Yesterday I promised you excerpts of Ernst Zundel's Power letter, but I am going to have to go back on my word - partly because I want to take advantage of the blizzard of developments in the Canadian papers on this newest "Christie Ban" and related developments, which are happening faster than I can digest and condense them. (I will send you the Power letter excerpts later - in fact, I will make them a series - they are that interesting and good!)
Also, I don't want to lose the focus of what our struggle is really all about - because all around us, so many of the hitherto seemingly impenetrable fortresses are crumbling, with overlapping consequences. One only needs to watch the American news out of Washington, which becomes more surreal by the hour!
What we are all about, however, is HONOR. We want our honor back. We want our enemies to stop the vilification of our parents and our grandparents - and we ask that it be sooner rather than later! We want our history be valued and evaluated openly and properly and honestly - and honored!
And there are steps toward this goal. Right now, our aim is to focus Canadians' attention on the true nature and political function of the so-called "Human Rights" Commissions - now under furious media attack!
And there is more! There are now stories coming out about some of these brutal entities called "Human Rights" Commissions and their shenanigans that can truly make your hair stand up on end! Just watch what's coming down the chute!
So what do our foes do in response? They think that they can stop this unbelievable unraveling of their own ruthless tactics, practiced with absolute impunity until Ernst Zundel came along, by writing slimy letters?
Here's one by David Matas, Senior Honorary Counsel, League for Human Rights, B'nai Brith Canada. It was published in Toronto's Globe and Mail, January 19, 1999, unctuously titled "Hate speech, civil remedies".
Listen to this one and watch somebody's nose grow long:
Winnipeg -- Re Give Free Speech A Very Long Leash (editorial -- Jan. 15):
Your editorial confuses two points: the difficulty of finding a remedy for hate speech and the use of the Criminal Code. Although you do not like provincial human-rights acts or Code prohibitions on hate speech, you express a preference for the Criminal Code because "at least it operates under such rigorous protections that the charge is exceedingly difficult to prove."
We accept and advocate that laws prohibiting incitement to hatred incorporate rigorous protections. However, that is not the same as advocating that criminal remedies be used before civil remedies.
What distinguishes, in principle, a civil remedy from a criminal remedy is that a criminal remedy leads to punishment; a civil remedy tries to right the wrong rather than punish the offender. When a civil remedy is invoked, the hate promoter may suffer no other consequence than to be ordered not to continue the activity.
This is a much less drastic intrusion into the liberties of the person than that he/she be thrown in jail for the behaviour. A true advocate of maximum liberties, we suggest, would prefer civil remedies over criminal, not criminal over civil, as you have done.
=====
And Marvin Kurz, National Co-Chair and Legal Counsel, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, responding to the same Globe and Mail editorial on January 20, 1999:
"Your editorial contains a number of mistaken assumptions that opponents of human-rights commissions commonly make.
You claim that human-rights codes attempt to deal with speech that simply "offends" sensitive people. This misrepresentation ignores the fact that the laws are aimed at the most dangerous speech: statements that are likely to create hatred and contempt for groups.
To describe Jews as "parasites" and international "swindlers," or gays as deserving to die (as two parties in recent human-rights cases did), is far more than offensive. It is an attack on its victims as equal participants in our society. It offers a not-so-subtle invitation to view its subjects as inferior and worthy of discrimination.
That is why Parliament has rightly decided that the principles of free speech should not be abused to allow hatemongers to attack the rights of others.
Your editorial also ignores the fact that human-rights codes do not aim at punishing criminals. The Criminal Code was created for that purpose. Human-rights laws were created to prevent discrimination. They do so by dealing with the discriminatory effect rather than the punishment of the speech. If there is a finding of discrimination, the most likely result is an order to stop the illegal activity. That is not punishment.
The willingness of human-rights commissions to deal directly with the effects of hate propaganda is a relatively new phenomenon. In doing so, our legislators are simply meeting Canada's international-law obligations to combat hate propaganda. Like all new areas of the law, it will take some time until the process works smoothly.
Rather than offer a defence of absolute free speech, The Globe and Mail would better serve its readers by considering the need to protect groups from the most insidious of attacks."
=====
Get real!
Dragging a man, to whom honor has meaning, through courts for years on end at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to him - and many times that to the Canadian taxpayers - ***that is not "punishment"***?
To waste a proud man's productive life in courts and hearing rooms, being vilified and demonized in media cost-to-coast before conviction - ***that is not punishment***?
To subject a man, to whom honor is dear, to a Soviet-style "Tribunal" where there is, to quote Doug Collins,
". . . no defense, where opinion is on trial, where fines can be unlimited, where there is no trial by jury, the judge, where a "judge" called an "adjudicator", is judge, jury and prosecutor, where there is no right of appeal from within the framework of the Act, where normal rules of evidence don't exist, and where impressions count for more than facts . . . "
***that is not punishment***?
Come on! No one who is reading this was born yesterday!
I was searching long and hard for a strong and vivid image to make the point that these people were warned not to do this - way back! They were told more than once: "Don't mess around with Zundel! His people's honor is sacred to him! There's going to be consequences!"
This morning my image was e-mailed to me, simply titled "Ouch!"
I want you to keep this image in mind, because the brazen man described in the vignette below did not heed sage advice. For his own good, he should have listened! He should have!
And keep in mind as well that this is just an allegory and is not, of course, a threat, explicit or implied, but only an example to illustrate a point - and I am even changing it a bit to make it fit my point - which is that there are ***consequences*** if people think that they can violate a real man's brand of honor. My point is that if things keep up the way they have so far, with an entire people's honor violated with impunity for years and years on end, there's going to be what people call "a bind."
Here is this morning's lesson:
There was a man, the story goes, who was wandering, lost in a forest, when he came upon a small, dainty house - very neatly kept, and showing pride of ownership, in the family for generations.
Knocking on the door, he was greeted by an ancient Chinese patriarch with a long gray beard.
"I'm lost," whined the stranger. "Pity me! I get pushed from place to place. People are nasty to me. No one likes me. Even my dog hates my guts. It's cold, and it's raining outside. Can you put me up for the night?"
"Certainly," the Chinese man said, a genuine gentleman, "but on one condition. This is a home with Honor Writ Large. If you so much as lay a finger on my daughter's honor I will inflict upon you the three worst Chinese tortures known to man."
"OK," said the man. "Anything. Anything you say. Just let me come in from out of the rain. Did you say room and board?"
Over dinner the daughter came down the stairs. She was young, beautiful and had a fantastic body. The temptation was simply too much. The stranger kept looking at her and looking at her.
During the night he could bear it no longer and snuck into her room. Near dawn, he crept back to his bed. He was sure that the old man would never find out. After all, it was dark - who would know?
He fell asleep, exhausted but happy - and sure that he had found a permanent solution to his problem.
He woke to feel a pressure on his chest. Opening his eyes, he saw a large rock on his chest with a note on it that read:
"Chinese Torture #1: Large rock on chest."
"Well, that's pretty crappy," he thought. "If that's the best the old man can do, then I don't have much to worry about."
He picked the boulder up, walked over to the window and threw the boulder out.
As he did so, he noticed another note on it that read:
"Chinese Torture # 2: Rock tied to left testicle."
In a panic he glanced down and saw the rope that was already getting close to taut. Figuring that a few broken bones were better than what he had coming, he jumped out of the window after the boulder.
As he plummeted towards the ground he saw a large sign on the ground that read:
"Chinese Torture # 3: Right testicle tied to bed post."
=====
Now. Let's be honest. Do Canadians really want the Zundelsite shut down?