2008 Puts Free Speech in Spotlight
The first months of this
year have been extremely eventful, from the perspective of freedom of speech,
with developments in all major ongoing cases, some so fast it's hard to keep
up to them. The great thing is that this has led to public discussion of free
speech in the media, on the internet and even in Parliament.
The following is a summary
of highlights from the most prominent cases:
*
Ahenakew Wins Appeal
The Saskatchewan Court of
Appeal released its decision in the hate crimes case in the first weeks of
January, finding in his favour, and therefore ordering a new trial. The appeal
court found that while Ahenakew’s words were “shocking, brutal and
hurtful, however, that is not the measure of the offence prescribed by … the
Criminal Code.” The trial judge failed to consider “whether Mr. Ahenakew
had the intent necessary for a finding of guilt.” Doug Christie praised the
court for its “very helpful explanation of the high degree of intention
necessary to constitute a crime of words.”
Meanwhile, “We think
it’s wrong,” said Steven Slimovitch, a lawyer for the Jewish advocacy
group B’nai Brith, which was an intervener in the appeal.
His further comment points
out the delicacy of the vital question of intent: “There’s no question it
opens the door for someone to wilfully promote hatred as long as they didn’t
spend excessive time planning and preparing and deliberating about it.”
What Mr Slimovitch fails to
acknowledge is that “wilfully” in the law requires a high degree of
intent.
After all the time, public
money and energy that has been spent on this case, in the course of which
David Ahenakew has been stripped of his Order of Canada and suffered almost
universal opprobrium for what he thought were comments made in private, not
for publication, and in the heat of an argument, you would think that the
Crown would not proceed with a further trial.
That however, is not the way
the system works, and a date for a new trial has now been set for later this
year. In the meantime, following the appeal victory, the FSIN (Federation of
Saskatchewan Indian Nations), to which David Ahenakew had been an important
senate member, contributing much to the understanding of his people’s
position in Canada, voted to reinstate him. This has raised a huge public
controversy, which is at the moment ongoing. He, for his part, has stated that
he declines the position, saying the federal and provincial governments were
out “to punish First Nations people. It is shameful that the government
would use an individual who has apologized for a grave mistake, to hold
hostage the poorest segment of our society.”
This was in response to
Federal Indian Affairs and Northern Development Minister Chuck Strahl’s
widely publicised statements that the federal representatives won’t support
or attend a meeting if David Ahenakew is present. As well, Saskatchewan
Premier Brad Wall called on the FSIN to reconsider their position.
Following that, the recorded
17-year-old ill-advised remarks of MP Tom Lukiwski regarding homosexuals,
along with the mocking ethnic impersonation by Saskatchewan Premier Wall at
the same party, have surfaced.
Premier Brad Wall was quite
vociferous in his condemnation of David Ahenakew. Now the Premier and the
federal representatives claim that an apology for their innocent “word
crimes” of the past should be sufficient to allow them to continue in
positions of public trust. Why shouldn’t this be true for Mr. Ahenakew, as
well? He has apologised, just like the MP and the Premier. This is now the
subject of many editorials throughout Canada.
The endresult of this
situation should be that every one has a greater understanding that words
should not be a crime. As Doug Christie pointed out in many interviews on the
subject, which of us has not made remarks in the heat of a moment, perhaps
with in sufficient information or understanding, that we regret? As Chief
Lawrence Joseph of the FSIN said: “I think the Western concept of justice
and the First Nations’ concept of justice differ in a way that we look at
forgiveness and repentance and thereby acceptance and a second chance.”
He’s got a point.
Criminalizing
such words and not accepting a person’s right to think, change their mind
and possibly regret -- or not – what they’ve once said only has the effect
of stopping the flow of ideas and discourse to a meagre trickle, not what a
vibrant, creative society needs.
The date for the next
Ahenakew trial is set for November 24th to 28th in Saskatoon. A change of
venue to the defendant’s reserve might be requested.
*
Warman v. Lemire
Canadian Human Rights Case
A review of some history is
required here. The years of struggling against the draconian laws of the
Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically section 13(1), have finally produced
what may be the tipping point.
