Canada's
human rights act outlaws history, tribunal hears
Joseph Brean, National Post Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Marc Lemire –Photo:
John Major/Canwest News Service
OAKVILLE, ONT. -- Canada's human rights hate speech laws can, and
eventually will, prohibit discussion of any historical conflict in which
religion or race played a role, according to a leading defender of Canada's
most notorious far-right figures.
Doug Christie, addressing the hate speech hearing of freedomsite.org Web
master Marc Lemire on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech League, said
Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits messages "likely to
expose" identifiable groups to hatred, has created "a political
elite who alone can communicate their views and decide who else can
communicate." Originally formulated for telephone hate lines, Section
13 now applies to the Internet, and by extension, a wide array of published
material.
"We believe what is at stake is control of the media, because now
the Internet is the home for Maclean's magazine, the National Post, and not
just what used to be called the lunatic fringe," Mr. Christie said. Mr.
Christie is best known as a defence advocate in high profile cases such as
those against anti-Semitic teachers James Keegstra and Malcolm Ross and the
Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. His failed defence of neo-Nazi John Ross
Taylor at the Supreme Court in 1990 now stands as the leading precedent on
hate speech in Canada, which guides Section 13 cases.
Mr. Lemire is accused under this law over messages posted by other people
on the long-defunct chat forum of his Web site; for a satirical poem about
immigrants he posted on a U.S. white supremacist Web site; and for his
alleged involvement with jrbooksonline.com, a clearing-house for historical
articles on white supremacist or anti-Semitic themes, such as Henry Ford's
The International Jew. Although Mr. Lemire's name was once listed as an
administrative contact, he says he set the site up for an unidentified
American.
Mr. Christie said that the Taylor precedent did not envision an Internet
in which people can engage in a dialogue, as opposed to passively listen to
recorded messages. "True belief is intolerant and conflict is
inevitable where people believe different things," he said.
In a rhetorical flourish, he cited various historical issues that, if
discussed truthfully, could conceivably expose certain groups to hatred: the
Crusades, the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, the battles of
Waterloo and Tours, the Charge of the Light Brigade and the War of the
Roses.
Mr. Christie compared Richard Warman, a former CHRC employee and serial
Section 13 complainant who brought the case against Mr. Lemire, to Tomas de
Torquemada, the leader of the Spanish Inquisition, as someone who is
"creating heresy where he wants to find it, then becoming a hero for
prosecuting it." He said the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recent
rejection of a prominent complaint of Islamophobia against Maclean's
magazine, under Section 13, was a "convenient afterthought,"
rather than a principled application of law.
"I think what they thought about was the political implication of
prosecuting Maclean's magazine, and the media's reaction," he said.
Final submissions in Mr. Lemire's case are expected to conclude Wednesday,
nearly five years after the complaint was initially filed.
National
Post jbrean@nationalpost.com
Copyright ©
2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications,
Inc.. All rights reserved.
From:
Marc Lemire marc@lemire.com
Sent: Wednesday, 17 September
2008 1:30 PM
Media Reports on LEMIRE's
Constitutional Challenge of Internet Censorship
__________________
Hearing's
decision could affect all media, lawyer argues
KIRK MAKIN, Globe and Mail Update, September 16, 2008 at 7:51 PM EDT
Every Internet message board in the country will have
to shut down if an Ontario man – Marc Lemire – is found liable for vile
comments that were posted on his website, a Canadian Human Rights tribunal
was told yesterday. “It's preposterous,” said Douglas Christie, a lawyer
representing far right groups who advocate free speech. “It is the same as
the chairman of a meeting being held liable for someone who shouts something
out.”
Mr. Christie warned that an adverse decision will prove
destructive not just to a sprinkling of characters on the “lunatic
fringe,” but to a deluge of mainstream newspapers, magazines, and other
institutions that have launched message boards and chat lines. His comments
came in a closing submission to tribunal commissioner Athansios Hadjis, who
must decide if Mr. Lemire should be held liable for posted material that
ridiculed and belittled Jews, blacks, Italians, homosexual and other groups.
Mr. Christie also warned against closing an important
valve on heated expressions of dissent: “If you don't allow the
ventilation and expression of extreme views, the alternative is extreme
action,” he cautioned. “This is one of the most important decisions that
could ever be made by this tribunal,” Mr. Christie added. “What is at
stake is control of the media of communications. The effect of this
legislation is to create a political elite who can alone communicate their
views – and decide who else can do so. “We see this case as meaning
either the beginning of the end of freedom in a very real way, or the end of
the beginning of its preservation.”
