Copyright (c) 1998 - Ingrid A. Rimland


ZGram: Where Truth is Destiny and Destination!

 

April 6, 1999

 

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

 

It just goes to show, yet one more time, how the persecution of Ernst Zündel backfires on his enemies - and how they manage to create their own animosity backlash in the public at large.

 

Briefly, here is the sequence of events, taken from an updated biographical account I am at present editing:

 

· On May 25, 1998 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued its by now famous, or infamous, "Truth is not a defense!" ruling and proclamation in these proceedings. The Tribunal ruled: "Truth is irrelevant!"

 

Mark Freiman, the Commission's Jewish prosecuting lawyer, put it neatly with a brazen smirk: "If truth were allowed as a defence, it would be a desecration of the Canadian Human Rights Act!" - as if that piece of legislation concocted by a bunch of political hacks in some smoke-filled back room in decades gone past was some quasi religious dogma or dictum like the Ten Commandments!

 

For Zündel, this was the straw that broke the camel's back!

 

He knew that the playing field inside the Tribunal's hearing rooms had been so tilted against him, and the goal posts had been changed so often, that it was time to make a dramatic appeal directly to the people of Canada in the press room of Canada's Parliament building - to see if there was any decency left in the great northern wasteland. Little did he realize how far things had deteriorated and sunk in Canada!

 

What awaited him was the shock of his life! He had wanted to inform the Canadian people of the total corruption of the process used against him and tell them of the "Truth is no defence!" ruling that was a threat not only to Ernst Zündel - that ruling was threatening all of Canadians' freedom and traditions as well. Truth was the foundation of all civilized order!

 

· June 3, 1998: Zündel announced a press conference for 10:30 a.m. for June 5, 1998 in the press room of the Parliament Building in Ottawa. That room was set aside for people to use to discuss and deal with "matters or issues of national interest."

 

· June 4, 1998: In an unanimous decision, the Canadian Parliament banned Zündel from the entire precincts of Parliament!

 

This ban was instigated by the leader of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Moshe Ronen, who "happened" to be on Parliament Hill that day and who had apparently been informed by an underling that an announcement about the press conference was blinking on the Zundelsite.

 

( The blinking, Ingrid Rimland said later, was an accidental technical glitch, but it gave the appearance of an extreme emergency!)

 

· June 5, 1998: Ban or no ban, Zündel drove to Ottawa to hold his press conference, if all else failed, in front of the Parliament Building - under the clear blue sky! He arrived on Parliament Hill, tired from the all-night drive but determined that he would have his say. With minutes to spare, he headed up the steps to the Parliament Buildings. He saw police cruisers lurking in the shadows and alleyways and plain-clothes cops wherever he looked. Clearly, this press conference was seen as an important event. In the past, he had often had his press conferences sabotaged by his political opponents so that only a handful of reporters showed up. Now he saw a steady stream of news people, shouldering tripods, cameras and tape recorders, heading for the steps. Soon, he stood encircled by reporters.

 

He spoke to them in measured tones, with understated passion. He told about the disgusting proceedings in the Tribunal hearings where "human rights" were claimed to be at stake, but where truth had been outlawed as a defence for the accused. These hearings, he stressed, were not just about Ernst Zündel. It was about ideas, about history, where truth mattered more than anything else. He told the news crews that they, as free men and women, would be next. For good measure, he brought unabridged copies of the decision along. He had even translated it for them into French! <end>

 

 

So here is the latest press release from the Canadian Association for Free Expression:

 

April 5, 1999

 

For Immediate Release

 

Canadian Association for Free Expression Backs Collins' Appeal

 

The Canadian Association for Free Expression welcomes the decision by Doug Collins and the Canadian Free Speech League to seek judicial review and, thereby, to appeal the recent decision by a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal finding Vancouver columnist and war hero Doug Collins guilty of publishing material likely to promote hatred or contempt against privileged groups.

 

"This decision was an outrage. Truth was no defence. It's the type of kangaroo court and Alice-in-Wonderland justice more fitting in Pyongyang than in a country steeped in British traditions of fair play," said Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in Etobicoke. "We're confident a real court will rule this hideous human rights gag legislation as unconstitutional and an egregious violation of the Charter guarantees of freedom of speech."

 

"We're glad Doug Collins will be represented by the finest free speech lawyer in this country, Doug Christie," Fromm added.

 

"We had an emergency meeting of our Board of Directors this morning and can now announce a donation of $500 to help with this appeal," said Fromm. "The Canadian Association for Free Expression will be actively raising funds to help Doug."

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

APRIL 5,. 1999

 

Doug Collins has launched an appeal against the human rights verdict that found him guilty on Feb. 2 of violating the B.C. Human Rights Code. The appeal - called a judicial review - is a direct challenge to the Code, which Collins says is unconstitutional. If the appeal is successful, the anti-free speech provisions of the Code will be rendered null and void.

 

The human rights verdict resulted from complaints brought by Jewish businessman Harry Abrams of B'nai Brith, Victoria. Collins refused to attend the tribunal, stating that B.C.'s human rights law was the greatest threat to the press since the Alberta Press Act was defeated by the courts in 1938.

