More on the venerable Mr. Alan Borovoy of the Canadian version of the ACLU - and his take on the self-destructive course the vengeful but shortsighted Canadian Holocaust Lobby has taken in its downward spiral of censorship frenzy.
Sit back and savour to the fullest:
Borovoy:
In the late fall of 1992, the Canadian Jewish Congress went a step further: it petitioned the Canadian government to keep the Holocaust-denying, U.K. historian David Irving out of this country. Of course, Canada owes nothing to such an alien who wishes to come here. But this country does have an obligation to its citizens and permanent residents who seek access to him. Their free speech is the central issue.
Zundelsite:
Yep. What happened was Serendipity Magnified: Mr. Irving was scheduled to speak at a banquet in Victoria, B.C. put on by the Canadian Free Speech League - and was met by noisy demonstrators. At the end of the meeting, he was arrested by the RCMP!
It turns out that Canadian Jewish organizations had clamoured for years to punish David Irving, especially after he had testified for the defence in the Second Great Holocaust Zundel Trial in 1988 where he declared the Leuchter findings "shattering", "a stroke of genius by the defence" etc.
Irving found out later how these people had worked behind the scenes around the world to bar him from countries, and to get criminal convictions against him. I remember a fascinating audio tape - one of the first Revisionist tapes that I heard.
Much of background material will be aired in David Irving's upcoming libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt.
Borovoy
But there is a section in the Immigration Act that potentially excludes foreigners on the basis of their having been convicted in another country of an offence that, if committed here, could be prosecuted "by way of indictment". (The CJC argued that Irving's conviction in Germany for Holocaust-denying statements was analogous to a Canadian conviction under the anti-hate law). The problem with this provision is that it is so wide that it could have denied Martin Luther King admission to Canada. During his battles against racial segregation in the American south, King was convicted and jailed for conducting demonstrations in violation of court orders. That was an offence that, if committed here, could have been prosecuted "by way of indictment".
Zundelsite:
Borovoy the lawyer obviously sees and knows what is wrong with these medieval "hate laws" unworthy of civilized people, but Borovoy the Jewish individual does not seem to be able to free himself from the mental vice of his tribal snail house.
With the eager help of the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, the Wiesenthalers and others, Canada is setting a disgraceful example. These people and organizations are asking the country that has been so good to them to prostitute itself according to overseas dictatorships that parade under the guise of "democracy."
If Germany's laws are to be the measuring stick by how Canadians will conduct themselves - how's this example for a trial run:
In a recent German court case, Mr. Schäfer, age 76, stood before a judge, accused of having "defamed the memory of the dead" in a meeting led by Mr. Friedmann, whom he had challenged on some aspects of the non-existent "gas chambers."
Mr. Friedmann promptly had Mr. Schäfer charged - and had five "witnesses" to back him up. Mr. Schäfer, for his part, came up with 15 of his own who corroborated his version of events at the meeting.
Not that it did him any good - the German judge, beholden, imposed five months' imprisonment without parole for 76-year-old Mr Schäfer!
That's how you get to be a "criminal" in today's NATO-ally, "democratic" Germany!
Borovoy:
It would have been more appropriate for the Canadian Jewish Congress to campaign against any law that could deny access to foreign speakers on such dubious grounds. Instead, it wound up encouraging public support for this unduly restrictive law. This is not to say that all aliens should be admitted here simply because there are some citizens who wish to engage with them. There is nothing wrong with devising criteria that would keep out foreigners who actually endanger the social peace of this country. All I am saying is that the criteria at issue here exceeded such legitimate considerations. The methods matter. For the CJC, the long-term implications were subordinated to the short-term objective.
Zundelsite:
At the behest of the Holocaust Lobby, Canada broke its solemn Article 19 it signed when it undertook to uphold in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Now think about this: Irving was barred for what he ***might*** say while in Canada. Menachim Begin, whom the British had declared a bloody murderer and terrorist with a price on his head, was welcomed in Canada by the same Jewish organizations and was feted by government officials. So was Ariel Sharon of brutal Sabra and Shatila fame. So were dozens of others since then - with similar terrorist records.
Not a peep from the CJC - or the press. No police arrests. No detention by Canadian Immigration. What a disgusting double standard!
