Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
"But wasn't it Elie Wiesel, a major Holocaust propagandist, who said the world should never stop hating the Germans? . . .
"Anyway, Swindler's List will hit the Academy Well because Hollywood is Hollywood and what happened to the Jews during the Second World War is not only the longest-lasting but also the most effective propaganda exercise ever . . .
"Hardly a day goes by that press, radio and television don't mention something about the six million.
"The figure is nonsense but media folk go on parroting what everyone 'knows.' I used to do the same . . .
"In time of war, propaganda is justified. Fifty years on, it's a bit much. But it comes about because the Jewish influence is the most powerful in Hollywood."
Now get this: Doug Collins is not, and never has been, of the ideological
bent of Ernst Zundel.
If he were, it would be a snap to demonize him. Now it will be one hoary
problem, the reasons being manifold:
As a young chap from Britain, Doug Collins fought the Germans tooth and
nail in World War II and has all the medals to prove it. He escaped prisoner-of-war
camps several times, was caught each time and put back in the hole, but
in the end, he hotfooted it back to his Allied buddies - youthful adventures
which made him a subject of books, articles and much admiration.
Moreover, as a young journalist, Doug Collins started as a left-leaning
liberal labor reporter - most cub reporters start as liberals, as though
you didn't know! - but to his credit he wised up to eventually and is today
THE most beloved right-wing columnist with a huge following in the fair
land of Canada, one of his functions being ". . . to rough up politicians
with his uncompromising interviews," according to a somewhat sour colleague.
Collins is a superb stylist whom I have praised before. Here is a Collins
sampling, speaking of our very own, Zundel defense attorney Douglas Christie
as compared to one of Doug's arch foes:
"WOULD you shake hands with Liberal candidate Warren Kinsella? Reformer Ted White wouldn't and neither would I. I would rather give a French kiss to the Phantom of the Opera . . .
"Christie defended Ernst Zundel in his "spreading false news" trial. But in Kinsella's view that reflects badly on White. Isn't Zundel a "holocaust denier" and a neo-Nazi (whatever that is)?
"Those are McCarthyite tactics. Besides which it was thanks to Christie that that dangerous "false news" law was defeated. Does Kinsella wish it hadn't been? . . .
"I have news. Christie is worth 20 Kinsellas. He has acted in the most important free speech cases in the country, often without fee. If there were a few more Christies around, free speech wouldn't be in so much trouble."
Well, free speech IS in trouble now, thanks to the Collins pen, to wit:
"TOMORROW, (May 12) your man Doug and this gutsy newspaper go into the history books as the first in Canada to face a "human rights" tribunal. The first in journalism, that is.
"And I thought I would never be famous!
"The hearing will begin at 9.30 a.m. in the Century Plaza Hotel, 1015 Burrard St. Come and see socialist justice in action. . . .
"There will be scads of hostile lawyers on parade tomorrow: from the government, from the ever-cavilling Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), author of this vicious complaint, and from multicult groups.
"All with the same idea in mind: stop speech that is too free. . .
"The law makes it hazardous to write anything "likely," to bring a group into "hatred or contempt" and a one-man tribunal will decide what is what. He also acts as judge, jury and prosecutor.
"It reminds me of the U.S.S.R. If your attitude was "likely" to harm "socialist realism" off you went to a People's Court . . ."
The expected legal fireworks ties into Bill 33, beloved by the opposition,
which was passed, according to one liberal (?) eager beaver, Corkie Evans,
because ". . . the courts didn't always do what the government wanted
them to do. "
Therefore, in 1993, the British Columbia government amended its human-rights
legislation to discipline media alleged to have published anything "likely
to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.
. . ."
The amended Section 2 of the B.C. Human Rights Code states:
2. (1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
a. indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of person, or
b. is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons."
That's more than just a mouthful. The section basically prohibits publication
of ANYTHING that "indicates discrimination or an INTENTION to discriminate
against" a person or a group or class of person.
It bans ANY publication that is LIKELY to expose anyone to hatred or contempt.
(Assume that German-Canadians are exempt. . . )
The battle lines are drawn. The players are as follows:
Pro Collins:
· The North Shore News - a most courageous and principled suburban
paper that has already doled out $70,000 to defend its gutsy columnist
· David Sutherland, lawyer for Collins and The North Shore News,
who argues that the CJC is badly misrepresenting Collins' column, which
claimed Schindler's List is "propaganda" produced by Jews to make
money in the name of the Holocaust.
· Scores of Collins fans/news readers who have already delivered
their own verdict by contributing some $60,000 in just over four weeks to
the North Shore News Free Speech Defence Fund
· The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association which holds that
provisions of the code, enacted in 1993, are unacceptable attempts at government
censorship.
