The judge who heard yesterday's freaky motion by the Canadian Jewish Congress (supported by B'nai Brith, Canada's self-appointed censors and Political Correctness Enforcers) to stay, delay or even abort the ***five*** all-important Judicial Reviews in the Human Rights Tribunal Zundelsite hearings, has reserved judgment and is pondering a ruling.
We don't know when that ruling will come, but the report from the Zundel-Haus is that defense attorney Doug Christie was at his finest in opposing this motion.
Doug spoke with razor-sharp logic as well as conviction and emotion, and the strong feeling is by all those who were present in the court room that this lady judge might rule in our favor - which means that the brazen Human Rights Commission Tribunal will face more scrutiny in courts of higher authority in the near future - and the Chosenites will have more light shed and more heat applied to their own sleazy goals and tactics.
Meanwhile, I have on my desk yet another, even stronger article critical of the Human Rights Commissions than the previous ones that appeared in the National Post.
This editorial appeared yesterday, January 15, in the usually calcified and stodgy Toronto Globe and Mail. A new editorial wind seems to be blowing there also.
This article was forcefully blasting and exposing Canada's hate industry - an industry that flies under the guise of "protecting human rights" while being in the face of everything logical, decent and fair.
(For readers in other countries: The Globe and Mail was widely seen as "Canada's New York Times" - that is, until the National Post came along! The latter has apparently lit some uncomfortable editorial fires under the buttocks of the complacent, and often arrogant, media folks at the Globe! Particularly Canadians of German descent, long unhappy with the editorial policies of the Globe, are merrily watching and waiting . . . )
Titled "Give free speech a very long leash," this lead editorial has plenty to say, which gives me yet another opportunity to comment cyber-fashion. And I should add right here that our document access count continues to soar - which means that, chances are, more and more people are relying on the Internet for news and commentary rather than on conventional media.
I will give you the Globe and Mail e-mail address right here, because I want you to reply. It is letters@globeandmail.ca I will give it again at the end of this ZGram. It is very important that you reply.
Your letters have an impact. A number of previous Letters to the Editor from all parts of the world have appeared in the Canadian mainstream media in response to issues raised by me in some previous ZGrams. Your letters ***definitely*** make a difference! Hundreds of thousands of people read the Globe daily! Please make your voices heard!
=====
Globe and Mail:
The law always protected offensive speech - until human-rights codes came along
Somewhere along the tortured path to the wasteland of unexpected consequences there's a special quagmire for prohibitions against offensive speech in human-rights codes.
In their zeal to protect us from all manner of slights and insults, both real and imagined, provincial legislators have exposed us to a much more pernicious threat: the suppression of unpopular ideas. Surprisingly, nobody has ever challenged these provisions in the courts, even though they seem to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution's federal-provincial division of powers.
Zundelsite:
Hold it right there! You are not on your toes, journalistically speaking! Every time the august CHR Tribunal sat in a hearing, the Globe and Mail has been notified by timely press release! Was even one reporter there? No? What an oversight!
And Ernst Zundel ***has*** ". . . challenged these provisions in the court." Ever heard of Ernst Zundel' unconstitutional ban to hold a press conference on Parliament Hill - and subsequent developments?
Of course the Globe and Mail is not up-to-date because it is no secret that it seems to have decided to censor all news about the Tribunal proceedings!
It bears repeating that at the very least, the Human Rights Code and arbitrary rulings are being challenged before the courts at this very time in at least five Judicial Review applications!
Secondly, a massive law suit ***has*** been filed against the entire political establishment of Canada - all the Parties, all Members of Parliament. It will be dealt with in Ottawa's Provincial Supreme Court ***this coming Monday, 18 January 1999***.
Your paper has been notified in several press releases and will be notified again about the Free Speech battle going on. There is still time to rectify your oversight. And - pay attention! Who's to say? There might be another press conference in the not-too-distant future well worth attending and reporting on!
Globe and Mail:
The original intention of human-rights codes was to outlaw discrimination in jobs and accommodation. Over the years, the codes have expanded, the bureaucracies have mushroomed, and human-rights law has been appropriated to define "offensive" speech as discrimination.
The list has grown from reprehensible signs such as the "No Jews or dogs" notices that could be found decades ago on some public beaches to include articles in newspapers and programs on radio and television. At the same time, the determination of what is offensive has stretched from obvious and overt hatred to innocuous comment and opinion.
Zundelsite:
You are so right. Another oddity the Zundelsite trial has already expeditiously flushed out is that of "context" in which a supposedly "offensive" statement might have been uttered for the CHRC folks to pounce on.
"Context", as per Human Rights Tribunal wisdom, matters not one whit if spoken in the Politically Correct mode. "Context" costs plenty if you happen to challenge, for instance, the Holocaust Myths.
Globe and Mail:
For example, Section 2 (1) of the Alberta Human Rights Code states:
"No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class or persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons."
Zundelsite:
Source of income? Like "grants" the violent street mob, ARA, has received from Toronto City government, warmly endorsed by B'nai Brith and others?
In the future, under such draconian censorship provisions, the Globe and Mail may well face a complaint if it reported negatively about it in the media.
