=====================================================================
Today's ZGram is a dry court document that needs to be put on the record. It is offered here without comment except to make two points:
1. When Ernst's attorney tried to serve the parties named below, she was informed she could be arrested if she tried to serve these papers on Members of Parliament inside the Parliament Building. (!)
2. A press release faxed from the Zundel-Haus to major media outlets and e-mailed to other news sources to announce a press conference about this new Zundel offensive against censorship in Canada ***was not attended by a single reporter*** - whereas the previous one, after the dramatic Zundel ban from the precincts of Parliament, was massively attended by national and international media and nationally broadcast via C-Pac, the Canadian Parliamentary channel. (!!)
Here is that document:
Court File No. 98-CV-7845
ONTARIO COURT
(GENERAL DIVISION)
BETWEEN:
ERNST ZUNDEL
PLAINTIFF
-AND-
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA and THE REFORM PARTY OF CANADA and THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY and THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA and THE BLOC QUEBECOIS and THE CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS and MOSHE RONEN and PRESTON MANNING and JEAN CHRETIEN and GILLES DUCEPPE and PETER MACKAY and DON BOUDRIA and RANDY WHITE and BILL BLAIKIE and ELSIE WAYNE and ALEXA MCDONOUGH and HEDY FRY and ALFONSO GAGLIANO
DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU, by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.
IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU, IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.
Date: October 30, 1998
Issued by_________________________
Local Registrar
Address of Court office:
161 Elgin St.,
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 2K1
To:
The Liberal Party of Canada,
81 Metcalfe St., Suite 400,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6M8
The Bloc Québécois,
1200 Papineau Ave., Room 055,
Montreal, Quebec
H2K 4R5
The Reform Party of Canada,
#600 - 833, 4th Avenue S.W.,
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0K5
New Democratic Party,
81 Metcalfe St., Suite 900,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6K7
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, 275 Slater St., Suite 501, Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H9
The Canadian Jewish Congress,
1590 Docteur Penfield Ave.,
Montreal, Quebec
H3G 1C5
Ottawa office:
151 Chapel St.,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 7Y2
Moshe Ronen,
c/o
President, Canadian Jewish Congress,
1590 Docteur Penfield Ave.,
Montreal, Quebec
H3G 1C5
Jean Chretien,
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Preston Manning,
Leader of the Opposition,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Gilles Duceppe,
Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Alexa McDonough,
Member for Halifax,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Elsie Wayne,
Interim Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Member for Saint-John, 466 West Block,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Don Boudria,
Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Randy White,
Member for Langley-Abbotsford,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Peter MacKay,
Member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Bill Blaikie,
Member for Winnipeg Transcona,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Alfonso Gagliano,
Member for Saint Léonard-Saint Michel,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Hedy Fry,
Member for Vancouver Centre,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
CLAIM
1. The plaintiff claims:
(a) A declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right to freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and that such violation was not justified under section 1 of the Charter; and
(b) Against each of the defendants for wrongfully and maliciously violating the plaintiff's right to freedom of expression with intent to injure him, general damages in the amount of $250,000.00 pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
(c) Against each of the defendants for conspiracy to injure the plaintiff, general damages in the amount of $250,000.00;
(d) Against each of the defendant Members of Parliament for public misfeasance and abuse of office, general damages of $250,000.00;
(e) Against each of the defendants, punitive damages in the amount of $500,000.00;
(f) prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act;
(g) the costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis;
(h) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.
2. The plaintiff is and was at all material times a German-Canadian publisher, writer, broadcaster and human rights activist who has lived in Canada since 1958. The plaintiff has defended the German ethnic group against false atrocity allegations made during and after World War II in his work as a publisher, writer and broadcaster.
3. The defendant Liberal Party of Canada is a registered political party in Canada and at all material times was the governing party in the House of Commons with a majority of seats being held by it.
4. The defendant Reform Party of Canada is a registered political party in Canada and at all material times was Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.
5. The defendant New Democratic Party is a registered political party in Canada and at all material times held seats in the House of Commons.
6. The defendant Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is a registered political party in Canada and at all material times held seats in the House of Commons.
7. The defendant Bloc Québécois is a registered political party in Canada and at all material times held seats in the House of Commons.
8. The defendant Canadian Jewish Congress is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada with its head office in Montreal, Quebec, which represents itself as the "Parliament of Canadian Jewry" with the authority to speak for all Jews in Canada.