Doug Christie first acted
for John Ross Taylor, an early victim of this legislation, in what was its
first constitutional challenge in December, 1989, in the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Doug appeared alone, arguing
against this section and predicting the slippery slope free speech in Canada
would descend unless and until the section was repealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada
held it to be constitutional and behold, the “slippery slope” as ridiculed
by Doug's opponents lined up that day in their numbers against him: I well
remember the representatives of special interest groups, the Attorney General
of Canada and from many of the provinces, as well as the Human Rights
Commission, and including such notables as Irwin Cotler. There was just one
vilified man against all those venerable authorities.
Later, when Doug attempted
to alert the media to the effects of the legislation in the Press Gallery of
Parliament, he was banned from the precincts of Parliament by official
government edict. He did not give up, but has suffered continued ignominy all
the while continuing to defend cases like Tony McAleer and Bill Berschied and
Doug Collins in BC, and Ernst Zündel in Ontario, to the accusation that he
“only” defends anti-semites and neo-Nazis. Usually however, that broad
class of people are the ones under attack by this legislation.
If we fastforward
approximately 20 years, we see that in the hands of complainants like Richard
Warman with his perfect record of convictions, the legislation has been a
steamroller down that incline of degraded freedom of speech.
Because of the way our
institutions such as the Supreme Court have regarded free speech, as supported
by the media, citizens have become less sure of what they write and say,
especially in our multicultural society.
The effect has been that a
complaint by someone like Richard Warman is as good as a finding of
“guilty,” that is, however, until he tangled with Marc Lemire and his
website Freedomsite.org, and his intrepid, very precise lawyer Barbara
Kulaszka, who was co-counsel with Doug Christie in the Zündel false news and
Human Rights cases, as well as the Finta war crimes case.
Mr. Lemire, unlike all
previous defendants that Warman has walked over, has refused to acquiesce. At
great cost to himself and his family, he’s continued over the space of years
now, to fight the allegations against him, with Barbara’s carefully
researched and reasoned arguments. Doug Christie has been acting on behalf of
the intervener the Canadian Free Speech League (with your help!) and Paul
Fromm on behalf of CAFÉ.
For years it has seemed
hopeless until they were able to discover the electronic tracks of the
complainant’s organizationally incestuous relationship with the Commission.
You see, Richard Warman was employed by them, prior to becoming their chief
“independent” complainant. On the face of it, such a relationship violates
fundamental precepts of justice and demonstrates a conflict of interest.
Many Canadians suspect this
happens in many quasi-judicial settings, but rarely does anyone find the
proof, and get it into the public eye where the media makes much of it,
forcing the authorities to finally pay attention. Such has happened in the
Lemire case because of the coincidental attacks on the freedom of speech of
other respondents, not tainted by the usual derogatory label, in other
complaints.
These are Ezra Levant, in a
complaint be fore the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the
legendary Danish cartoons in his now de-funct magazine, and Macleans magzine
for publishing a chapter of Mark Steyn’s book, a New York Times best seller,
“America Alone: The End of the World
as We Know It.”
Both of these defendants
have fought back with every means at their disposal, including to avail
themselves of the results of Marc Lemire’s efforts, which now have been
publicized to the world through blogs and in the main stream media to the
effect that huge numbers of people have become aware of this worm in the core
of the apple.
Ezra Levant’s appearance
at the hearing has been viewed by the masses via YouTube, so that for
ever more the censors will be aware that their deeds might be watched by the
whole world, even though they have one shaking person before them who dared to
think, speak or write an unapproved word.
It was amazing and inspiring
to be able to watch Ezra in that hearing, and to know the power of the
Internet to show what he did.
Then there's Mark Steyn,
whose columns are anticipated the way some people await the next book by Terry
Pratchett.
The way his humour pierces
the armour of pomposity and self-righteousness of the censors is reminiscent
of Doug Collins, and such fearlessness has fortified everyone who reads his
writing.
The public awareness has
built to the degree that the Human Rights Commission was, one might speculate,
shamed into opening a “secret” proceeding on March 25th.
