December 8, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

"If I could show you an animus - I'm showing you something that I've never seen before - a direct, personal animosity to the Respondent. That should not be an allowable position for an intervenor.

I heard no question arise as arose in regard to the German organizations, when my learned friend said he represents a major Jewish human rights organization, with the largest membership. Nobody asked how many families he is paid to represent.

The Canadian Jewish Congress claims to represent the Jewish people. B'nai Brith claims to represent the Jewish people. I don't know who represents the Jewish people, any more than anybody knows who represents the German people, if they have a representative.

But I wonder whether it's correct to say this is the largest human rights organization of Jewish people.

I wonder if the Jewish people are quite comfortable with organizations that plan, organize and control demonstrations that stand outside people's houses and shout 'burn', and 'kill and shoot him, stone the house, we have the power, we want him dead.'

Is that what major Jewish organizations do? I doubt it."

"Fuck authority - fuck hierarchy - organize horizontally not vertically - fight and resist fascist asskissers in the corporate state . . ."

"Racist media grandmongers like Christie Blackbutt from the ill-reputed Toronto Sun to Ernie No-Neck Zuny (ph) had to stop scratching their white asses and start lobbying to keep us from getting the money. The article gave a special fuck to that right-wing shit-head Christie Blatchford with the Toronto Sun."

"Mrs. Citron and the CHRA supported the ARA in a letter to Metro Council July of '96. Writing as the Vice-President of the CHRA, which she still is, she described the ARA as a group of 'young people', having 'a great deal of sensitivity and concern about the issue of Nazi Racism in Canada.'

"Here is the info you requested on ARA. Just so you are aware, we have have (sic) worked with them before, we presently have a very workable and amiable relationship with the ARA, despite their tactics."

Now, this is true also in relation to Karen Mock, who speaks as a representative of B'nai Brith, who attended organized meetings of the ARA, took part in their conference, which was publicly funded in part by the same complainant here, the council for the {Metro} City of Toronto provided funding for this organization."

"If, for example, my client was involved with people who were involved with violence against Jews, and was seeking intervention status, do you think that a body like yourselves, who are interested in maintaining racial and ethnic harmony, would allow such a group to intervene?

I submit, not likely, and the shoe should be equally applied on the other foot."

(...)

"(I)t certainly indicates a long history, not just of concern for Jewish interests, but deliberate attacks upon Mr. Zundel of a nature that comes close to criminal."

(...)

"(ARA) is the organization with which B'nai Brith has a very workable and amiable relationship. (B'nai Brith) is the organization that comes before you and claims interest, expertise and unique, non-repetitive submissions.

The ARA has been banned as a violent hate group by many Ontario School Boards.

The Scarborough Board of Education has banned the group from their schools, so has the Durham Board of Education, the Wellington Board of Education. ...

Apart from threatening posters and violent demonstrations in front of Mr. Zundel's house by the ARA, this organization has been implicated by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the arson of Mr. Zundel's house, and are taped - and we'll provide a copy of this video time, if you choose to view it - in which they identify themselves as representatives of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and they say among other things:

'One of the problems we've had - we also have with the ARA, as Peter was describing, is that they bomb, and they firebombed, you know. Ernst Zundel. You've heard about the problem he has, and the various leaders and so-called right wing have received fire bombs.'

Well, Mr. Zundel's house, of course, was fire-bombed and, you know, here's an organization that has an amiable relationship with a group that CSIS says was responsible for that.

They come before you and ask for intervention status as if they were just the most altruistic, well-intended group of people concerned with the welfare of Jews.

If I was a Jew, I would find it extremely embarrassing to have such a group speak on my behalf, and I do not for one moment condone the suggestion that they speak on behalf of all Jews or that they speak on behalf of the majority of Jews. There's no evidence of that whatsoever.

They have not filed one single affidavit and it is difficult to believe that an organization that has a close amiable working relationship with terrorists speaks on behalf of Jews.

