without basic rights which we take for granted. J.B. Robinson
ian@utcs.UUCP (05/07/85)
In article <1039@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >It was not a bunch of wacko private citizens who committed those crimes >against humanity in WW2 - It was the duly elected *government* of Germany. >Does anyone really think that any group, anywhere, could possibly >murder 6 million of their country's citizens without the *full* support >of the government? I don't. I would argue with the point that the Nazis were `duly elected.' Like the Bolsheviks in the Soviet, the Nazis in Germany formed a leading power group through the careful disenfranchisement (i.e., murder) of those who stood in their way. Read about `the night of the long knives' in German history, and the fate of the Mensheviks in Soviet history. >This suggests to me that the real lesson to remember is that when a >people allow themselves to be intimidated and muzzled by their government, >as the German people allowed their government to intimidate and muzzle >them, then that people should not be surprised when the unthinkable >occurs. True. Ask the Afghans; their holocaust is happening while we sit here in our self-righteousness over the buck or two we gave for Ethiopian relief. And we continue to have `normal' relations with the Soviets, as a generation before us had `normal' relations with Germany. >Needless to say, the easiest way to nip that potential problem in the bud >is to *not* allow the government to assume an undue amount of power. With that sentiment I'd certainly agree. -- Ian Darwin, Toronto uucp: {ihnp4|decvax}!utcs!ian Envoy-100: I.Darwin Bitnet: ian@utoronto
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (05/08/85)
In article <1052@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: || However, in the process of being ||"protected" from "dangerous" propaganda, it is necessary to cede ever ||greater powers to the government. The government certainly doesn't have the power to act unilaterally to suppress someone's right to say things. Remember that Zundel was convicted by a unanimous jury of 12, convincedd beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were criminal. That's a pretty good check. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/09/85)
In article <638@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <1052@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >>... >The government certainly doesn't have the power to act unilaterally to >suppress someone's right to say things. Remember that Zundel was convicted >by a unanimous jury of 12, convincedd beyond a reasonable doubt that his >actions were criminal. That's a pretty good check. Not quite "were criminal". The correct wording is "were against the law". That's what I understand juries are *supposed* to determine and judges tell them to do most of the time. The assumption is that the law is "correct" and "complete" (the tolerable exceptions eg: self-defense w.r.t. murder) are already enshrined as exceptions to the law. When they've strayed (eg: Morgentaler acquittal in Ontario) into determining whether it is "criminal" judges sometimes get really annoyed - I've seen nasty comments from judges on this issue before - something like "I am disappointed in you... but you've decided...". Morgentaler appears to say that he *is* violating the law, but is relying on juries determining whether his actions are "criminal" to get him off. Yes, I agree that juries sometimes do make decisions on "morality" and/or "criminality". And it is a protection. However, it is not enshrined in the law: it is an exception rather than the rule. Mainly "luck-of-the-draw" I suspect in many cases. And, in Zundel's case, the "fact" of the Holocaust was almost certainly a forgone conclusion to the entire jury - hardly un-pre-prejudiced as juries are supposed to be. Thus, part of the requirements for convictions were prejudged. God no! I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is not a "fact", it *is* a fact. I am merely pointing out that, contrary to the intent of the law, Zundel's case was probably partially judged *before* the trial. And, in similar emotionally-loaded cases, they will always be! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/10/85)
In article <638@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >The government certainly doesn't have the power to act unilaterally to >suppress someone's right to say things. Remember that Zundel was convicted >by a unanimous jury of 12, convincedd beyond a reasonable doubt that his >actions were criminal. That's a pretty good check. One of Henry Morgentaler's jury trial acquittals in Quebec (probably the first) was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal. This eventually led to the Morgentaler Amendment which disallows this type of thing. However, I wonder how much of a fuss would be put up by the public if the government was to repeal said amendment? I would like to think quite a bit, but one never knows - especially if it can be "shown" to be "for the good of the masses". J.B. Robinson
lionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) (05/10/85)
Chris Lewis writes: ... > Not quite "were criminal". The correct wording is "were against the > law". That's what I understand juries are *supposed* to determine and > judges tell them to do most of the time. The assumption is that the > law is "correct" and "complete" (the tolerable exceptions eg: > self-defense w.r.t. murder) are already enshrined as exceptions to the > law. When they've strayed (eg: Morgentaler acquittal in Ontario) into > determining whether it is "criminal" judges sometimes get really > annoyed - I've seen nasty comments from judges on this issue before - > something like "I am disappointed in you... but you've decided...". > Morgentaler appears to say that he *is* violating the law, but is > relying on juries determining whether his actions are "criminal" to get > him off. It seems to me that Morgentaler defends himself with the argument that *within* the letter of the law a doctor is entitled to perform necessary medical treatments, such as abortions, under the circumstances that he does. In this, juries have consistently found him not guilty of violating the law. The question of *criminality* hasn't entered into it. The Quebec government, ten years ago after several jury acquitals, decided that his actions could not be found in contravention of the current law. The above paragraph not withstanding, I don't really see the difference between "criminal" and "against the law" as you distinguish them. Both are legal terms, are they not? Perhaps you mean "criminal" as "morally incorrect." (Or perhaps I have taken you out of context...) Another country heard from... Thank you. Lionel H. Moser Department of Computer Science Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland Canada A1C 5S7 UUCP: utcsri!garfield!lionel
