Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
". . . a Federal institution bound by the provisions of the Canadian Multiculturism act, which states:
'It is further declared to be the Policy of the Government of Canada that all Federal Institutions . . .' of which I would say this is one, 'ensure that Canadians of all origins have equal opportunity to obtain employment . . . promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the understanding and respect for the diversity of the members of Canadian society. . .' and 'generally carry on their activities in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada.'
Well, how does that relate to the Commission, you might ask very quickly and correctly?
Well, in the evidence that I tried to put before this Tribunal, in the affidavits (of leaders of German organizations) there are allegations that the denial of the right to express the views that are the subject matter of the complaint has been prejudicial to their right to respect as a member of a multi-cultural society, as Germans in a multicultural society.
That is not to say they expect acceptance of their views, but that these represent views that they wish to allow to be expressed."
Christie then quotes from an affidavit of one of the leaders of the German
community:
"To my knowledge, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has never approached our organization for the purpose of consultation regarding Human Rights issues. It has not asked, requested or consulted the organization with respect to its views on what is called holocaust denial . . .
To my knowledge, members of the German ethnic community are frightened to discuss World War II history because any disagreement with the view that Germans are murderers, executioners of genocide and war criminals has been viewed as anti-semitic. Any real participation by the German community in the discussion of their own history during the last war has been virtually foreclosed because of this fear with which I am familiar from speaking with our members. . .
These Human Rights issues, the lack of full participation by German Canadians in the historical discussion of World War II history and the validity or invalidity of statements such as those complained of in this case, and the feelings of the German community about the constant accusations against them, and their inability to participate, without fear, in historical debates has never been addressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission with our organization, to my knowledge. It has never sought our input or views.
(. . . )
The Respondent, Mr. Zundel, is one of the few Germans who is courageous enough to raise the issues of atrocity allegations against the German ethnic group and to question them critically and factually. He does a great service to the Canadian public and to the German ethnic minority by informing the public that stories such as the soap story (that Germans made soap out of Jewish cadavers during the war) are untrue and constitute hate propaganda against Germans."
Christie next quotes from an affidavit by another German leader, speaking
of the "four million killed at Auschwitz" as untrue:
". . . credit should be given to (Mr. Zundel) for exposing such stories. . These fabrications are considered by many to constitute hate propaganda against Germans . . . "
Says Christie:
". . . it's not a cut and dried situation where only one group has feelings . . . What I've tried to put before you, and have the intention of doing before the Federal Court, is to show that members of the German cultural group are being defamed by these allegations and seek to rectify that defamation by discussion and debate.
(...)
Well, whether you accept it or not . . Germans of various groups (have) said that the existence of the stories of the holocaust, and of the denial of the right to question or raise issues with them, is creating a barrier to their participation and is denying them the full and equitable participation as individuals and as communities in evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society.
(...)
The documents show the Commission automatically classified the applicant's opinions as 'holocaust denial', which is equated with racism, anti-semitism and hatred.
(...)
You have a duty to apply the Act impartially, and if the complaint is brought in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, in my submission, you have a duty to quash it . . . it would be my submission that in natural justice, in fairness, you should quash it.
(...)
The duty you have cuts both ways. You have a duty to enquire into the complaint, but if in the course of doing so, you determine, or evidence comes to light, that shows the complaint is brought in circumstances that show a reasonable apprehension of bias, the duty to enquire is conjunctive with a duty to apply natural justice.
And one of the aspects of natural justice is a duty to avoid bias, not to give effect to bias. And if I could demonstrate that the decision to prosecute Mr. Zundel has been made long before the complaint by people who had made up their mind before ever receiving the complaint, and were looking for a way to get Mr. Zundel, I've never had to go any further in the Federal Court before, so I shouldn't have to go any further here.
(...)
"(N)o attempt was ever made to enquire into the truth or falsity of the matters written on the website.
I might say that later on it becomes clear that this is not viewed by the Attorney Generals of various Provinces as hate literature and in essence the prejudicial content of these remarks is that had it not been for the fact that Mr. Zundel has been brought repeatedly to the attention of Attorneys General, and his material has repeatedly analyzed by them, and they have repeatedly concluded that it was not hate literature, and he has not been charged with promoting hatred after numerous complaints and numerous investigations, had that not been so, I would not be entitled to say it is prejudicial to label him as such, contrary to every impartial analysis.
