Courtesy of the Canadian Freedom-site, <http://www.freedomsite.org> we get an update on what happened to Doug Collins, still in the clutches of the Marxist-flavoured Canadian/BC Human Rights Commission and one of its Tribunals.
I sincerely hope that the media folks are finally waking up, because what happened in Ontario in the drawn-out Zundel case now happened in British Columbia to English-Canadian war hero Doug Collins. It is going to happen to others, for precedents have now been set.
The long and short of it is that once you are caught in a Human Rights snare, the courts will not help you. The courts have totally been captured by Canada's Zionist Fifth Column.
The courts now rule that you first have to be bled dry, and then they will say - so we piously hope! - that what happened in these Kangaroo courts should not have happened in the first place.
Here's for the newcomers to this ZGram service: Doug Collins, one of Canada's tried-and-true columnists, well into his seventies, misspoke himself in one of his columns and let it hang out that he didn't believe the Holocaust happened the way he was taught to believe it happened.
Additionally, he made some careless remarks about too many Jews controlling Hollywood.
Some Jews ran shrieking to their Human Rights buddies and complained that their feelings were hurt - and never mind that Jewish writers say the same in big fat books - and nothing will happen to them.
Doug Collins fought back - and he won.
Immediately, he was re-charged by another Jew whose feelings were also hurt - this time by four of his columns, one of which had already been judged in the first case he won.
Doug Collins lost the second round.
He took the matter to have the judgment reviewed by a real court - not a Kangaroo Court. The article below deals what has happened next.
Here's Doug in "THE CUTTING EDGE FOR THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT
THE COLLINS COLUMN | MATTER OF JUSTICE
Do not go gently into that good night, Rage, rage against the dying of the light " Dylan Thomas.
This is hot off the presses, as it were. The B.C. Appeal Court has just decided, in its wisdom, that I cannot have a judicial review of this province's outrageous heresy laws without first going back to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that censored and fined me. It should then consider whether what it did was constitutional!
Confusing. So here's some background.
In 1998 the tribunal heard a complaint against me from a Jew in Victoria by the name of Harry Abrams of B'Nai Brith. In his view, four columns of mine hurt his feelings and contravened the Human Rights Code in that they were "likely" to bring him and his brethren into "hatred and contempt." Not that they had actually done so. As far as he personally was concerned he hadn't even been mentioned in them. But "likely" was the operative word.
Anything or nothing is "likely", of course. In the U.S.S.R., kulaks could be sent to concentration camps because they were "likely" to be hostile to Stalin. Here in the Socialist Republic of British Columbia we haven't yet got the camps but the principles of suspicion are the same.
Your man Doug and the newspaper for which he worked were found guilty. Abrams was awarded $2,000 for his allegedly hurt feelings and the newspaper was told to run the decision in full, which was an infringement of freedom of the press. Even the regular courts cannot make such a ruling.
Also strange was that, although the tribunal found that, taken individually, the columns in question were not in breach of the misnamed "rights" Code, collectively they were. A real head-scratcher, that, but we are now living in a strange world.
Lawyer Doug Christie offered to act for me, and I briefed him to go for a judicial review of the Code. If successful, such a review would render the offending portions of the law null and void, which is a consummation devoutly to be desired, B.C.'s rights to free expression having been removed. And not since Confederation has a writer been forced before a government-appointed tribunal to defend an opinion column.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge denied the application for a review on the grounds that we should first go back to the tribunal so that it could "finish its task" and consider whether it had acted constitutionally.
We went to the Appeal Court in the hope of getting that judgment overturned. As stated, the application was denied. This in spite of the fact that in a previous human rights case, the issue did go directly to court. But it was clear to me after the first hour of the hearing that the appeal judges would rule against us. Body language and attitudes conveyed the message.
Our morally corrupt government pulled out all the stops. The lawyer for the attorney general of the province was on parade, as were lawyers for the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal. Why? Because Premier Ujjal Dozanjh & Co are desperate to prevent their law from being scrutinized by the judiciary.
Mr. Christie made a magnificent case for justice and common sense. But laws are one thing and justice is another. The government side, meanwhile, provided arguments incomprehensible to ordinary mortals.
What now? Fight on, that's what. No doubt the government hopes that because of my age I'll kick the bucket before long. But as that old Scot Sir Andrew Barttron said, "I am hurt but I am not slain. I'll lay me down and bleed awhile, and then I'll fight again."
In short, I'll take myself back to the tribunal and ask it whether what it did was constitutional. I'll do so without a lawyer because while the government has limitless funds, our side does not. It is also obvious that, lawyer or no lawyer, the tribunal's answer is certain. It would be news indeed if it ruled against itself.
Once the tribunal has determined that it is without fault, we'll use the limited funds at our disposal to get that judicial review, and trust that we can beat both B'Nai Brith and the Evil Empire of the Republic of British Columbia. After all, neither the validity of this socialist Code nor the merits of this case have yet been tested in court.
Dylan Thomas said it all in two lines. And as a lesser wordsmith put it, "It ain't over till it's over."
=====
Asked what he thought about the similarities in the Collins case and his own five-year ordeal before a seethingly hostile Human Rights Tribunal, Ernst Zundel summarized:
<start>
The Canadian courts, certainly at the appeal level, both provincial and federal, have quietly done away with one of the oldest traditions of Anglo-Saxon law - namely, that rulings and decisions by administrative tribunals, like "Human Rights" tribunals, are subject to judicial review.
They used to be subject to review not only at the end of the hearing of a case but within 30 days. It is no secret that unconstitutional and even illegal rulings and interim decisions have been made by these non-courts. There was always the possibility of relief for a victim by seeking review in a real court. Until my case came along, this was always standard procedure.
Not any more!
Now courts are asking the victims of Human Rights Commissions and their politically motivated tribunals to suffer - in my case five years' worth of litigation, with 54 flagrantly political and, in my opinion, illegal and unconstitutional rulings and financial ruination - until a victim can appeal. Canada's judges have lost all sense of justice and fair play. They are so divorced from reality it is sickening.
And here is the tragedy for Canada: No federal or provincial legislature has legislated an end to interim judicial reviews. In our "system of justice" the judges made up this new rule all by themselves. Why? To bleed to death the victims of injustice so they won't have the funds to appeal at the end. With a bow to the Holocaust Lobby!
<end>
-----
Thought for the Day:
"In Holocaust matters, it's not "believe it or not", its "believe it or else."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 2001 ZGrams