dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (01/01/70)
In article <1015@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: ||In article <599@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: ||>In article <1008@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: ||>||I disagree. Section 281.2 of the criminal code ( wilfully ||>||promoting hatred against an identifiable group ) is the law that ||>||is supposed to deal with hate literature. Section 177 was used ||>||because it was thought to be easier to get a conviction with it. ||> ||>Wrong. S. 177 was used because s. 281.2 requires the consent of ||>the provincial Attorney-General before the charge can be laid, ||>and Mr. McMurtry refused to provide such consent. || ||Only semi-wrong. Roy McMurty refused to provide consent because he did ||not think that the Crown could get a conviction using s. 281.2. Yeah, but *nobody* thought a conviction under 177 would be easier. It was because a prosecution under 281.2 was impossible (due to the lack of A-G's consent) that Sabina Citron laid the charge under s.177. If she'd been able to choose, she would have chosen 281.2 (and in fact tried for two years to get that charge laid by the A-G's office). Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
dave@lsuc.UUCP (04/03/85)
In article <997@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) writes: ||Have you checked your above opinions with the Canadian government before ||publishing them on the net? These might not coincide with the ones held by ||the government this week. To an ignorant western Canadian heathen this ||sounds like it could "cause or is likely to cause injury or mischief to ||a public interest". A public interest could be citizens of any one of the ||above mentioned countries or special interest groups who feel your remarks ||have slighted them. After all at least one person has already taken you ||to task for including Israel in your list. What if that same person ||and his friends (hypothetically of course) were convinced that by calling ||Israel belligerent you were encouraging the fringe elements of our ||society to physically attack Israeli citizens in Canada and hence should ||be hauled into court? Would you like to have to prove that your statement ||was true or that if it wasn't true you were ignorant of the current ||"official" government sanctioned version of truth. || ||Freedom of speech is being undermined in Canada by a government and ||its mandarins who think that the average Canadian citizen is too ||stupid to think for themselves. If this insidious erosion of freedom of speech ||and the press isn't stopped now, we may soon find ourselves in a country ||where we won't be able to talk about anything controversial unless we ||spout the official government line. Unless I'm mistaken, this is a thinly-veiled reference to the Zundel trial. Let's have it out in the open then. I take it, Mr. Acton, you consider the prosecution of Ernst Zundel to have been improper because it limits his freedom of speech? I disagree. The issue here is not freedom of speech. The issue is twofold: incitement of racial unrest, and group libel. Zundel's malicious attempt to "legitimize" the ridiculous claim that the Holocaust never happened is solely for the purposes of fomenting hatred against Jews. Look - a jury of his peers was convined BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Zundel knew that what he was publishing was lies. It's impossible not to agree with them. The issue is not one of freedom of speech, or of different opinions. Zundel's publications are outright untruths dealing with unquestionable historical facts. His purpose in publishing is not to discuss history, or to present opinions. It is to put into people's minds the false idea that "maybe" the Holocaust didn't happen, and therefore that (essentially) all Jews are thieving liars. Or do you too question the Holocaust? I would like to hear from anyone on the net who honestly believes such nonsense. Because if you do, you should be pointed at literature, films and witnesses who can tell you their own stories. Yes, the Jewish community is very sensitive about this issue. And it's not surprising, if you think about it. Did you know that Jews of my generation, if their parents came from continental Europe, simply don't have grandparents? (The exceptions are, unfortunately, few.) Dave Sherman Toronto -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (04/08/85)
In article <578@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: > >Unless I'm mistaken, this is a thinly-veiled reference to the Zundel >trial. Let's have it out in the open then. I take it, Mr. Acton, you >consider the prosecution of Ernst Zundel to have been improper because >it limits his freedom of speech? If there is one thing that both right and left wing dictatorships have in common it is that they rely on a censored press and media to keep information from the people. The sign of a government going bad is its attempts to control what the people may see and read and hence they are trying to control the thoughts of their subjects. The only way for the citizens to recognize what is happening is to have the idea of freedom of speech so firmly implanted in their mind that they view it as an inviolable right. The first signs of a government trying to tinker with freedom of speech would then signal to the people that the government was corrupt. Hopefully, something could then be done about it at the ballot box before any irreversible harm had been done. To ensure that one can tell when freedom of speech is being encroached upon, we must allow free speech even if that means letting people like Ernst Zundel publish the things they do. Nothing forces you or anybody else to believe the things that are published and nothing stops you from using a photocopier to publish your own opinions and thereby deliver the "real" truth to the masses. I have also heard the argument that we can rely upon juries to protect our freedom of speech. Needless to say I don't agree with this assertion but not because I don't trust juries but because I don't trust governments. As an example of possible abuse let's consider what is happening to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. In every province where he has tried to open an abortion clinic he has been charged, but the juries, in the last few years, have never convicted him. How long can this harassment continue before the law is changed or he gives up? Now transplant this to freedom of speech where you are always in court for something you said but are always acquited. How many times do you go to court before you start saying "I can do without this hassle", and give up. I know some people would always be willing to take the trouble to fight but the vast majority of us would probably just let the government have its way. I would also like to point out that Ernst Zundel's trial, which was an attack on everybody's right to free speech, is not the only example of the government's suppression of freedom of speech. Books like "The Red Pony" and "Flowers for Allgernon" are also banned in some school district and municipal/county libraries. Where does one draw the line? Donald Acton
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/08/85)
As Dave Sherman pointed out the issue was *not* freedom of speech. This
is due to the fact that section 177 of the Criminal Code places what I
consider to be an unduly harsh restriction on that freedom that is so
dear to so many of us. This is what section 177 says:
"Everyone who wilfully publishes a statement, tale, or news that he knows
is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a
public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for two years."
