radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (02/23/86)
> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi > who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly > and repeatedly that > 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. > 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. > 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. > This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature > and supports and is financially supported by > a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting > hatred against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. > (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) > > It is certainly not clear to this reader why such an example equates the > censorship of the media in Canada to the USSR. As other submissions have > indicated, there is no such equivalence. > > Name: Richard Snell The above is correct, except that Zundel was convicted of "spreading false news", not inciting hatred. The "news" referred to was the claim that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax. (He was acquitted on the charge referring to the "international Jewish consipiracy", not because he didn't believe in one of course.) I agree that censorship in Canada is not equivalent to that in the USSR, but I do not think that is a reason for complacency. It is disturbing that a law designed to prevent statements causing panic in the population can be applied to claims concerning events of forty years ago, unaccompanied by any suggestions for immediate action. The conviction of Jim Keegstra a few months later was perhaps even more disturbing. Keegstra is a crackpot who, I am certain from personal knowledge, actually believes what he says (including claims that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated). Furthermore, he does NOT promote hatred on racial grounds; he's more of a religious nut who doesn't like Judaism the religion, at least as practiced by modern Jews, and opposes the Jewish culture. If this is illegal, then presumably anyone who states that the Aztecs performed human sacrifices also runs the risk of jail. Radford Neal
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (02/23/86)
In article <162@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes: >> The individual refered to is doubtless Ernst Zundel, a rabid neo-Nazi >> who lives in Canada but is not a Canadian, and who has stated publicly >> and repeatedly that >> 1. Hitler remains one of his heroes. >> 2. There is an international Jewish conspiracy, etc. >> 3. The Holocaust is a Jewish lie, etc. >> This Zundel has repeatedly published anti-semitic hate literature >> and supports and is financially supported by >> a variety of neo-Nazi groups. He was jailed because actively inciting >> hatred against any identifiable group in Canada is illegal. >> (Zundel may be deported after his release from prison.) [Richard Snell] > >The above is correct, except that Zundel was convicted of "spreading false >news", not inciting hatred. The "news" referred to was the claim that the >Jewish Holocaust was a hoax. Most of the verbiage that goes out over the net about Zundel is based on things the poster read about Zundel (a) on the net, (b) in the newspapers. The people who depend on source (a) are doomed to repeat each other's mistakes, most likely with volume and vehemence increasing over time. Source (b) is generally lacking in relevant details, making it impossible for the reader to form an informed opinion. (When the newspapers do manage to provide the reader with enough information to make a decision, they are accused of bias. They just can't win, eh?) The people who favour censoring Zundel generally call what he wrote hate literature. Those who oppose censoring Zundel are more likely to call it false news, or something similar. The difference between hate literature and false news is the difference between "The Jews are vile sub-human scum, let's kill 'em" and "The holocaust never actually happened, it's all a gigantic hoax". In order to find out the real facts of the case, it would be necessary to lay hands on the court transcripts and Zundel's book (in order to decide whether it's hate literature or false news). I vaguely recall that transcripts are hideously expensive. (Can anybody tell us what the cost is? In addition to the cost, a great deal of spare time for reading is required.) Zundel's book can't be obtained legally, and I have no idea how to go about obtaining it illegally. Two important pieces of evidence that one might use to judge the government's actions are quite difficult to obtain, and it's the government's actions that have made them so. Hmmm. -- David Canzi "I wept because I had no woman, until I met a man who had no hands."
phoenix@genat.UUCP (phoenix) (02/24/86)
I think that here in Canada, everyone is entitled to their own personal views on something, no matter what the majority believes is true. This is "private" and "legal". I think the problem occurs when someone begins to express his opinions. This too, is legal. It is when you decide that everyone else must believe what you believe and when you spread your opinions as the truth and not as opinion, when you remove the possiblity of dissent, then you have abuse your right of freedom of speech. That, I believe, is illegal. (And morally wrong, to boot.) Please note: the above statements are *my opinion* and you may agree with them or disagree with them as you choose. Let's talk. -- The Phoenix (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) ---"A man should live forever...or die trying." ---"There is no substitute for good manners...except fast reflexes."
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/03/86)
> I think that here in Canada, everyone is entitled to their own personal views > on something, no matter what the majority believes is true. This is > "private" and "legal". > > I think the problem occurs when someone begins to express his opinions. This > too, is legal. It is when you decide that everyone else must believe what > you believe and when you spread your opinions as the truth and not as opinion, > when you remove the possiblity of dissent, then you have abuse your right of > freedom of speech. That, I believe, is illegal. (And morally wrong, to boot.) > Define the difference between "truth" and "opinion" in a manner not open to abuse, please. Incidentally, you refer to labelling opinion (or I presume, even lies) as truth as "remove the possibility of dissent". And you think banning a book and locking someone in prison is less severe a restriction on dissent than publishing lies as truth? > Please note: the above statements are *my opinion* and you may agree with > them or disagree with them as you choose. Let's talk. > Talk? Will the Canadian Government allow it? (In spite of their best efforts, the American Government will.) > -- > The Phoenix > (Neither Bright, Dark, nor Young) >
hammen@puff.UUCP (Zaphod Beeblebrox) (03/03/86)
> ..many lines of discussion on censorship, Canada, USSR, etc. > ... Once more, with feeling: Can we please move this discussion OUT of net.columbia? It obviously has no relation to the purpose of this newsgroup, and I'm sure that there are others who are sick and tired of reading this. If I wanted to discuss censorship, I'd subscribe to net.politics. PLEASE refrain from posting more material on this subject. Thank you. Robert J. Hammen {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!uwvax!puff!hammen U. of Wisc. CS Dept. !gumby!hammen U. of Wisc. Plasma Physics Dept. hammen@puff.wisc.edu Manta Software Corp. hammen@gumby.wisc.edu