Charles Bradlaugh wrote:
"Without free speech, no search for truth is possible; without free speech, no discovery of truth is useful; without free speech, progress is checked, and the Nations no longer move forward, toward the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a thousandfold abuse, than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the [human] race."
That is a dictum the B'nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress would do well to take to heart, for they are at it again - yammering for special privileges to "slay the life of the people, and entomb the hope of the [human] race."
Here are some notes by Canadian's Battling Barrister and Zündel defense attorney, Doug Christie, working on another free-speech case. The case pertains to teacher Malcolm Ross who lost his teaching position due to charges of being politically incorrect and who was subsequently viciously libeled in a filthy, scatological cartoon depicting him as a "Nazi" by a Jewish cartoonist named Beutel.
These Christie notes were written on January 21, 2000 and published in "Friends of Freedom", a private newsletter for the supporters of the Canadian Free Speech League, Jan/Feb issue 2000:
As I sit in this hotel room in New Brunswick I am recording an amazing experience: I have just heard the representative of B'nai Brith and Canadian Jewish Congress argue that the law of libel should be altered to forestall or stop the success of people like Malcolm Ross, Eileen Pressler, David Irving etc. Even Roger Rocan's lawsuit was mentioned as if it was settled in his favor with an apology and money. Objection was strenuously raised that I mentioned the amount because Roger signed a confidentiality agreement. The fact is it was seriously contended that the existence of lawsuits against "civil right activists" should be prevented!
The suggested methods ranged from denial of the right to bring lawsuits or finally the extension of the defence of fair comment even if the foundation facts could not be proven or alternately to giving those who "deny the holocaust" only nominal damages even if they are defamed.
I argued that anti-Semites and racists (if such they are) need to have the same legal rights as everyone else even if only to determine fairly that they are or are not racists or anti-Semites. To deny them the same protection as other citizens for their reputations would make them open season targets for defamation and render them vulnerable to treatment in our society, similar to what Nazis did to Jews. In fact, I said that "these advocates of tolerance" should listen to themselves objectively and assess the implications of what they are saying.
The listing of people suing for damages for defamation identifies how concerned the Canadian Jewish Congress and Anti-Defamation League are about being sued for defamation. Both have been. (...)
It seems some people think only they should have access to the courts. My submission was that everyone needs access to the courts on an equal footing and nobody embarks on defamation actions for light or frivolous causes. Look at the opposition such people face!
In this case, I stand alone against six of the most competent counsel in Canada and if we lose, my client will be ruined.
To which the Free Speech Monitor, published by the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., added:
In arguments in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal seeking to overturn the libel judgment in Malcolm Ross's favor, Marvin Kurz, representing B'nai Brith, argued:
"If this kind of lawsuit proliferates, it will have a chilling effect not only on editorial cartoonists or writers, but also on those who are trying to defend against hate propaganda and promote human rights." (...) Groups like B'nai Brith seek "qualified privilege" - that is, immunity from the laws of libel - for themselves, as they are fighting "the good fight" against racism. Malcolm Ross's lawyer, Doug Christie, "said he found it ironic that those who would prefer to silence Mr. Ross's opinions are claiming free speech is of the utmost importance now that it concerns Mr. Beutel. Mr. Christie said that Mr. Beutel intentionally set out to destroy his client when he drew the cartoons of Mr. Ross."
In its coverage of the release of the B'nai Brith 1999 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, the Globe and Mail (February 9, 2000) reported:
"The league noted one disturbing trend: the increase in libel suits by hate mongers which, if successful, would result in 'libel chill' on human rights activists." This assertion, frankly, is defamatory balderdash. Firstly, any competent lawyer would caution a client not to embark on a libel suit unless there is clear evidence of a hurtful falsehood having been published. (...) Of the recent libel actions brought against anti-racists in Canada, none was brought by a person ever charged or convicted under Section 318, the hate propaganda section, of the Criminal Code. Thus, to assert that "hate mongers" are using the laws of libel is to defame the complainants seeking to salvage their reputations. The laws of libel do not prevent people from telling the truth. They serve to offer recourse to those who have been lied about. What B'nai Brith seems to want is the right to criticize its political opponents without regard for truth or accuracy - a right even those labouring in what they believe is a righteous cause should not have.
So what does this mean? It means the tables have been turned, and those who parade under so-called "human rights" privileges are feeling the fire under their tails.
Even more to the point, word comes almost daily that people are fighting back on other fronts as well. Many of these Jewish "advocacy groups" are posing as charities. According to media reports, Revenue Canada - and in the USA, the Internal Revenue Service - are being flooded with complaints about this abuse of the charitable status.
Many are now feeling anxious; others are under investigation; some have already been barred - and no doubt others will be in the near future.
It is not as if these front store operations are always all that powerful. Determined grassroots action can sometimes still accomplish wonders.
Ingrid
=====
Thought for the Day:
"The charge of 'anti-Semitism' is really a complaint that Pat Buchanan, unlike most American politicians and journalists, is insufficiently subservient to organized Jewish power. He has committed the sin of refusing to cower and grovel. Far from being a hater, he is the target of the most obsessive hate in America today - even in the 'respectable' press."
Sobran