· The British Columbia Press Council, representing 125 members, intervening
in the case in an attempt to have struck down a law that they see as extremely
dangerous to a free press in Canada. Council lawyer Roger McConchie has
stated that Section 2 of the code is the most "significant legislative
infringement on press freedom in the history of the province."
McConchie -- who is questioning the constitutionality of B.C.'s anti-hate
law and who is not explicitly defending Collins' column (horrors!) -- also
said the human rights tribunal should not be deciding what the residents
of B.C. are entitled to read, should not expose a newspaper columnist to
an award of damages and should not be making decisions on liability that
cannot be appealed to a higher body. His lawyerly point is that the B.C.
Human Rights Code is unconstitutional because it does not allow anyone alleged
to have written hate-promoting material to mount traditional defenses.
For example, McConchie said, B.C.'s human rights code does not allow Collins
to defend himself by arguing that his column was true, that it was of benefit
to the public, or that it was an honest expression of opinion.
· And, finally, Collins journalist colleagues, both friend and foe,
to sample just a few:
Noel Wright of the "North Shore News":
"THE fight is on this month against the bully-boys (and girls!) who are convinced they know best what is good for us -- and how to make us swallow it, whether we like it or not. . . Will May 1997 be recorded by future historians as the month when freedom-loving B.C. citizens finally began to win their battle against Victoria's McCarthy-like tyrants of the mind?"
"Toronto Globe and Mail" Editorial:
"Our legislatures regularly seek to inhibit free speech by individuals and the media, and our courts often support these laws as 'reasonable limits' in a democratic society. British Columbia's clumsy effort to stiffen the federal Criminal Code's unfortunate laws against inciting hate through speech are just the latest example of this reprehensible trend. . . The antidote to what (Doug Collins) has to say lies in other people's right to respond, not to the state's power to fine or imprison."
Allan Fotheringham of the "Financial Post" and a weekly columnist
for "Maclean's" magazine:
"How do you defend an enemy who's turned into a monster -- when you've created that very monster?
"We became bitter enemies on the same paper, my column mocking his spurious new convictions, his column sneering at my limousine liberal views. . .
"How can you defend such a man? How can you defend him against the Canadian Jewish Congress complaint about a 1994 Collins column in which he said Hollywood is controlled by Jews?
"Because it's so simple. It's something called freedom of speech."
These are the Collins pro-speech forces. Facing them in a virulent censorship
mode are several groups, including the Canadian Jewish Congress (who else?)
the attorney-general's ministry, the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, and the
Chinese Benevolent Association, defending the code, saying it provided "reasonable
limits to press freedoms."
Their lawyers argue that
". . . media's right to free speech must always be balanced against the right of a person or group to be free from discrimination."
They defend the law as necessary protection from discrimination and hatred
based on religion or race.
Walsh, Canadian Jewish Congress attorney, claims the Collins column's message
is:
"Jews are responsible for false Holocaust propaganda which is itself hateful; they are master manipulators who use their extensive ownership of the media to widely disseminate Holocaust 'nonsense' for profit, to the great harm of innocent people and society generally."
The right of Collins and others to free speech is not absolute, Walsh argues,
and cannot be used to infringe on another person's right to enjoy their
freedoms. The CJC has asked the Human Rights Tribunal to issue a cease-and-desist
order that would ensure that the free-distribution North Shore News would
no longer publish articles that are likely to expose Jewish people to hatred
or contempt because of their religion or race.
More tellingly yet, the CJC's legal spokesman, Morris Soronow, was reported
in the Western Jewish Bulletin as saying:
"We're counting on this legislation to discourage others."
Others? Now we are wondering whom he might have meant!?
So what do we have here? An icebreaker of sorts - plowing some of the crusts
of the censorship iceberg - which, we fervently hope, will make our sailing
smoother because the Zundel hearings will commence May 26.
While it is fashionable and even seen as dutiful to attack Zundel writings
- the lapdog media saw to that - that isn't true of Collins, one of their
own profession and now, at 76, a beloved cult figure of sorts. In Canada,
you can afford to side with Collins without endangering your own political
correctness status. Just ask the fellow in the streets.
Two days ago, when all this started, Collins was loudly applauded when he
entered the hearing room at the Century Plaza Hotel. Many of the 100 people
watching the hearing appeared sympathetic to Collins, and broke out in applause
- which is when hearts started to plunk into trousers. (To be elaborated
later . . . )
What makes this case so interesting for us is that Ernst's case before the
Kommissars will overlap with this one - and we are hoping that the glorious
Revisionist headlines Collins is sure to reap as he makes mincemeat of the
villainous censorship crowd will benefit us, too.
There is really much more to this story already. But I am saving it for
later while savoring it now. The hearings are expected to last weeks.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Free speech is appalling. The only thing that is more appalling is no free speech. Let (the) battle begin."
(Doug Collins)