As well the courageous M.P.
Keith Martin has put forward a private member’s bill to abolish section
13(1) of the Human Rights Act. How ironic that Doug Christie was banned from
the precincts of Parliament when he was trying to give his reasons for
advocating the same thing in the early 90s!
His
reason at that time was the fact that truth is not a defence to Human Rights
charges!
The March 25th hearing was
unlike any other in the history of the Human Rights Commission as there were
for a change a great number of non-partisan observers with the potential of
showing a good cross-section of Canadians interested in free speech what
actually goes on in these proceedings. They came expecting drama, it appears
from their blogs, and many came without understanding the history of the
event, and so may have been bored by the cross-examination of the
Commission’s investigator Dean Steacy.
Significant evidence was
revealed, for example, that the Commission accessed an insecure Internet
wireless con nection to publish on the targeted website, their own anonymous
messages, using the pseudonym “Jadewarr,” something that might be
considered identity theft or theft of electronic media.
Much has been written about
that day, on blogs, and even in newspaper and magazine accounts. See Macleans
magazine and Mark Steyn’s blog at www.steynonline.com
for complete and some times very
funny coverage of the events.
For example, the article
entitled “That poor woman down the street --Apparently it’s perfectly okay for the CHRC
to hijack its neighbour’s computer system” in the April 2, 2008 edition of Macleans
Magazine.
Further to the events of
that day, Marc Lemire has made a complaint to the Ottawa police of four
criminal charges in the activities of the Commission and filed further
arguments. It is an open question as to whether there will be any more
evidence presented before a decision is rendered.
N.B. Section 13(1) of the
Canadian Human Rights Act reads as follows:
“13 (1) It is a
discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert
to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communi cated, repeatedly,
in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertak
ing within the legislative author ity of Parliament, any matter that is likely
to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that
that person or those per sons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited
ground of discrimination.”
*
Wiebe “Masculinst” Defamation Case
The defamtion case of Ken
Wiebe who sued government-funded university professors who published that he
was a hate criminal because of what he published on his Fathers’ rights
group website, has come to a conclusion with a decision from Mr. Justice
Nathan Smith. He held that while Mr. Wiebe had been defamed by the comments,
they were “fair comment.” In other words, to say that someone is a hate
criminal is only an opinion. The decision has been appealed.
*
Montague Challenge to Firearms Legislation
The control of private
ownership of firearms continues to be a state priority, whether the government
be Liberal or Conservative. At the sentencing hearing for Mr. Montague in
March, his wife Donna was given a suspended sentence and Bruce Montague,
although acquitted of a large per cent age of the charges, was given an
18-month jail sentence. He has appealed the verdict and should have been
granted bail by the time this is published.
This case raises the issue
of liberty or state control in the important issue of self-defense.
*
Klundert Tax Case
The ten-year saga of
optometrist Jack Klundert’s income tax case continued in March with the
second crown appeal which was heard and reserved.
The government wants to take
away all defences as it seeks to make the mere failure to file a crime, with
jail as a result.
The appeal judgment will set
new law in Canada, where taxes continue to rise, and citizens continue to seek
the means to resist them. It is important to remember that Jack Klundert has
been acquitted by two juries on the same charges over ten years.
*
Seifert “War Crimes” Case
Mr. Justice O'Reilly decided
that there was no evidence to find Michael Seifert was guilty of the charges
against him. This decision was made in the only proceeding in Canada to
actually hear witnesses examined and cross-examined. He examined first-hand
the evidence upon which the case was based.
The only Canadian
“trial” found Michael Seifert not guilty of atrocities.
On January 17th the Supreme
Court, without the benefit of any argument upon the decision of Mr. Justice
O’Reilly, which was rendered after the leave application was filed,
dismissed the leave application filed by Mr. Christie and shortly thereafter,
Mr. Seifert was deported from Canada at age 83, by an order of former Justice
Minister Irwin Cotler, made after the dissolution of the last Parliament, when
the last election was called.