First off, I personally do not think that the public is best served by
unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech. On the contrary, I
believe that it is imperative that any democratic society be given
as much access to as much information as possible. It is only then
that the legitimate debate which is the cornerstone of a democracy can
be guaranteed. It is unfortunate that society would have to suffer the
occasional Ernst Zundel in such a setup, however, the possible abuses
of the alternative far outweigh the need to deter every wacko that comes
along from espousing his views.
So why do I think section 177 is unduly harsh and/or unnecessary ?
- I believe that Canada has got to be one of the most tolerant countries
on this planet. I do *not* think that the average Canadian can be swayed
by an argument merely because it has been given semi-official status
by virtue of it being in print. No, I believe that Canadians are more
than capable of recognizing garbage for themselves and of acting
accordingly. It should be noted that this tolerant state of affairs
that exists today in this country was brought about without previously
having to have to jail the intolerant minority among us. If, however,
one believes that basically the people are like sheep that have to
be led, then this argument is undoubtedly falling on deaf ears.
- Section 177 is extremely vague. The term public interest is used
but not defined. As the law stands it would appear to me that it
could well be applied to routine libel cases which were never meant
to be tried in a **criminal** court. All that is apparently
necessary is that the injured party has to be ruled to be a public
interest. Needless to say what really worries me is that the most
obvious public interest is the government whose massive resources
dwarf those of the average citizen.
- Continuing on the theme of vagueness consider the phrase "is likely
to cause injury or mischief". The "is likely" part implies to me
that the author of the contentious publication needs some kind of
a crystal ball. But the real problem with the phrase is the use of
the word "mischief". Among other definitions for that word my
dictionary gives: (i) a source of harm or irritation, and (ii) action
that annoys. Do we really want to throw people in jail because they
have printed lies that "irritate" or "annoy" a "public interest"???
If I say (print) something like "this country's current economic
malaise can be blamed entirely on the existence of crown corporations";
a statement that is obviously untrue and yet is likely to cause
mischief to ( read annoy ) a public interest ( read crown corporation ),
could a jury observe the letter of the law and return anything
but a guilty verdict?
It is my belief that section 177 is a law waiting to be abused.
Maybe not today, maybe not next week, month, or year, but as surely
as governments have abused other loopholes, at some point a government
will not be able to resist the temptation of abusing this law to
the detriment of all of us.
It seems to me that it is apparently often not possible to discuss the
demerits of that section of the criminal code which caused Ernst
Zundel to be brought to trial without being accused of being a neo-Nazi.
I have found this to be the case in one or two personal conversations
I have had with people, and although Dave Sherman does not accuse Don
Acton of this, he does ask him if he too questions the Holocaust.
I think it would be quite beneficial to all if those who support the
status quo realize that it is quite possible to oppose section 177 without
being a Zundel supporter.
J.B. Robinsonhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/09/85)
I just ran across a quote from Lewis Brandeis, one of the great US Supreme
Court judges of bygone times:
Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect
liberty when government's purposes are beneficent. The
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroach-
ment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.