9. The defendant Moshe Ronen was at all material times the National President of the defendant Canadian Jewish Congress.
10. The defendant Hedy Fry is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Vancouver Centre for the defendant Liberal Party of Canada and is also the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women).
11. The defendant Gilles Duceppe is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Laurier-Sainte-Marie and was at all material times the leader of the defendant Bloc Québécois.
12. The defendant Jean Chretien is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Saint-Maurice and was at all material times the leader of the defendant Liberal Party of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada.
13. The defendant Alexa McDonough is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Halifax and was at all material times the leader of the defendant New Democratic Party.
14. The defendant Elsie Wayne is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Saint John and was at all material times the interim leader of the defendant Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
15. The defendant Preston Manning is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Calgary Southwest and was at all material times the leader of the defendant Reform Party of Canada.
16. The defendant Bill Blaikie is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Winnipeg Transcona and was at all material times the House Leader for the defendant New Democratic Party.
17. The defendant Peter MacKay is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough and was at all material times the House Leader for the defendant Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
18. The defendant Don Boudria is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and was at all material times the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for the defendant Liberal Party of Canada.
19. The defendant Randy White is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Langley-Abbotsford and was at all material times the House Leader for the defendant Reform Party of Canada.
20. The defendant Alfonso Gagliano is a sitting member of the House of Commons representing the constituency of Saint-Léonard-Saint-Michel for the defendant Liberal Party of Canada and at all material times held the position of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
21. On or about June 3, 1998, the plaintiff announced by Press Release that he was holding a press conference on Friday, June 5, 1998 in person in Ottawa in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery's Charles Lynch Press Conference Room in Room 130 S Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings. Prior to issuing the press release, the plaintiff had arranged and been granted time for the press conference in the said room with the officials of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery.
22. The subject of the press conference was a case before the Human Rights Tribunal in which the plaintiff was accused under the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13(1) of exposing Jews to hatred and contempt on an Internet website known as the "Zundelsite" located in the United States. The title of the plaintiff's press conference topic was "The New Inquisition in Toronto! Government tries to grab control of the Internet." The plaintiff intended to discuss the Tribunal's ruling that truth is not a defence under the legislation and the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission was attempting to obtain jurisdiction over the Internet in this precedent-setting case. The press release is attached to this Claim as Schedule A.
23. The Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery's press conference rooms are used for press conferences for issues of national concern. The rulings of the Human Rights Tribunal which the plaintiff was going to discuss at the press conference involved important matters for all Canadians concerned with freedom of speech, the role of truth and intent in human rights proceedings and the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission over the Internet.
24. The defendant Canadian Jewish Congress was at all material times an interested party in the proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal hearing the case against the plaintiff, having been granted such status at the hearing by the Tribunal. The defendant Canadian Jewish Congress participated in the hearing actively in support the position of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the plaintiff was exposing Jews to hatred and contempt, that truth should not be a defence to the charges and that the Commission had jurisdiction over the Internet. These were the very rulings the plaintiff intended to discuss in the press conference at the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery's press conference room.
25. The plaintiff booked the Charles Lynch Press Conference Room with the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery to give the widest possible dissemination of his press conference to Canadians to alert them to the rulings made by the Human Rights Tribunal and to the implications of such rulings on Canadian society and the Internet.
26. On or about June 4, 1998, the defendants wrongfully and maliciously conspired and combined amongst themselves to injure the plaintiff by banning him from the precincts of Parliament, thereby preventing him
>from holding a press conference in the Canadian Parliamentary Press
Gallery's press conference rooms, and wrongfully violating his right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
27. In pursuance and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the defendants did the following overt acts, namely:
(a) On or about June 4, 1998, the defendant Moshe Ronen, National President of the defendant Canadian Jewish Congress, learned that the plaintiff intended to hold a press conference to discuss the proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal on the following day.
(b) Meetings were held of the defendants Moshe Ronen representing the defendant Canadian Jewish Congress, the defendant Hedy Fry, the defendant Alfonso Gagliano and other ministers and Members of Parliament for the purpose of deciding on a plan of action to wrongfully deny the plaintiff his right to freedom of expression in the holding of a press conference in the Centre Block Charlies Lynch Press Conference room.