Thus are the perils of these
dual attacks, whereby the government, with all its resources, instead of
proceeding to a criminal charge and trial in Canada (didn't we change the law
for that very purpose after the Deschenes Commission?), uses the civil courts
as a citizenship matter, with deportation the aim, at the same time proceeding
to extradite in another court.
Mr. Seifert is now in a
military prison in Naples, where he is in ill health and under threats of
murder. There is no public awareness of this gross miscarriage of justice.
*
Glenn Bahr and Terry Tremaine
Hu man Rights/Hate Cases
Glenn Bahr is the Alberta
man whose criminal case was stayed when it was pointed out to the prosecutor
that proceeding with charges under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code after
trying the same issue under the Human Rights Act violates the principle of res
judicatur, or double jeopardy. Now Mr. Bahr is bringing a criminal charge against
Sergeant Camp of the Edmonton City Police for posting under the name
“Estate,” which charge is being investigated by the Edmonton City Police.
Terry Tremaine in Regina is
being prosecuted, just like Mr. Bahr, under the Criminal Code for promoting
hatred, after he was prosecuted under the Human Rights Act for the same thing.
This seems to be a pattern. Mr. Christie pointed out to the prosecutor the
outcome in the Bahr case, where the stay was entered because of double
jeopardy. So far, the charge has not been stayed in Tremaine’s case.
*
Warman v. Paul Fromm
Defama tion Case
Just before public
discussion of Richard Warman demonstrated his unbelievable activities as a
serial Human Rights Act complainant and ex-employee of the Human Rights
Commission, Paul Fromm was found liable for defamation of him for saying many
of the same things that are now widely repeated in the mainstream media. The
word “censor” in particular was objected to by Mr. Warman in the law suit.
Obviously that term is a matter of opinion.
Mr. Fromm is appealing the
decision on the grounds that he should not be liable to pay $50,000 for
expressing his honest opinion about Mr. Warman.
The appeal is based on the
error of law wherein the judge mistook opinions for statements of ‘fact, and
failed to give recognition to the defence of fair comment. The appeal is in
the transcript preparation phase, at enormous expense to Mr. Fromm. Mr.
Christie represents him on the appeal.
*
Macdonald v. Warren Kinsella &
theC.B.C.
In this defamation case, Ian
Macdonald of Ottawa is suing Warren Kinsella for comments about him, made on a
CBC television program. This case is a necessary defence of those with
unpopular opinions. Mr. Kinsella accused Mr. Macdonald of financing terrorism.
This seems like a statement of fact. Mr. Kinsella is the well-known author of
the book “Web of Hate.”
Mr. Christie represents Mr.
Macdonald in this trial which will take place in Ottawa during the month of
June, 2008.
*
Doug Chris
tie’s Law Society Case
We can only wonder at the
timing of the media finally giving wide and prominent play to the old news
about Doug Christie’s law society disciplinary hearing, decided last year,
with the penalty hearing on December 17th.
The articles regarding these events have been uniformly inaccurate, verging on
false. Even the so-called “corrections” to the false articles have been at
the bare minimum, confusing, if not false again.
It
all comes right after Doug has had at least a little bit of credit for his
work against the Human Rights legislation, as well as recognition for his work
defend ing David Ahenakew.
In the wake of the media
attention, Doug has had many of the usual nasty phone calls and emails, but
we’d like to say how much we appreciate the wonderfully supportive calls,
letters and emails from you, our friends, as well as from complete strangers.
It is intensely ironical to
us that every time the media publishes such detrimental stories, neglecting
the facts of the situation, we continue to receive such kind and supportive
expressions from even people we do not know. We believe it is indeed a symptom
of the times we live in that there exists such
cynicism about what is
published in the media, and such desperation from people who have their own
legal struggles, as to inundate Doug with their cases.
In any case, Doug has
decided to appeal the decision of the Law Society, as well as the $20,000 in
costs and $2,500 fine for adding the words “please call Jim Krahn for pick
up” to three subpoena, issued in 2003 with no results except to receive
voluntary disclosure from American Express of the front and back of one
traveller's cheque where the executor forged the deceased's signature to
cremate his body in Costa Rica where he had taken him on a holiday three days
earlier.