Zundel is scum, but I'm not altogether happy about his conviction.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrylionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) (04/10/85)
J.B. Robinson writes:
## First off, I personally do not think that the public is best served by
## unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech. On the contrary, I
## believe that it is imperative that any democratic society be given
## as much access to as much information as possible. It is only then
## that the legitimate debate which is the cornerstone of a democracy can
## be guaranteed. It is unfortunate that society would have to suffer the
## occasional Ernst Zundel in such a setup, however, the possible abuses
## of the alternative far outweigh the need to deter every wacko that comes
## along from espousing his views.
I don't think that we suffer the occasional inconvenience of Ernst
Zundel. I think that we suffer the occasional holocaust, where maniacs
turn much of the population against a particular group, and the group
members are slaughtered to the tune of six million with the aim of
killing every last one of them. You must note that to many members
of society the protections offered by the law are real and now even
enforced.
It is well to speak about removing this protection as contravening
consitutional rights such as freedom of speech. But one must, at the
same time, suggest an alternative protection of the civil rights
of every person to live without racist attacks upon their cultural
community or person.
It has been pointed out that the Zundel case shows how the system
might be abused, and that to defend Zundel does not imply support
for his views. In fact, this case is a very bad example for an
anti-177 argument, since, vague as the law is, one can easily see
that Zundel's activities are precisely the things the law was
meant to be aimed at. The jury has done exemplary service to
justice, and I thank the Crown.
Thank you
Lionel Moser
Computer Science Department
Memorial Univ. of Newfoundlandthomson@uthub.UUCP (Brian Thomson) (04/10/85)
From Lionel Moser, regarding the statute under which Zundel was convicted: > vague as the law is, one can easily see >that Zundel's activities are precisely the things the law was >meant to be aimed at. I remember reading a Toronto Star article a couple of months ago that gave the origins of this law as, I believe, the protection of the Crown and its agents from rabble-rousers. I could also see it used to prosecute someone who yells "Fire!" in a theatre. It is far from clear that it was intended to apply to Zundel. -- Brian Thomson, CSRI Univ. of Toronto {linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!uthub!thomson
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/10/85)
Freedom of speech is not absolute. For example, it is a criminal
offense (public mischief) to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Libel will also lead to legal liability.
The law of libel is not appropriate for dealing with Zundel, because
no one individual has been harmed. Rather, a large group of the public
has been harmed. Public sanctions (the criminal law) are therefore
appropriate. Furthermore, the entire public (not just Jews) are
harmed by those who foment racial unrest.
To those who say that Zundel is scum but should simply be ignored,
I say that Hitler was scum and was ignored until it was too late.
I apologize to Don Acton if he interpreted my questions as an accusation
of anti-Semitism. But I do wonder if there are people out there who
seriously do question the Holocaust.
Dave Sherman
--
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!davecdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (04/10/85)
The biggest fear people have about this law is that it may be used too much, and against the wrong people by the Crown. In fact, this law wouldn't bother me at all if there were clear & distinct safeguards against gov't misuse. What I would propose is a limitation on the law that says the gov't cannot actively pursue a case. Cases could only be prosecuted by private citizens, with the crown footing the bill. This also requires that there be some kind of filter mechanism to keep some idiots from bringing a case every 5 minutes, but to my mind, this would be much safer than what seems to be the current system. West Germany has a system whereby the Holocaust is a constitutional fact... I've heard that people are put in jail there for denying it. How does their system work ?? Maybe we should modify/adopt it. Chris Shaw University of Waterloo
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/12/85)
In article <54@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >What I would propose is a limitation on the law that says the gov't cannot >actively pursue a case. Cases could only be prosecuted by private citizens, >with the crown footing the bill. Unfortunately, this would not prevent a morally bankrupt government from inducing a private citizen to secretly act on their behalf. J.B. Robinson
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/12/85)
In article <2706@garfield.UUCP> version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP version B 2.10.2 GARFIELD 20/11/84; site garfield.UUCP ubc-cs!ubc-ean!alberta!sask!utcsri!garfield!lionel lionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) writes: > >I don't think that we suffer the occasional inconvenience of Ernst >Zundel. I think that we suffer the occasional holocaust, where maniacs >turn much of the population against a particular group, and the group >members are slaughtered to the tune of six million with the aim of >killing every last one of them. You must note that to many members >of society the protections offered by the law are real and now even >enforced. Would not our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevent such a massacre of such a large number of this country's citizens? If not, then it is clearly not worth the paper it's written on. Anyway, it should be noted that in order to have committed