The Zundelsite is packed with information on the - by now - more than 3-year-old Human Rights Tribunal hearings commissioned by the Canadian Censors to shut down this website to please and placate the Holocaust Lobby.
This "Human Rights" case is exceedingly complicated, as all my long-time readers know - and what is happening this week is just a tiny part of a much larger picture, albeit an essential part.
I got up at 3 a.m. this morning to study and condense a 25-page document to be used by the Zundel defense team as part of today's and tomorrow's court proceedings. Let me strip down and simplify the issues for you - no small task, trust you me! Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer.
Here goes:
As part of a massive censorship attack initiated in 1996 and formally started in May of 1997, the Holocaust Lobby called a Dr. Frederick Schweitzer as one of its expert witnesses to do a talmudic hatchet job and nail down the assertion that the documents on the Zundelsite are dripping with anti-Semitism.
The defense countered that what the Zundelsite documents contain are based on truthful information compiled by ***Jewish*** writers - in other words, straight from the horse's mouth.
At that, the Lobby's lawyers panicked.
The Tribunal obliged and ruled that ***truth was not a defense***. Dr. Schweitzer could not be cross-examined on whether or not the documents on the Zundelsite were truthful.
Along with many other "dividends", this obscene ruling - it would have done a Joseph Stalin proud! - netted us a summer's worth of furious editorials in all major Canadian papers - virtually all coming out on the side of freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Mr. Zundel arranged for judicial review of this issue - ***as one of five such scheduled judicial reviews***.
Two judicial reviews were handled separately, and three were bunched together:
1) the apprehension of bias issue of one of the Tribunal members, Reva "Esther" Devins,
2) the disqualification of one of the expert witnesses for the defense, and
3) the issue of "truth is no defense".
***The text below pertains to this last issue***.
I know this is a bit confusing, but just keep focused on the fact that the Kanadian Kommissars ruled against truth as being an allowable defense, and that the Zundel team is arguing that truth as a defense is basic, fundamental and part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should not be usurped.
Below are excerpts of the text I tried to distill for my readers. It is still heavy-duty legalese, but important to be archived in substance. I apologize that it will read a bit stilted, but that's how lawyers talk.
The essence of Dr. Schweitzer's testimony was that the materials on the Zundelsite provided to him by the CHRC were lethal anti-Semitism because they replicated the motifs of historic anti-Semitism over a period of 1,000 years; they were false then and they are false now. (...)
During cross-examination of Dr. Schweitzer, respondent's counsel attempted to elicit admission from the witness that the impugned statements on the Zundelsite were true.
Dr. Schweitzer testified in his cross-examination that truth is not anti-Semitic and that the truth or falsity of the statement was one of the factors he took into account in determining whether or not the impugned statements were anti-Semitic. (...)
(Defense Attorney) Christie:
Q: I want to make sure I understand. I don't mean to insult you; I may be very stupid, and I apologize if I am. When you said "no", I take it the answer is "no" to the question: Can truth be anti-Semitic? The answer is 'no", right?
Schweitzer: Right. I don't think Jews have any fear of the truth.
As part of his cross-examination, Dr. Schweitzer further testified as follows to the importance of truth as the basis for his opinion that the Zundelsite materials constituted lethal anti-Semitism: (...)
(as summarized by the Zundel team):
(n) that the "Holocaust" was beyond denial, that the proof was so overwhelming that it was utterly pointless to challenge it in a serious, intellectual historical way, (...) and that "You would have to be a fool and a fraud not to believe in the Holocaust and that the American Historical Association, a prestigious body of 17,000 members had passed a resolution that the "Holocaust" could not be denied. (...)
It is submitted that the judicial review is not premature. No internal right of appeal exists for Mr. Zundel under the CHRA. No adequate alternative remedy exists. The only remedy is judicial review...where a ruling denies a party fundamental justice and fairness in the proceedings which goes to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, he should not be required to wait until the proceedings are completed. In this case, the factual context is clear and complete with respect to the issue of truth as a defense to the human rights charges (...)
The issue is therefore whether the Tribunal's ruling on truth was one which affected the jurisdiction of the tribunal or denied participatory rights. It is submitted that the ruling was one which denied the respondent the right to call evidence going to the heart of the accusation against him and was one which denied him the right to cross-examine the witness, Dr. Schweitzer, on the issue of the truth of the documents complained of, notwithstanding that he had specifically and repeatedly testified that truthful statements are not anti-Semitic and that the reason he found the documents on the Zundelsite to constitute anti-Semitism was because he considered them false.
The refusal to allow cross-examination of the witness Dr. Frederick Schweitzer on the truth of the statements contained on the Zundelsite constituted a denial of natural justice and reviewable error. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that refusing to hear relevant and admissible evidence which has such an impact on the fairness of the proceeding that it amounts to a breach of the rules of natural justice is reviewable error going to jurisdiction. (...)
Any tribunal which denies this defense and the evidence to establish it has violated the Charter and committed jurisdictional error. A better and more constitutional interpretation of section 13(1) of the CHRA is: (a) valid criticism based on truth exposes no one to hatred and contempt but to correction, exposure and righteous indignation; (b) likewise, if based on truth, the comments do not target groups on the basis of a prohibited ground such as race or religion but on the basis of actual conduct or behaviour.
It has recently been held by the British Columbia Court of Appeal that the right to fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms extends to human rights proceedings because of the high stigma which attaches to the accused in such proceedings. Fundamental justice includes the right to call relevant evidence and to cross-examine expert witnesses fully on the basis of their expressed opinion. The denial of these rights is a violation of section 7 of the Charter.
The ruling on truth by the tribunal was in essence a final ruling, not an interlocutory ruling. It determined the final rights of the parties with respect to the issue of truth as a defence to these charges, including rights to call evidence and extent of cross-examination of witnesses. It is submitted that the ruling went to the fundamental fairness of the Tribunal hearings (...)
Section 319(3)(a) of the Criminal Code provides: (...)
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;(...)
If hate is remote from truth, conversely truth is remote from hate and evidence of truth would likely indicate that what is exposed is not hatred or contempt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that truth is one of the core values underlying the protection of freedom of expression. It has summarized these values as follows:
(1) seeking and attaining the truth is an inherently good activity;
(2) participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged; and
(3) the diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment for the sake of both those who convey a meaning and those to whom meaning is conveyed. (...)
This was affirmed in the respondent's case before the Supreme Court regarding the "false news" law where the majority held: "The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or false.
TOMORROW: PART II
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Those who laughed at the Communist Russia, now get New Bolshevism and Red Terror in America and Europe. Cheers, you buttheads !"
(Letter to the Zundelsite from a ZGram reader from Russia)