*
Thanks for Your Support
Once more I would like to
thank our friends and supporters throughout the world for your tremendous
encouragement during these recent trying times.
It
has, however, been so exciting and gratifying to see the public awareness
about the issue of freedom of expression that has emerged through the efforts
of those defending the Marc Lemire case, and those who dare to think and write
about it. We are particularly grateful for the freedom that still exists on
the Internet.
Keltie Zubko
kzubko@shaw.ca
The Kitler Cat Song
Prophetic
imperative - guided by a cat called Kitler? - what next?
Dagmar
Brenne – 20 January 2008
Just dare to mention Kitley's name
Means your dismissal, loss and shame
well, associates early and late
avoid a friend of -- 88 --
!
Without the plague or leprosy
Just looking into history,
with spies and bad friends all around
you could be in detention found.
Black and white Kitler cat,
Interesting life you led,
never doubt....
Fear of Jews is in the land
His whispered name behind the hand,
Not out loud.
Who is the fellow with the Mo
that throws them in a panic so?
the "chosen ones", quite undisguised
loathe him as much as Jesus Christ.
What was his crime, what has he done,
to stir their hate second to none?
From Mammon's grip his land to free,
when Jews would ''perish Germany''!
Hey, hey Kitler cat,
Interesting life you led,
Rebel's
clue.
For your sign lives on in spite
Threats of prison, Mammon's might,
Hail to you.
And the ''Triumph of the Will",
as a film inspires still.
Speeches, soldiers, what a show,
And the man there with the Mo!
Laughing people - Jubilation,
Working men from all the nation,
Banners, a display of light.
German
Future, German Fight!
Smash
the enemy, deliver victory, topple the dictator, destroy his regime, eliminate
his evil ideology, and establish peace and democracy. Oh, and — almost
forgot — do this several thousand miles away on a distant continent while
also fighting another life-or-death struggle elsewhere. Meanwhile, make sure
to keep in step with our allies. And one last thing: Bring the troops back
home as soon as possible.
Mission
impossible? Entering year six of the Iraq war, with 4,000 Americans dead in
the conflict, the president's popularity hitting new lows and results of the
troop surge still fragile, it may look that way for the administration of
George W. Bush. But we may also be rushing to judgment.
More
than 60 years ago, during World War II, Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight
Eisenhower didn't think that his similar, even more daunting, mission was
impossible. By the time he had completed his crusade in Europe and thanked his
staff for a job well done at a farewell ceremony in Frankfurt in July 1945,
the German army, or Wehrmacht, no longer existed, Hitler was dead, the Nazi
Party had been dissolved, war criminals were behind bars awaiting trial and
retribution, de-Nazification had begun, and western Germany was on its way to
becoming one of the most successful liberal democracies of the Western world.
The Third Reich was history.
So
what did the United States do right 60 years ago that it has — so far —
failed to accomplish in Iraq since the iconic toppling of Saddam Hussein's
statue in Baghdad and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" declaration
aboard a U.S. carrier on May 1, 2003?
The
question is, of course, superficial. It would be harder to think of two more
different societies than Germany in 1945 and contemporary Iraq. The former —
despite Hitler and the Third Reich — had a long tradition of law, order,
constitutional government and civic society to draw on in rebuilding
democracy. Nor was it riven by deep-rooted ethnic and sectarian religious
tensions. And although Germany certainly had hostile neighbors — especially
to the communist East — the threat they posed served to create, not crack,
political cohesion.
Yet
in looking at Iraq over the past five years, it's hard not to find poignant
echoes of the post-WWII experience and to wonder whether a better knowledge of
that history might have helped prevent some basic errors. Or even — because
there may be some small crumb of comfort for optimists here — that it's too
soon to declare that the mission has failed. Sen. John McCain's 100-year
horizon for a U.S. presence in Iraq may be stretching things. But let's not
forget that the postwar occupation of Germany lasted for a full decade.
