Section 319 vs Zundel
Joe Flannigan
As I recall, Zundel was accused of spreading false news about the
holocaust. The court held, in this particular case, that it was too much
an infringement of free speech to find Zundel culpable, in that such a
decision would become precedential. (i.e. could be used in future cases).
Zundel was publishing material which did not attack Jews in clear terms,
but which questioned whether the holocaust ever happened.
In a similar case, the Keegstra case, Keegstra was convicted for teaching
that the holocaust never happened.
Neither of these cases have very much to do with the question of the
monument. Which is, in itself, a celebration of sexist hatred - and a
fine place to take a piddle.
If Zundel can skirt the law, it is not surprising to me that other loons
are capable of it, as well.
Now... off to cookery school... after a four week break... I shouldn't
complain really... much better than what I did for a living for years...
Regards to all,
Joe F.
John Baglow
Joe Flannigan (an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> As I recall, Zundel was accused of spreading false news about the
> holocaust. The court held, in this particular case, that it was too much
> an infringement of free speech to find Zundel culpable, in that such a
> decision would become precedential. (i.e. could be used in future cases).
>
> Zundel was publishing material which did not attack Jews in clear terms,
> but which questioned whether the holocaust ever happened.
>
> In a similar case, the Keegstra case, Keegstra was convicted for teaching
> that the holocaust never happened.
>
> Neither of these cases have very much to do with the question of the
> monument. Which is, in itself, a celebration of sexist hatred - and a
> fine place to take a piddle.
Only if you're a dog.
My purpose in raising Sn 181 was to indicate the difficulty of invoking
legislation to remove things you find bothersome. The Charter does tend to
get in the way, even in a clear-cut case like Zundel's Holocaust-denying.
--
Cheers, He totara wahi rua he kai na te ahi.
John
John Angus
John Baglow (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> My purpose in raising Sn 181 was to indicate the difficulty of invoking
> legislation to remove things you find bothersome. The Charter does tend to
> get in the way, even in a clear-cut case like Zundel's Holocaust-denying.
First of all, I regard Sn 319 as something more fit for the kind of
world Ernst Zundel craves, than any real democracy. It is the kind of
prohibitive law Hitler's own people implimented rather widely (181
is almost as bad).
Second, nothing written by lawyers is ever clear-cut, and this stupid
law is among the worst. Zundel cannot be (theoretically) prosecuted
for denying the Holocaust existed if he actually believes what
he's saying. Therefore this "law" relies on that notoriously perfect
judicial ability to read minds.
> (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
> (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public
> interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit,
> and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
JA
--
John D Angus | We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring
Ottawa, Ontario | to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure,
CANADA | stifling it would be an evil still -John Stuart Mill