(c) The defendant party House Leaders Bill Blaikie, Randy White, Peter MacKay and Don Boudria all rose in the House of Commons later on June 4, 1998 to say they had learned of the plaintiff's plans to hold the press conference and to state that he must not be permitted to use the Charles Lynch press conference room, Room 130-S, Centre Block given his well-known position on the Holocaust. The defendant Don Boudria acknowledged that the government did not administer the rooms in question and that the room was in fact accessible to the plaintiff. Boudria stated he had contacted the officials of the Press Gallery on Parliament Hill who administered the rooms and expressed his dissatisfaction that the Parliament Buildings were going to be utilized in any way, shape or form for the benefit of "one Ernst Zundel" to host his press conference.
(d) The officials of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery refused to cancel the plaintiff's booking of the Charles Lynch Press Conference Room after being requested to by the defendants. As a result the defendants conspired and agreed to pass a motion banning the plaintiff
>from the precincts of the House of Commons during and for the remainder
of the Parliamentary session.
(e) Later in the day on June 4, 1998, the defendant Don Boudria rose in the House of Commons and said: "Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to an issue raised earlier this afternoon and well put by all House leaders. Pursuant to discussions held subsequently, I now offer the following motion to the House and ask for unanimous consent that it be passed immediately without debate. I move:
'That this House order that Ernst Zündel be denied admittance to the precincts of the House of Commons during and for the remainder of the present session.'"
(f) The motion passed with the unanimous consent and agreement of the defendants Liberal Party of Canada, the Reform Party of Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party and of the defendant party leaders, house leaders and members.
28. As a result of the passage of the motion, the plaintiff was banned
>from the precincts of the House of Commons during the remainder of the
Parliamentary session and was prevented from holding his press conference in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery's room. The plaintiff was forced to hold his press conference outside the Parliament Buildings on the sidewalk.
29. The plaintiff was greatly injured in that he suffered humiliation, ridicule, hatred and contempt in the nation-wide media and further damage to his reputation. The defendants treated the plaintiff as a national pariah who should not be allowed into the precincts of Parliament to give a press conference on matters of public interest regarding the Internet and freedom of speech. The actions and effects of the actions of the defendants were that the plaintiff should and would not be listened to, that he was an outcast who should and would be rejected, excluded, isolated, ostracized and excluded from all political and social commentary and participation. The effect of the defendants' wrongful actions were to shift public attention from the message the plaintiff wish to give the public on the human rights abuses of the Human Rights Tribunal rulings to an attack on the plaintiff himself.
30. The public has access to the Charles Lynch Press Conference rooms as of right and the defendants were informed by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery officials who administer the room that the plaintiff had the right to use the room and had booked the room. The defendants wrongfully and maliciously banned the plaintiff from the entire precincts of the House of Commons as the only way they could stop him
>from using the press conference room for a press conference. The
plaintiff was therefore banned from the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the office of his own member of Parliament for the sole purpose of denying his freedom of speech.
31. The defendant Canadian Jewish Congress issued a press release on the same day the plaintiff was banned from the Parliamentary precincts lauding the motion. The defendant Moshe Ronen stated: "Canada today has spoken with one voice. We found it abhorrent that Ernst Zundel would ever have been given permission to use a Parliamentary facility for his hateful activities."
32. The plaintiff states that he was denied entry by the defendants to the Parliamentary precincts for the purposes of wrongfully and maliciously denying his right to freedom of expression guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such violation not being justifiable under section 1 of the Charter.
33. The defendants acted with malice against the plaintiff and conspired to deny him his right to freedom of expression with intent to injure him.
34. The actions of the defendant Canadian Jewish Congress and the defendant Moshe Ronen were calculated to deny the plaintiff any credible forum to speak to Canadians about rulings in a Human Rights Tribunal case in which the defendants had a direct interest adverse to the plaintiff, thereby protecting their interests by squelching any public knowledge or discussion of the case.
35. The actions of the defendant Members of Parliament, House Leaders and Party leaders constituted public misfeasance and abuse of office and were done with malice and intent to injure the plaintiff.
36. The plaintiff states that the defendants' conduct towards him has been reckless, malicious, vicious, callous, reprehensible, shocking, oppressive and high-handed and in complete and total disregard for the democratic rights and reputation of the plaintiff and that such conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages against the defendants.
37. The plaintiff proposes that this action be tried at Ottawa.
October 30, 1998.
Barbara Kulaszka,
Barrister & Solicitor,
9 Cheer Dr., P.O. Box 1635,
Brighton, ON
K0K 1H0
Tel: 613-475-3150
Fax: 613-475-0648
Solicitor for the Plaintiff
=====
Thought for the Day:
"The most tragic paradox of our time is to be found in the failure of nation-states to recognize the imperatives of internationalism."
(Chief Justice Earl Warren)