In
1945, the Allies had a carefully thought-out plan for what would follow
victory. For two years before his forces crossed the German frontier,
Eisenhower and his staff at Allied headquarters worked on detailed plans for
the occupation. The lines of command were clearly drawn, and everyone agreed
that the military would be in charge. Thousands of soldiers were trained in
the tasks of military government. Compare that with the chaotically devised
schemes for Iraq that were cobbled together at the last minute amid squabbling
between the Pentagon and the State Department. Or with the confused and
confusing mandate handed to the hapless Jay Garner, the first administrator of
postwar Iraq, to devise a comprehensive plan for its administration in a
matter of weeks.
Nonetheless,
plans, however thorough, are worthless if they cannot be implemented. For
that, establishing law and order is a minimal and basic condition. There was
plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forces entered Germany. In fact, it
was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due
to the rage that millions of slave laborers who'd been deported to Germany
from Nazi-occupied countries, chiefly Poland and the Soviet Union, vented on
their captors upon liberation.
As
in Baghdad five years ago, the disorder also engulfed cultural institutions.
When U.S. forces entered Munich, Hitler's spiritual home and the seat of Nazi
Party headquarters, scores of works of art simply disappeared from museums and
art galleries. For two or three days, the northern city of Bremen was
"probably among the most debauched places on the face of God's
Earth," wrote one witness of the frantic looting that took place after
Allied soldiers entered its bomb-shattered streets.
But
this anarchy was quickly and forcefully stamped out, and enough Allied forces
remained in the country and in all major cities to impose stringent and often
ruthless order. Military tribunals promptly disposed of Nazis who were
inclined to continue the struggle by executing them or imposing severe terms
of imprisonment.
The
way victory was declared was crucial. Immediately after entering Germany in
September 1944, Eisenhower issued a proclamation that declared: "We come
as conquerors, but not as oppressors." The emphasis on conquest meant
that military government ruled. There was no glib talk of liberation, and no
dealing, either, with the large number of anti-Nazi exiles who had jockeyed
for recognition as some sort of government in exile. Too many of them were
long out of touch with realities on the ground or had axes to grind.
Critics
of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L.
Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and
to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that
created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the
Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the
Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even
abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of
German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in
prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.
None
of this, however, had the catastrophic consequences seen in Iraq. One reason
is that pragmatism almost immediately took hold. It quickly became clear that
Germany could be rebuilt only with the help of numerous people who had been
members of the Nazi Party.
The
Allies entered Germany with a strict policy of "non-fraternization"
that forbade their forces to have any but the most minimal and formal dealings
with Germans. "Don't get chummy with Jerry," urged the G.I.
newspaper Stars and Stripes. "In heart, body and spirit every German is a
Hitler." But by July 1945, the policy had been abandoned as
unenforceable. It was also alienating the very Germans needed to rebuild the
country and establish democracy.
As
for de-Nazification, it sounded good, and indeed was morally and politically
necessary. But distinguishing between real and nominal Nazis often proved
extremely difficult. Small officials who'd joined the party out of necessity
were thrown out of office, while big businessmen who'd profited under Hitler
were left alone. The policy generated growing hostility to the occupiers, and
its implementation was soon handed over to the Germans themselves. This caused
its own bitterness as the Germans were often seen as being too lenient.
Even
so, despite this willingness to rethink and adjust, occupation policy
floundered. Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits,
facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Only
the Marshall Plan, with its massive program of financial aid, saved the
country from disaster. Self-government did not come until 1949, and Allied
troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955, a full decade after
the defeat of the Third Reich. Unrepentant Nazis stayed active on the extreme
fringes of West German politics for years, and a few ex-Nazis held high
positions even in mainstream politics until the 1960s. The Christian
Democratic politician Kurt Georg Kiesinger, who had joined the Nazi Party in
1933, was chancellor of the Federal Republic from 1966 to 1969.
Rebuilding
a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort,
time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in
itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the
easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle — and it's a matter of
years, not weeks.
Stafford
is the author of Endgame 1945: The Missing Final Chapter of World War II.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5695943.html