 

The application for the judicial review was filed Thursday with the B.C. Supreme Court by lawyer Doug Christie. Collins has also launched a national appeal for funds to finance his action.

 

In 1993 changes to the Human Rights Act prohibited the publication of any statements that "indicate" discrimination or are "likely" to expose a person or group to hatred or contempt. The B.C. Press Council executive secretary pointed out that anyone telling a Newfie joke could be the target of a complaint.

 

The Feb. 2 verdict found that four columns written in 1994 exposed Jews to hatred and contempt, something that the recently-retired Collins describes as nonsensical.

 

"Human rights in B.C. have become a travesty," he said. "The NDP government has declared war on free speech where it annoys powerful interest groups and it should not be allowed to get away with it. So now we'll see what the real courts have to say. They are quite different from Premier Glen Clark's kangaroo courts in which truth is no defence." Lawyer Christie's submission states that the Human Rights Code infringes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and "is not a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

 

"It should be set aside, says Mr. Christie, "as being of no force and effect".

 

The court is being asked to award costs against Mr. Abrams and against the attorney general's department.

 

Collins says tribunal adjudicator Tom Patch's decision was outrageous. "It ordered the News to run his reasons for judgment, which is direct interference with freedom of the press. Even the real courts can't order newspapers to run its decisions."

 

The ruling also laid down that Collins and the North Shore News cease publishing articles that are "likely to expose Jews to hatred and contempt."

 

"In short,"said Collins, "they don't know what I'm going to say but I'd better not say it. That's called prior restraint, a condition common to dictatorships."

 

He also ridiculed the tribunal's view that while none of the columns contravened the Code individually, they did collectively.

 

"We must be living in Wonderland," he commented, "especially since one of the columns was the subject of a complaint brought in 1997 by the Canadian Jewish Congress and dismissed as not being hateful. Mr. Patch may be a lawyer but he seems never to have heard of something called double jeopardy."

 

The News and Collins were ordered to pay a $2,000 fine and the News has paid it on instructions from Hollinger/Southam. "I was not consulted,"said Collins, "but I regret that it was paid. I had - and have - absolutely no intention of paying a single dime unless told to do so by a real court. The NDP's attack on free speech is intolerable."

 

The B.C. Press Council has deplored the Patch decision, stating it is the first time in Canadian history that a government-appointed body has convicted a newspaper and its columnist of violating standards set by a legislature. It also stated that governments have no business telling newspapers what to print.

 

It is likely that the B.C. Press Council and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association will intervene in the case, also arguing that the Code is unconstitutional.

 

Donations may be made to the Canadian Free Speech League, c/o Mr. Doug Christie, 810 Courtney Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 1C4, or to Doug Collins, c/o the North Shore News, 1139 Lonsdale Ave., North Vancouver, B.C., V7M 2H4. <end>

 

The North Shore News, in yesterday's column, explained and amplified:

 

The judicial review was filed Thursday with the B.C. Supreme Court by lawyer Doug Christie. It is a direct challenge to the code, which Collins says is unconstitutional. If successful it would render null and void the code's anti-free speech provisions.

 

In 1993 changes to what was then called the Human Rights Act included for the first time newspapers and other publications in the act's discriminatory publication provisions. The amendments, now embodied in the Human Rights Code, prohibit the publication of any statement that "indicates" discrimination or is "likely" to expose a person or group or class or persons to hatred or contempt. (...)

 

News publisher Peter Speck (...) added that the financial burden of facing repeated human rights actions eventually becomes too much for an individual newspaper to bear.

 

Complainants in human rights actions are automatically eligible for legal aid; defendants are not.

 

"The last go-round cost $203,000, of which the public paid $150,000. I don't think we (the News) can go back to the well again so successfully.

 

"There is no end to the number of times we can be prosecuted for the same offence; there is no limit on the size of the fines, and they are paid to the complainant, so there will be no end of complainants."

 

Blair Mackenzie, vice-president and general counsel for Southam, said the tribunal's decision contained a number of extremely troubling aspects.

 

Key among those, he said, was the tribunal's determination that it could dictate newspaper content and that it had a mandate to decide the appropriateness of a newspaper column." <end>

 

To which the Zundelsite adds:

 

Of course Doug Collins has not been made an artificial "villain" to the extent Ernst Zündel has. He is old; he is a WWII highly decorated veteran; he had a fine reputation as a reporter and commentator before he waded into the "Swindler's List" quagmire. He found widespread grassroots support when he locked horns with the Canadian Holocaust Enforcers the first time around.

 

By now he is a household word and seen by many Canadian middle class conservatives as one of their few spokesmen with the courage to oppose the New World Order crowd.

 

And see? When he was charged the first time, the "truth is no defense" issue was not yet made known to the public.

 

Now people know. And we will see. It might well be an intellectual Kosovo.

 

Ingrid

 

 

Thought for the Day:

 

". . . (did) anyone pick up on the story on Sunday about a British University - the newly-created Univ of Lincolnshire and Humberside - which is refusing to stock books by Jewish authors because it would offend its Arab patrons in the United Arab Emirates?"

 

(A post in the fight-censorship newsgroup)


Back to Table of Contents of the April 1999 ZGrams