Globe and Mail:
Saskatchewan has travelled even further down the road to absurdity. Section 14 (1) of its human-rights code forbids the publishing or displaying of any "symbol, article, statement or other representation:
(a) tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the enjoyment by any person or class of persons of any right to which he is or they are entitled under law; or
(b) which exposes, or tends to expose, to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person, any class of persons or a group of persons; because of his or their race, creed, religion, colour, sex, sexual orientation, family status, disability, age, nationality, ancestry, place of origin or receipt of public assistance."
Zundelsite:
Receipt of public assistance?
Now there the Human Rights Code has really placed itself right in a nest of nettles. Who is funding the Human Rights Commissions? Who can cut off that funding and stop the insanity?
It's not the folks in ". . . receipt of public assistance" who are forced to foot the bill. These "protected" groups are just used by those parasites to justify their cushy jobs. The closet Marxist ideologues inside and outside of government are responsible for creating this monster in the first place - and struggling to keep it alive at all costs.
Globe and Mail:
Forget hatred or contempt; having your enjoyment restricted or your dignity affronted are sufficient grounds to file a human-rights complaint in Saskatchewan. The looseness of the grounds for annoyance becomes all the more pernicious when you consider that intention doesn't matter in human-rights law. Feeling aggrieved is quite enough.
Zundelsite:
That's right. If your name is Sabina Citron, Founder of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, you can file a complaint against Ernst Zundel and never appear in person before the Tribunal, much less even have to prove or testify just where, when and how, precisely, your feelings have become aggrieved. All you have to do is ***allege***. That is sufficient to get the ball rolling. The tax payer of Canada will foot the bill for the prosecution of your enemy and do the rest, even if a complainant has millions.
Globe and Mail:
To heap insult onto semantic injury, the Saskatchewan code -- which is similar to most other human-rights codes in this country -- has added subsection 2 which completely contradicts subsection 1:
"Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of speech under the law upon any subject." But how can a prohibition against an article or statement that "affronts the dignity" of any person, class or group of persons not be a restriction of speech?
Zundelsite:
It's called a rubber paragraph that you can stretch and twist to fit any situation to get anyone you don't like.
It's open to the easily offended who need to vilify and financially ruin someone when regular courts would not do them the favor.
Globe and Mail:
Free speech and free media, sometimes expressing unpopular, bothersome ideas, are the foundation of democratic society. Without the right to speak out and to publish or broadcast independent information about the activities of the state, the police, corporations, groups or individuals, all our other rights can be trampled. Free speech carries an ethical obligation to speak truthfully and a social responsibility to speak fairly and respectfully. But that doesn't guarantee anybody the right not to feel provoked or even belittled or ridiculed.
Zundelsite:
How many articles has the Globe and Mail run ***against*** Ernst Zundel? If I remember correctly, at last count it was in the neighborhood of 500.
How many articles has the Globe and Mail run ***in favor of*** Ernst Zundel's right to speak ". . . fairly and objectively"? Let the silence speak for itself.
Globe and Mail:
The price of having a free and open society is allowing people to speak the truth as they see it, even at the risk of causing offence. Besides, the risk of abuse is easily offset by rigorous debate and a feisty exchange of opinions. We have argued time and again that laws against offensive speech do more harm than good because they are open to wide definition and interpretation. Our belief is that the best defence against unpleasant or distasteful words or opinions is yet more speech, not a denial or regulation of opinion and debate.
Zundelsite:
Would the Globe and Mail agree to sponsor a ". . . rigorous debate and a feisty exchange" of opinions between Revisionists and their opponents? We could settle once and for all who uses ". . . unpleasant and distasteful words." Were such a ". . . rigorous debate and a feisty exchange" ever to come about, the public would be amazed!
Globe and Mail:
These absurd laws in the guise of human rights are not only unnecessary, they overstep the bounds of provincial responsibility.
Zundelsite:
The fact of the matter is a little different. The Canadian media, including the Globe and Mail, have wimped out of the Hate Law debate from Day One. That is a shameful record!
With all their prestige and resources, they could have opposed the Hate Law debate - properly and vigorously. Had they done so, Hate Laws would never have been passed.
Globe and Mail:
The Criminal Code already contains provisions against hate speech in its section on "willful promotion of hatred" against an identifiable group. We have long opposed this section of the Code, but at least it operates under such rigorous protections the charge is exceedingly difficult to prove. As a consequence, it is rarely laid.
Zundelsite:
Not that it wasn't tried!
Why do you suppose the Canadian Human Rights Commission was hauled in to do the hatchet job on Mr. Zundel that no legitimate court was willing to do in 30 years?
Globe and Mail:
By duplicating the work of the federal hate-speech law and dealing with a matter addressed in the Criminal Code, provincial human-rights codes are violating the Constitution's division of powers. The codes may also be unconstitutional in that they contradict the Charter guarantee of free expression. How can the provinces justify this overstretch on the tenuous grounds of protecting feelings?
Living in a liberal society means coming into contact with other people who may have different, conflicting definitions of truth, right and dignity. It's called democracy.
Zundelsite:
You said it. Now please live up to it and help us stop the power tripping of the Well-Connected Few.
Challenge the Federal and Provincial Human Rights Code - or, at the very least, report about those who do it for you. And pay for it to boot!
=======
***An urgent reminder to all my ZGram readers***:
Please write to letters@globeandmail.ca
Be courteous but firm. Give them some praise for having come around at least in this one editorial.
Tell them that a nation that can make "telling the truth" an offense has surrendered all moral authority!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools."
(Jean de la Bruyére)
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1999 ZGrams