Yesterday, I reported happily that Bernie Farber, spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, was going to have his footsoles put to the coals, metaphorically speaking - and to borrow a handy description from Edgar Bronfman's description in context with the Swiss, if they didn't cough up billions in "Nazi gold". (Bronfman is the president of the World Jewish Congress . . . )
Bernie Farber was to submit to cross-examination on his affidavit about the "wickedness" of Ingrid's copyrighted editorial ZGrams. Late last night, I learned he is backing out - the Holocaust Enforcers seem to be holding him back by his coattails. His lawyer's won't produce their client at the agreed-to date and time. Could it be fear or panic at what he might be asked to answer? Naw!
The cross-examination was to be tomorrow, and Doug Christie, legal counsel for the Zundel defense, had already booked a non-redeemable airline ticket and is probably, by now, on the way! Expect some legal firework!
This will look very bad indeed for our opposition because, by law and precedent, anybody who submits an affidavit, opens himself up to cross-examination to test the veracity of what he has said. This method is to assure that courts are not misled by false or spurious claims.
While I wait for further word, I thought I should bring you up-to-date on what is happening across the Canadian prairies in the "Swindler's List"/Doug Collins case on the Canadian West Coast.
Tim Renshaw of the North Shore News, <editor@nsnews.com> in two articles of April 12 and May 24, 1999 is cutting to the chase in his write-ups, here somewhat shortened:
"He is far from dead, but on the issue of free speech Collins has determined that he's not about to fade away. Thus his decision to enlist the services of lawyer Doug Christie and continue on alone in the fight to overturn the anti-free speech legislation contained in B.C.'s Human Rights Code. Good for him.
Not so good, however, for the special interest armies aligned against him on the other side of the razor wire.
Not so good either for the new ownership of this newspaper, which has determined that it will not challenge B.C.'s odious Human Rights Code by appealing to the courts the latest human rights tribunal ruling involving Collins and the News.
Blair Mackenzie, vice-president and general counsel for Southam, has said that while many aspects of the tribunal's ruling were extremely troubling, Southam/Hollinger determined that the set of facts in the case was not the one the media giant wanted to "go forward with to create new law."
Southam's decision is as much disheartening for me as it is for the other members of this newspaper who have waged the battle for the past five years in expectation that in the end we would have the courts, not some government-appointed tribunal, decide whether we should be allowed to print what we see fit to print. (...)
Because, despite what Southam has determined, the set of facts in this case is hard to dismiss, emotional baggage or no.
A summary of those facts as I know them:
The provincial government passes human rights legislation that is so vague and elastic it can be used to muzzle the publication of opinions the government or special interest groups dislike.
A complaint is subsequently lodged against Columnist D and Newspaper A over a column published in Newspaper A.
Scorn and outrage are rained upon both defendants over the next three years while the human rights machinery grinds exceeding fine and slow.
A hearing is finally held. It ranges over seven weeks.
In the end the tribunal rules that the column at issue is mean-spirited and unpleasant, but that even under the elastic terms of the human rights legislation, it is not "likely" to expose a person or persons to hatred.
Cost to defend the human rights action exceeds $200,000, over $150,000 of which is voluntarily contributed by members of the public and readers of the newspaper who are aghast at the government's legislation and how it is being used to stifle free expression.
A year later and four years after the publication of the columns at issue, another human rights complaint comes to hearing.
Columnist D and Newspaper A refuse to attend said hearing.
They argue that, because the second hearing is dealing with substantially the same issues as the first, it constitutes government harassment.
Both argue that because a column at issue in both hearings has already been cleared by the human rights forces they are facing what the real courts call "double jeopardy."
And too the financial burden for the defendants, after almost five years, has become too much to shoulder for another round.
No matter: the hearing proceeds -- the complainant's case financed by B.C. taxpayers via legal aid.
The decision is finally handed down over six months after the completion of the hearing.
It finds the defendants guilty.
The tribunal of one rules that the four columns at issue do not individually violate the Human Rights Code. Taken together, however, somehow they do.
While the defendants and members of the real legal profession scratch their heads over that one, the tribunal orders the defendants to pay $2,000 in compensation to the victim.
It also orders Newspaper A to publish its findings and forbids the columnist and the newspaper from printing future opinions the tribunal deems offensive.
So we have an arm of the government that has determined it can levy fines over newspaper content, that it can order government content to be printed in privately owned newspapers and that it can engage in "prior restraint" by forbidding the publication of future content in a privately owned newspaper.
I think that is a pretty compelling set of facts.
I also think that, regardless of what you think of Columnist D's opinions, it is a set of facts worth challenging in court. (...)
Thank God for old soldiers. <end>
And, a month and a half later:
JUGGLING human rights agendas in this province is getting trickier all the time.
You've got to know which special interest groups are really special and which aren't so special. You've got to know that some groups' rights are more right than others.
That's why we've got a human rights commission and a full-time commissioner. It's a booming business that makes up its own rules as it goes along. (...)
Of course, not everyone's human rights carry the same weight. Retired News columnist Doug Collins, for example, is one guy who's not on the human rights 'A' list.
A May 16 News story chronicled efforts by the attorney-general's department to deny the obstinate old freedom of speech fighter the right to launch a court challenge of a February human rights tribunal decision -- another example of your tax dollars at work eroding democracy.
In this province of fairness and inclusiveness for all there is no avenue of appeal for a human rights decision in the human rights code or through the human rights kangaroo courts. Thus Collins' pursuit of a judicial appeal.
The government's attempt to quash Collins' petition before it even got to court might be unsettling for anyone who values the democratic process and the right of citizens to test the constitutionality of bad law, but it's understandable from the government's perspective: the sections of province's human rights code at issue are unlikely to withstand any court test.
As Collins said in a recent speech in Toronto:
"The Globe (and Mail) said B.C. should get rid of its presumptuous Human Rights Code but covered its rear by describing me as 'an ancient crank.' My response was that many of us ancient cranks spent six years fighting Hitler and that we were under the delusion we were fighting so that freedom of speech would be there for cranks of all kinds, ancient or not."
Well, old cranks don't count for much in B.C.'s human rights code -- they not being the right special interest group. The government would rather invest taxpayers' money in buying cell phones for prostitutes and denying the rights of its citizens to express themselves freely than in running a democracy.
There are rights and there are wrongs. This province has cornered the market on the latter.
Thought for the Day:
"You don't have to be very offensive in order to offend the politically correct . . . They are haters because they hate free speech. What are we going to do? Discuss Mozart and the daisies in the spring?"
(Doug Collins)
Back to Table of Contents of the May 1999 ZGrams