their atrocities against the Jewish people the Nazis almost certainly must have had a stranglehold on free speech and the media. It is the existence of laws like section 177 that allow for this type of stranglehold. >.............. In fact, this case is a very bad example for an >anti-177 argument, since, vague as the law is, one can easily see >that Zundel's activities are precisely the things the law was >meant to be aimed at. The jury has done exemplary service to >justice, and I thank the Crown. I disagree. Section 281.2 of the criminal code ( wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group ) is the law that is supposed to deal with hate literature. Section 177 was used because it was thought to be easier to get a conviction with it. ( As I have previously written, I would tend to think that it would be impossible *not* to get a conviction using s. 177) At any rate, because of Zundel there is now the precedent of a conviction under 177. This simply makes it easier the next time someone else is charged, even though the case may not be so clear cut, e.g. someone claiming that his publication is merely an example of political dissent, whereas the Crown maintains that said publication is a bunch of lies which undermine the national wellbeing of the country. J.B. Robinson
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/14/85)
In article <1008@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: ||I disagree. Section 281.2 of the criminal code ( wilfully ||promoting hatred against an identifiable group ) is the law that ||is supposed to deal with hate literature. Section 177 was used ||because it was thought to be easier to get a conviction with it. Wrong. S. 177 was used because s. 281.2 requires the consent of the provincial Attorney-General before the charge can be laid, and Mr. McMurtry refused to provide such consent. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) (04/14/85)
To be brief, I do not see that section 177 of the criminal code as all that great a danger. The crime of spreading false news has been on the books since well before Confederation in one form or another. Before the Zundel trial there had been a grand total of three prosecutions under this section one of which had been succesful. The reason that 177 was used in the Zundel case was that unlike that the other sections of the CCC concerned with promoting hatred (see Jim Keegstra) charges under this section can be brought by bodies other than the government. The government of Ontario showed no interest in prosecuting Zundel so another body (the Jewish Defense League ??) brought the charges and the Crown Prosecutor was called in because this was a felony charge and in the public interest.... It is unlikely that we will see a spate of such charges in the future simply due to what happened at the Zundel trial. Zundel got one of the biggest soapboxes in Canada and could potray himself as a martyr being persecuted by the government, the Zionists and the Masons. In future we may see such trials taking place in civil courts where the situation is slightly different. As for 177 itself it is a nice law to have around to force the Crown to what it should or maybe should be doing. As long as such trials take place **AFTER** a person has published something and not before I feel there's no need to hunker down on the freedom of speech issue. Robert Janes Memorial University
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/15/85)
In article <599@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <1008@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >||I disagree. Section 281.2 of the criminal code ( wilfully >||promoting hatred against an identifiable group ) is the law that >||is supposed to deal with hate literature. Section 177 was used >||because it was thought to be easier to get a conviction with it. > >Wrong. S. 177 was used because s. 281.2 requires the consent of >the provincial Attorney-General before the charge can be laid, >and Mr. McMurtry refused to provide such consent. Only semi-wrong. Roy McMurty refused to provide consent because he did not think that the Crown could get a conviction using s. 281.2. J.B. Robinson
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (04/16/85)
In article <2731@garfield.UUCP> robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) writes: || The government of Ontario showed no interest in prosecuting ||Zundel so another body (the Jewish Defense League ??) brought the charges and ||the Crown Prosecutor was called in because this was a felony charge and in the ||public interest.... || The charge was laid by Sabina Citron, an individual and a Holocaust survivor. The organization with which she is involved is the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association. The JDL was supportive but not involved in laying the charges. The Crown Attorney took over because every such case has to be followed up by the Crown. Incidentally, there's no concept of "felony" in Canada; that's a U.S. term. The distinction here is between "summary conviction" offenses (max. $500 fine, 6 months in jail) and "indictable" offenses. Trial by jury is only available for indictable offenses. Some charges (e.g., theft) may be prosecuted either way at the option of the Crown. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri) (04/24/85)
In article <54@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >West Germany has a system whereby the Holocaust is a constitutional fact... >I've heard that people are put in jail there for denying it. How does their >system work ?? >Maybe we should modify/adopt it. Yes, West Germany has such a law, but it requires someone to bring a complaint. There was an item on the news the other day about the state of things in Germany. Apparently, several groups in Germany are trying to persue the current government there to make prosecutions automatic under the law you mention. They had hoped for this change in this the 40th anniversary year but it looks almost certain now that nothing will change.