(. . . )
It is really clearly defamatory to say someone is guilty of a crime, although they've been investigated and never charged with it. . . can there be any more patently obvious expression of bias than to analyze a specific individual, to categorize their position as criminal and to express regret at the inability to prosecute?(. . . )
"(T)he 1994 audit of anti-semitic incidents by B'nai Brith refers to the Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel and his website and the accessibility to the internet.
They say:
'It is imperative that we begin to harmonize the reality of the internet with the Criminal Code of Canada, as difficult as that may be, to create a comprehensive policy whereby all hate-mongering will be treated equally regardless of mode of broadcast.'
Well, there's clearly a desire to accomplish a goal, and members of the B'Nai Brith sitting in judgment on the Canadian Human Rights Commission do, in my submission, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias . . . All of which, in my submission, leads to the conclusion, irresistibly and overwhelmingly, that the Commission, involved as it is with B'Nai Brith, involved as it has been in public denunciations of Mr. Zundel, at no time approached its duty with any vestige of objectivity and impartiality.
(. . .)
(Zundel) went through years and thousands of dollars, which, of course, some people might find enjoyable, they might get a chuckle out of that, but assuming we have a citizen with rights here, it really is a travesty that this man, however one may dislike his views, should have been dragged through courts for over eight years under laws that had no constitutional validity. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but should it happen?
Well, it was Sabina Citron that made it happen . . . This is a woman with a cause. She goes after this man; it's her job. It seems like her life. . . . if we just take it out of the context of this name 'Zundel', if I had a client against whom a single person had alleged three or more criminal charges, each of which were dismissed after investigation as having no merit, I would suggest that I would be quite entitled to proceed by way of malicious prosecution.
(. . . )
(T)hese people want him criminalized. They want him convicted. They're entitled to the view, I don't criticize them for that, but when you're confronted, as the Commission was, with the animosity expressed . . . surely you don't perceive this as someone whose real concern is the sensitivities of groups based on race. This is a campaign of a political nature.
(. . . )
They've got a thousand ideas on how to get Mr. Zundel, they just don't - they don't quit.
(...)
"(S)urely, it's not hard to see, prima facie, a campaign of political hatred, and very intensive.
'You know, it's not a matter of infinite amounts of money. . . I don't represent the Toronto Mayor's Committee, which has the funds of the City of Toronto, or the Government of Canada.
I represent a human being who has to consider how to survive with the right of free speech in a society that's hostile.
(...)
There's not much that's ordinary about this case. If I was to say, oh, that's extraordinary, but the rest is ordinary, I wouldn't really be honest with you.
I submit to you that you'll never run across a case in your position where as much hostility over a longer period of time has been directed against a single individual.
I don't know of any. If there is in Canada, I don't know them. And that's pretty extraordinary. Hostility on the part of Commission, hostility on the part of the complainants.
I mean, have you ever honestly had a situation - and I ask this rhetorically, it's none of my business to ask - but I ask rhetorically, could you be confronted with a case where more blatant hostility has been demonstrated of an intention to get this person, no matter what it takes, by any means? . . . (C)an we get him this way, can we get him that way, can we get him some other way? . . .
(...)
I can't imagine more extraordinary hostility and vexatiousness than that. I don't know of a case where that's . . . I mean, usually you run into cases where somebody who is quite obscure and unknown does something that demonstrates disregard for the ethnicity, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation of somebody.
But that's not the case here.
(...)
The complainant isn't coming here really with clean hands. This complainant has tried so many times, so many ways, this is the last resort, perhaps. Can I get him this way?
Well, should the Tribunal, in fairness to the whole of society, allow itself to be the vehicle of this almost endless hostility?"
Quoted from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Transcripts
Case No: T450/1596,
Volume No: 1
Place: Toronto, Ontario
Date: May 26, 1997
Pages: 1-206
Thought for the Day:
". . . "were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel's propaganda armoury disappears."
(W.D. Rubinstein, a professor in the School of Social Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, in Nation Review on 21 June 1979 in a long letter criticizing John Bennett's support of the book by Dr. Arthur R. Butz, "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century").