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/10/85)
In article <2889@garfield.UUCP> lionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) writes: > > Chris Lewis writes: > ... >> Not quite "were criminal". The correct wording is "were against the >> law" > The above paragraph not withstanding, I don't really see the >difference between "criminal" and "against the law" as you distinguish >them. Both are legal terms, are they not? Perhaps you mean "criminal" >as "morally incorrect." (Or perhaps I have taken you out of context...) I believe that Dave Sherman (to whom I replied) was actually meaning "morally incorrect" (and so was I). This is because he was implying that the jury system can make decisions differing from the "exact letter of the law". Right Dave? My major point was that, yes, they can, but it is not enshrined and/or guaranteed by the legal code and that many judges do not like it happening. A judge does have the right to overturn a jury decision if he can establish that the terms of reference for the jury has been violated and he feels strongly enough about it can't he? (I seem to remember one or two occasions where a judge has declared mis-trials when the judge has decided that the jury grossly goofed in satisfying the requirements for conviction and/or acquittal) Re: Morgantaler - I believe that he acknowledges that the common interpretation of the law implies that what he does is illegal. The Federal Govt. seems to be saying that the law is so vague, that it is up to the Provinces to determine what exactly the law means w.r.t. clinic abortions. My remembrance of the law, when taken completely literally, does prohibit what Morgentaler is doing. (This is not intended to imply that *I* personally think what Morgantaler is doing is right OR wrong). -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/11/85)
I don't understand your argument. The decision of the jury was whether or not Zundel was lying when he said *he* believed that what he was saying was true. That's what the judge would have tried to impress upon the jury. Maybe you should sit on a few juries or sit through some cases from beginning to end. I think you'd generally approve of what the judges do in these situations. By and large we have an excellent judiciary. Our judges, all across Canada, in the superior courts (anything above the Provincial Courts and Magistrate level) are of very high calibre. I haven't always agreed with everything they've done, but the quality of the minds of our judges can't really be disputed. Similarly, you'll find their intentions are by and large good and they take very seriously, the rights of all people before them.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (05/11/85)
Actually, 'What's Criminal?' isn't really that easy a question.
At an earlier time I would have said that conduct contrary to the
Criminal Code is 'Criminal' and by definition, nothing else is (abortions
which are note performed in the way the Criminal Code allows them to
be performed *are* criminal by the way). Lately, however, there has
been some case-law which has recognized offences under *some* other
Federal statutes as being part of the body of 'criminal' law for
constitutional purposes. In particular, narcotics and food and drugs
are fairly clearly 'criminal' law.
A provincial offence, by definition *cannot* be 'Criminal' law,
because the provinces have no constitutional power to pass 'criminal'
laws.jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/11/85)
The classic definition of the Role of the jury is to decide the
'facts', while, where there is a jury, the judge decides the 'law'.
What we mean by this in a criminal case, or a case where there is
an accusation of an offence against a statute of a similar nature,
is (in a normal situation) that the Crown (or the People in the US)
decide what they accuse the defendant of doing (which *must* be an
offence know at law, and since the passing of the Criminal Code,
which abolished all common law offences, *must* be an offence defined
in a statute somewhere, and in a Criminal matter, arguable must be
in the Criminal Code, subject to what I've said before), the judge
looks at the offence and tells the jury that 'these are the facts
which constitute the offence' (which he derives from the statute and
relevant caselaw which helps him interpret the statute is the statute
is not clear or there is some other strong reason for not taking it
at face value--and it had better be a *very* strong reason to make
a judge vary from the most obvious meaning of the statute) and the
jury decides, from the relevant evidence whether the facts which make
up the offence are true.
i.e.: -the Crown says X altered the markings on a log in the Fraser River.
(this is a *real* criminal offence and is no joke because if you alter the
markings on a log, it's like stealing it)
the judge says that the relevant facts to be proven are:
-1. the defendant altered the marking on the log
-2. the defendant did it deliberately for the purpose of claiming it
as his own (I'm making these up, because I don't really know if you have
to prove it was deliberately for this reason)
-the jury hears the evidence of the Crown and by the Defendant and all
the cross examinations and then decides
-1. we believe that the defendant did or did not alter the marking on the
log.
-2. we believe that he did it for a joke, or he did it for the purpose
of claiming it as his own (depending...)
the judge decides the sentence.
If *all* the evidence shows that the offence has been committed and
*no* evidence has been raised which could provide a reasonable doubt, then
a judge *might* call it a mis-trial. Again, this only would happen in a
very extremely rare case. The judges take the role of juries *very*
seriously in Canada.