Borovoy:
In the fall of 1996, the Canadian Jewish Congress took yet a further step in this pro-censorship direction. It invoked another section of the Immigration Act in an attempt to stop American black leader Louis Farrakhan
>from keeping a speaking engagement in Toronto. As head of the Nation of
Islam, Farrakhan had compiled a dismal record of anti-semitic pronouncements. But, unlike David Irving, he had not been criminally convicted for these pronouncements. In the United States, where Farrakhan spends most of his time, there is no legislation akin to our anti-hate law. Such legislation would offend American notions of free speech.
Zundelsite:
That is exactly right. Have Canadians ever thought of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which expressly protects the right to free speech? That must be the reason why I was not allowed to speak when the Human Rights Tribunal Kangaroo Court got on its hind legs - and why my affidavit, submitted at the start of these proceedings as unchallenged (as per Mr. Christie, defense attorney) is simply ignored as though it doesn't even exist. And that must also be the reason why Mr. Zundel is drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars in abusive "human rights" proceedings simply reeking with hypocrisy - where truth is ruled to be irrelevant and no defense! - and for what?! For my very own ZGrams - copyrighted from Day One in my name at the US Library of Congress with the assistance of a US Intellectual Properties attorney?
The Holocaust Lobby ought to be ashamed for doing what they continue to do - to curtail intellectual freedom so offensively in Canada!
And we are glad that it is tribal member Bovovoy who points it out to them and holds a public mirror to their faces.
But read on. It is getting even more grotesque - and Stalinesque!
Borovoy:
Since there was no indication that Farrakhan had already been convicted of an offence unacceptable in this country, the CJC invoked a section that would keep out aliens if there were reasonable grounds to believe they would violate a Canadian law. In this case, the CJC argued that Farrakhan was likely to breach our anti-hate law.
Zundelsite:
There are already precedents for that in other countries. Australia, for instance, will not allow historian David Irving in for what he might tell Australians because they claim his being convicted for "insulting" the (Jewish) dead in Germany and for being barred in Canada makes him a man with "flawed" character.
That's how the Lobby spin-masters its diabolical threads.
Borovoy:
There was a special problem with using the anti-hate law in this way. With such a precedent in place, Canadian citizens might be denied access to many foreign speakers on a wide range of important subjects including the conflicts between Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and Hindus and Sikhs in India. In at least some of these situations there is, to use the CJC's words, "a reasonable likelihood" that speakers expressing their indignation would attract action under the anti-hate law.
Nor was there any reason to believe that such an appeal to the immigration authorities was the only way for Jews to lodge an effective protest against Farrakhan's visit to Canada. The CJC could have picketed the site of the speech, and it could have publicly rebuked those Canadians who were prepared to make alliances with such a divisive demagogue. There could also have been appeals to various human rights organizations to join in a vigorous repudiation of Farrakhan and any Canadian allies he might have. Even if such organizations declined to participate, the exercise of making the request would have succeeded in raising many people's consciousness about the issue. In any event, it is likely that at least some of these organizations would have accepted such a CJC invitation.
In an earlier period, I believe the Canadian Jewish Congress would have objected to the very existence of immigration criteria as dubious as those it invoked in this case. But a combination of its short-term objectives (to keep out an undesirable) and the record of the positions it had already taken constituted an imposing barrier to the resurrection of the CJC's earlier liberalism. Sometimes, apparently, there really is a slippery slope.
Zundelsite:
I couldn't have argued it better myself. Some people are greasing that slope. When the Jewish organizations had not yet succeeded in infiltrating the top echelons of government, the media and the judiciary with their pernicious self-serving agenda - the mantra being that the "Holocaust" is "singular and unique" - they would have acted like democrats and liberals used to act: insist on free speech rights for all!
Now that they feel they have the politicians cowed - by media terror or election contributions - they seem to think it is no longer necessary to hide behind the mask of liberalism.
Now it is ". . . do as we tell you - or else pay the price!"
This is the place to point it out: It was ***existing*** hate laws and the abuses of the "liberals" turned open Communist in Germany that brought Adolf Hitler legally and democratically to power.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Since it is certain that we do not hold them captive, how do we deserve that such great and noble saints are so angry with us? We do not call their wives whores as they call Maria, the mother of Jesus; we do not call them bastards, as they call our Lord Christ.
We do not curse them, but wish them all manner of bodily and spiritual good, permit them to lodge with us. With what do we deserve such terrible wrath and envy and hatred of such holy children of God?"
(Martin Luther, more than 4 centuries ago . . . )
Back to Table of Contents of the Aug. 1999 ZGrams