It is, in my submission, true that this organization, B'nai Brith, has continued their vendetta against Mr. Zundel as he avers in Paragraph 44, and used its close and amiable working relationship with the
ARA even though it knows that publications of his views have been held repeatedly by numerous investigations not to incite hatred toward Jews.

And it is my submission that we are engaged in the consideration of whether those who involve themselves in forum shopping should once again find another forum in which to carry on what has been carried on for so long by this organization, which is nothing other than the harassment of Mr. Zundel.

When they speak of themselves as victims of Mr. Zundel's practices, if would be quite remarkable if anyone in Mr. Zundel's position, or anyone of any other organization, would dare to come before a tribunal and say: 'Allow us intervention because we are victims of someone else's viewpoints. Although we have a close working relationship with those who fire-bomb, who threaten to kill people, don't concern yourself with that, just let us be parties.'

I say to you nobody has had the nerve to come before a Tribunal and ask for that before. It's up to you to decide, but my submission is these are not the type of people who have sufficient impartiality, altruistic concern for the law, to be of genuine assistance to any tribunal whose mandate is supposed to be to protect all cultural groups and the interests of all citizens, based on race, religion or ethnic origin, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, from discrimination."

(...)

"(W)hat is before you to decide is whether a group of people who make themselves in a close workable relationship with those who burn houses really have much to add."

(...)

"For instance, as you say, they claim an interest. One can see what they mean by that if you look at the facts.

It means they basically hate Mr. Zundel and want to get him shut up. Nothing could be clearer. And they're willing to associate themselves, and never dissociate themselves publicly, from those who will do so violently.

That's an interest, is it a legitimate interest? If someone came before you and said, "I hate this person so much and I associate with those who would bomb his house," his house was firebombed, "so I want to have a chance to get at him here."

Well, respectfully, the Tribunal is impartial and does not concede to such requests. It's not a forum for mob violence here. It's not a forum to extend mob violence by some other means.

So if they don't have an expertise in a relevant relationship to an issue, what expertise do they have? They say they have an expertise in hate.

Well, that's been conceded in court. They've testified and argued about that. And the position of the courts on hate is as clear, I guess, as it's going to get.

The Supreme Court of Canada . . . says it's intense dislike. And I haven't heard a more precise definition so far, so there's lots of scope for whatever anybody wants to find in that regard.

Do we need more assistance to define the term? Is what they say here going to change Mr. Justice Dickson's words? I submit not likely.

So as far as hate is concerned, they have the definition they wanted, what more do they want? Do they also want to tell you how to apply it on the facts of a specific case, so they get the guy they don't like? Well, that's the interest they purport.

And with all due respect, all that amounts to is the opportunity to exercise their animosity.

Now, the theoretical position of a party here is to seek the truth as to the facts, participate in a discussion from the point of view of examination and cross-examination of evidence, and, then, presumably, in an ideal sense, to argue the position of the law so the Tribunal can decide what is the appropriate interpretation.

If the interest expressed is personal animosity, does that really assist you? Would (you) like to hear those who also, for example, like Mr. Zundel, if someone came forward and said, I have an interest here because I agree with Mr. Zundel and I want to stand up and speak for him?

While your position is, you know, this is not a public opinion poll, or this is not a popularity contest, we're here to discuss legal issues and facts, and if you have anything specific and unique about the facts to add, we'd be interested in hearing you, perhaps the Commission can call you. But let's not allow it to deteriorate into, you know, the ventilation of likes and dislikes.

Because if you do apply the rule that allows this type of animosity, you must also, I assume, to be fair, apply it to those who have reported likings for Mr. Zundel, and that deteriorates the quality of the Tribunal from looking objectively at facts and looking, presumably objectively, at law to basically a forum to ventilate emotions.

The best solution, in the interests of justice, is to take the view that interest means more than personal interest or animosity.

Expertise means expertise in an area where there is some relevant issue, and in this case, the relevant issue would be the interpretation of Section 13.1, vis-a-vis what is telephonic and what is a telecommunication facility within the legislative authority of Parliament, and what causes a communication?"

Thought for the Day:

"That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others - you might almost say its prerogative of offending."

(Sobran's, September 1995, p. 4)