The prevelent attitude of people who don't come in contact with the
Superior Courts seems to me to be that the judges are stupid, frivolous
and/or capricious. This attitude is *not* prevelent among lawyers who
do daily work in the courts. They almost unanimously feel that the judges
are generally sharp and scholarly. Going in front of one without proper
preparation is asking to be slashed to ribbons (some of them, anyway).clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (05/13/85)
In article <641@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > I don't understand your argument. The decision of the jury was >whether or not Zundel was lying when he said *he* believed that what >he was saying was true. That's what the judge would have tried to >impress upon the jury. Maybe you should sit on a few juries or sit >through some cases from beginning to end. I have a great deal of respect for and confidence in the judiciary. I used to work for the "Royal Commission of Enquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario" with Supreme Court of Ontario Judge Horace Krever and I know a few other judges quite well. I have sat through almost a year of hearings. Re: jury duty - I'd like to, but never have been called. Even if called, I suspect that I'd spend the two weeks twiddling my thumbs - the general impression that many people get is that "techie" people are usually not selected for trials. (Lawyer: "What's your occupation?" me: "Computer Systems Designer", Lawyer: "Thank you, next!") We're too logical I guess :-)! Yes, juries determine guilt by ascertaining what they believe to be the adduced-during-trial facts when taken along with the relevant points of law provided by the judge. Dave Sherman's posting implied that the juries can also go beyond this by, in effect, determining that the law is wrong (when applied to a specific case or in general) and thus providing a protection against improper or improperly applied laws. I wasn't disagreeing with him - I raised Morgantaler as an example of where I think that this happened. The point I was trying to make is that normally this is not done nor is it enshrined in the law. Normally it is frowned upon (and it is probably being used as justification of an appeal w.r.t. Morgantaler). In many cases such an action by a jury would probably be based upon pre-conceived opinions - hence it is not particularly effective when the case is about something unpopular. I'm not blaming the jury either - I don't know if I could disassociate my personal beliefs within the context of a specific trial on such a subject. Normal jury duty is easy in this respect because the topic does not usually touch you personally. Being a juror on the Zundel case must not have been fun at all. Imagine that Zundel was acquitted because the jury wasn't satisfied that he knew that he was uttering false statements - the jurors would have been called Nazis and probably would have been threatened by the lunatic fringe. It's happened before. In the Zundel trial, I am rather surprised that the jury could actually come to a determination that he *knew* what he was saying was false. Humans, being as they are, are perfectly capable of deluding themselves into believing anything. The fact that *you* believe in something doesn't automatically make someone propounding a different view dishonest and out for ulterior motives (eg: Zundel was just out to promote hatred of jews). If we make such an assumption (and Canadians seem to be particularly adept at such a thing) all sorts of absurdities become possible (eg: the RC hierarchy invented the RC theology merely to obtain 15% of everybody's salary - some people actually *believe* that! Another popular one is the fact that Thatcher's popularity shot up because of the Falklands - many believe that she caused the invasion of the Falklands *only* for that reason!) Most of the time such a person sincerely believes what he is saying. If his beliefs can be clearly determined to be wrong (as in the case of Zundel) such a person may be insane, merely mistaken, or have a different opinion on what is right - it doesn't necessarily make someone a criminal to disagree with society. We normally don't put people in jail who claim that they are Napolean do we? Maybe it would be just better to ignore them totally and institutionalize them in mental institutions if they become a real danger to society (Zundel wasn't really). But, again, we gotta be careful, because that's what they do in the USSR (and, to a lesser extent, North America too - until the laws were changed). In his own mind, I'm sure that Zundel was doing what he believed to be right, warning society about an insidious conspiracy, and within that context his actions were heroic and patriotic - sticking to his beliefs come hell or high water. Unfortunately for him, he's a nut-case and his premise was completely wrong. Criminal? probably not. -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (05/14/85)
I think we aren't dissagreeing by and large. I
just believe that the jury decided what they were supposed
to decide in this case. I wasn't on the jury and I didn't
hear the 'jury charge'. As such I believe the trial went as it
was supposed to until I've been shown evidence that something
improper or different occurred.
Morganthaler was a different matter. I know for a fact
what was said by the defence counsel during his summation
(or at least I *did* know--I forget now).
Heck. I'd pick a programmer for jury duty.
Jim O.dave@lsuc.UUCP (05/14/85)
In article <584@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: ||In the Zundel trial, I am rather surprised that the jury could actually ||come to a determination that he *knew* what he was saying was false. Don't be too surprised, Chris. Have you read any detailed reports of the trial, and particularly of Zundel's testimony? (The most detailed reports I saw were in the Canadian Jewish News, which devoted two full pages each weekly issue to the trial.) Zundel wasn't just raving in vacuo. He has studied the Holocaust extensively. He has a constructed a scale model of Auschwitz. I don't find it surprising that the jury should be able to look at him and say, given the amount he's read about the Holocaust, it's impossible for him not to know that what he published was false. If there was any hope for Zundel towards the end, his own testimony at the end of the trial totally destroyed it. Statements about how wonderful Hitler was, among others, didn't improve the jurors' opinion of him. We'll never know the truth, of course. Under Canadian law, jurors are forbidden from discussing any aspect of the case or their decision, even after it's all over. Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave