Ernst Zundel writes in his upcoming July Power letter about the resumption of the Human Rights Tribunal Zundelsite hearings in September. I'd like you to read what Ernst Zundel has to say - and then weigh it against the very human "Scott Brookie" victimization story that follows.
Ernst Zundel first:
The die is cast
The lower courts of Canada have spoken in most of the judicial reviews brought before them! Although there are still some appeals outstanding - one important one in the Federal Appeal Court on November 6 - others are before the Supreme Court of Canada asking that court of final instance for leave to appeal some of the lower courts' decisions. Yet a very ominous handwriting is now on the wall.
I have lost virtually all court cases this year in Canada. The last reprieve I enjoyed was on April 13. 1999, thanks to a courageous decision by Judge Campbell in three cases that day which halted the proceedings temporarily. ***Now the higher courts all say that I have to go through the whole process of an expensive, quasi-judicial proceeding that has ruled (amongst 54 adverse rulings!) that truth is not a defense - in a case where truth in history is the very essence of the case! - before I can appeal their verdict.*** It is as though a court would rule in favor of a doctor that a patient has to suffer the entire treatment to the end before malpractice can be charged - and investigated.
My attorneys, both seasoned professionals with decades of legal and court experience, and graduates of some of the finest law schools in Canada, told me that this is now the "new law" - unheard-of hitherto in this country! They told me that especially the rulings of such bodies as quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunals were in the past subject to "judicial review", ***meaning an examination of their decision by a duly constituted proper court***. In the past, the only stipulation was that applications for a review had to be filed against such decisions within 30 days of the making of such decisions. My attorneys assured me over and over again that that was the law in the past. That was the legal process and the judicial tradition in Canada - for centuries!
No more! My lawyers and I found out that these rules seem to have changed - certainly in Ernst Zündel's case. That very dangerous, dictatorial precedents are being set seems to disturb nobody - not the public, nor the legal profession, nor the judges and professors of Law at Law Schools.
This means that I, and maybe from now on others, will have to sit idly by while prejudiced political appointees of the ruling political party in power at any time can vilify, railroad, and financially bankrupt people like myself with lengthy and extremely costly, time- and energy-wasting quasi-judicial proceedings - proceedings brought on by tax-exempt "charitable" organizations ***who then are given the status of intervenors or interested parties and thus allowed by the courts as co-prosecutors in their own cases*** ! And once they are through, they can even collect from the victim! If an accused, like myself, does not put up a stiff fight, he gets judged "guilty of inciting hatred against fill-in-the-blank" and gets a court- and police-enforced Tribunal "Cease and Desist" order, which will be smeared across the headlines and the evening television news from coast to coast. Only at this stage, say the court of Canada now, can an accused like myself go to the regular courts for an appeal or a review of the kangaroo tribunals' ruling. After all, the money, by then, has been spent on lawyers and witness fees, and the name of the accused has been effectively ruined!
In the case of the "Zundelsite" Tribunal hearings, that will be after a 5-year litigation and 20,000 to 25,000 pages of transcripts, all of which I have to buy at approximately $2 a page, which the appeal court needs in 13 sets of copies - not to mention the extravagant needs of the Supreme Court if I decide to go that far. All told, in copy costs alone approximately 325,000 copies for the first level of appeal!
That this makes justice unattainable except for governments, large corporations and multi-millionaires seems to be totally irrelevant to those who inhabit Canada's judiciary today.
It is undemocratic, cynical and highly immoral behaviour by judges who seem to have lost all sense of fairness, balance, or even common decency. It is the iron heel of an appointed judiciary crushing anyone who aspires to demand to simply have "his day in court." It makes a mockery out of "accessible justice" and brings the entire justice system in disrepute. How this process will end, only God knows. How ordinary citizens are going to react once they realize that their age-old tradition have been cast aside by a cynical, power-hungry elite, an old (or new) boys' network of unaccountable political appointees is anybody's guess. Thinking people will certainly draw some conclusions which will reverberate around society and the body politic and might not be to the liking of those responsible for this dismal state of affairs.
Thus we are gearing up for yet another round of battle with the Forces of Darkness, with the Zundelsite right in the middle. Most brainwashed citizens of Canada, who have been inundated systematically with all the filth and slime the mainstream media whores saw fit to pour over the name of Ernst Zundel, will say: "Well, gee, that Nazi bigot! Of course he had it coming!"
Is that a fact?
Please understand that ***legal precedents are being set*** by targeting people like Ernst - and like Brookie:
Reports Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression:
Printer Scott Brockie, a young family-oriented, born-again Christian has spent four years feeling the might of Canada's militant homosexual lobby and their allies in the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Speaking to the Alternative Forum in Toronto on June 15, Brockie explained: "For me it's more important to have my integrity than to have a printing job."
The ordeal began back in 1996, when a Ray Brillinger approached Mr. Brockie to do some printing for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. While he has done work for individual homosexuals, Mr. Brockie felt that this printing job would actually be promoting behaviour that he finds repugnant. He turned down Brillinger's request.
Mr. Brockie explains his decision: "I have a growing business and cannot afford days and days off for hearings. We do work for clients who are gay. We've had staff who said they were gay. I don't have a problem with people who are gay. I can't force them to change. However, I don't think I have to support that cause. If Mr. Brillinger had asked me to print personal business cards, I would have. We must promote the family, but we must not hate those who are gay."
"About two weeks later," Mr. Brockie recalls, "a letter arrived from the Ontario Human Rights Commission saying that Brillinger's rights had been violated, but that all would be forgiven for the price of $5,000 and an apology."
When Mr. Brockie rejected this blatant shakedown, the Ontario Human Rights Commission initiated an investigation. During the investigation, "I was never asked to state my case in my own words."
Perhaps, not surprisingly, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, headed, as it is by homosexual Keith Norton, a former Tory MPP, "supported the initial complaint against me," Brockie explains.
The complaint was then referred to a Board of Inquiry in the summer of 1999. "The decision," says Mr. Brockie, "was that I was guilty of discrimination and the community as a whole felt upset. Therefore, I was to be fined $5,000 and ordered to do similar work in the future."
"Four years is a long time," Brockie says," but the fight must continue. We are now seeking the right to appeal to the courts. We've sought the tapes and transcripts of the Board of Inquiry. The date for the appeal will be sometime next year."
The remarkably sweeping and harsh decision all but eliminated Scott Brockie's right to follow his religious beliefs, except in his own home. "In her decision, the adjudicator said, 'Mr. Brockie is free to practise his beliefs in his home or his church.' She acknowledged the sincerity of my beliefs. She didn't deny the genuineness of my faith as a born-again Christian. You get the sense that they feel my faith is something I can take off or leave at the house," Mr. Brockie explains.
Ms. H.M. MacNaughton's decision scorns Scott Brockie's right to practise his religious beliefs in business. In her February, 2000 decision, she wrote: "Having considered all of the evidence before me, and in balancing the competing rights, I have concluded that it is reasonable to limit Brockie's freedom of religion in order to prevent the very real harm to members of the lesbian and gay community, and their organizations, by the denial of services because of their sexual orientation. The infringement of the rights of Brockie is warranted in our Canadian society, which has seen fit, through the terms and provisions of the Code, and through the identification of sexual orientation as an analogous ground of protection under the Charter, to protect the rights of its lesbian and gay members from discrimination because of sexual orientation. I conclude that in order to eradicate discrimination by Brockie, I must compel him, and Imaging Excellence, to provide the service they earlier denied. A declaratory order and/or monetary compensation will not achieve this objective.
I therefore order Brockie and Imaging Excellence to provide the printing services that they provide to others, to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit. I further order that Brockie and Imaging Excellence pay damages in the amount of $5000 to Brillinger and the Archives. It is only through an award of damages of this magnitude that I am able to indicate the seriousness of the breach that occurred here. Counsel for the Respondents in this case repeatedly referred to the issues in this case as being ones of 'political correctness'. While it is apparent to me that nothing in this decision will persuade Brockie of the serious impact of his discriminatory act, I am hopeful that others will be informed by it."
Brockie is clearly being used as an example.
Scott Brockie's feelings little matter to the politically correct crowd and to those steamrollering the homosexual/lesbian agenda down the public's throat, even in Mike Harris's "Common Sense Agenda" Ontario. In his talk to the Alternative Forum, Mr. Brockie explained the feelings of restriction and marginalization he experienced at the hands of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
"To hear an adjudicator say I'm not allowed to take my beliefs to work is preposterous, is an abomination."
"The adjudicator failed to take into account the difference between opposition to the cause of homosexuality and the person," Brockie adds.
"I became born-again when I was 12 years old," Brockie says. " I endeavour every day to spend time with God in prayer. I have endeavoured since I was 12 years old to live my life according to the Bible and to please God. My life is all about my relationship with God."
"I will spend the rest of my days living for Him so that I may spend the rest of eternity living with Him," he told a much moved audience.
Vowing to fight on, Brockie says: "We'll carry this thing through. We may one day end up in the Supreme Court. ... What needs to happen with this case is respect for our beliefs."
On the day of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision, Radio Station CFRB took a readers' opinion poll and found that 88 per cent supported Scott Brockie.
At the end of the forum, Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, presented Mr. Brockie with a donation from CAFE to assist in his defence fund.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"On the subject of weird laws:
"In the territory still known as "France", it is an offence 'to call into question the existence [sic] of second world war crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal' (law of 13 July 1990).
"A number of other countries have followed this example, France being, of course, 'the mother of laws'.
"No other 'existence' is thus protected in France. None. The same is surely the case in most of the other lands with such legislation.
"What a riot, eh?!"
(Letter to the Zundelsite)
Back to Table of Contents of the July 2000 ZGrams