Mr. Christie also disparaged the Canadian Human Rights
Commission for the way it dismissed a recent complaint by Muslim groups
against Macleans columnist Mark Steyn. The groups had used a controversial
section of the Human Rights Act – s. 13 – to complain that Mr. Steyn's
writing exposed Muslims to contempt or hatred.
Mr. Christie branded it a “politically convenient”
decision issued by bureaucrats who had been cowed by a fierce attack mounted
by main steam media over the Steyn complaint. “It had become a political
hot potato,” said Mr. Christie. “They dismissed the complaint and waved
it around, saying: ‘See? Aren't we fair?'” In reality, he said, Mr.
Steyn's writing crosses the line on virtually every yardstick the Commission
and various tribunals has developed to measure unacceptable statements.
“You could hardly argue that Mark Steyn's article didn't meet the
criteria, when it portrays Muslims as a menace to North America,” he said.
Mr. Christie accused the Commission of steadily
throttling free speech, and said that every historical debate worth having
– from the rightness of the Crusades to sacking of portions of Europe by
Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes – runs the risk of offending particular races
or religions. “People with strong opinions seldom believe that they are
extreme,” he said. “What controversial statement isn't seen as vile by
somebody?” said Mr. Christie, who has over the years defended a Who's Who
of far right figures that includes James Keegstra, Ernest Zundel, Wolfgang
Droege, John Ross Taylor and Tony McAleer. “Different religious groups are
now aware that they can use this law for their own religious ends.
Mr. Christie said that the commission has crafted s.13
into an “absolute liability offence.” Simply by being associated with an
offensive statement, he said, a defendant runs a strong risk of being found
liable. “It's so easy. It's a beautiful system for destroying your
enemies... But the truth is more important than anyone's hurt feelings. The
silence of speech is the death of reason.”
However, Mr. Christie also warned that the very groups
who launch complaints to silence their critics may soon find that the tables
have turned against them, should their opponents choose to adopt the same
tactic. “This law is as dangerous to them as it is to the neo-Nazis,” he
said.
A lawyer for Mr. Lemire, Barbara Kulaszka, told Mr.
Hadjis that s. 13 complaints make up just one per cent of the cases the
Commission reviews, yet a wholly disproportionate number of them are
referred to full tribunal hearings.
She also attacked the complainant in the Lemire case
– Richard Warman – for allegedly making a career out of filing
complaints which tie up those whose politics he dislikes in costly
litigation.
Mr. Kulaszka said that Mr. Warman has targeted 26
individuals in his complaints. The second-most active complainant has only
targeted four individuals, she said. “He is overwhelmingly responsible for
s.13 complaints,” she said.
Noting that Mr. Warman used to work as an investigator
for the HRC, Ms. Kulaszka accused him of coaching one of his successors in
how to investigate and to use material against Mr. Lemire. “He seems to
have had a tremendous influence on her,” Ms. Kulaszka said. “It's
outrageous that the complainant here teaches her the very techniques she is
going to use in his complaint.”
She complained that Mr. Warman didn't have to do
anything more than register his complaint and testify at the hearing. “He
gives his testimony and leaves,” she said. “But the defendant cannot
leave if he wants to defend himself and, in the case of Mr. Lemire, have a
website.”
Ms. Kulaszka also argued that the Commission failed to
even make a case for Mr. Lemire being the operator of the website that
contained the disputed comments. “Without some corroborating evidence
somewhere tying Mr. Lemire to this website, you should not find that he is
liable under s. 13 of communicating any material,” she told Mr. Hadjis. He
has no case to answer.”
She said that Mr. Lemire has always used his own name
to post comments on other websites, and readily accepts his role in
operating other sites that promote free expression and criticize policies
such as immigration.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.wLemire0916/BNStory/National/home
Canada's
human rights act outlaws history, tribunal hears
Joseph Brean,
National Post Tuesday,
September 16, 2008
OAKVILLE, ONT. -- Canada's human rights hate speech
laws can, and eventually will, prohibit discussion of any historical
conflict in which religion or race played a role, according to a leading
defender of Canada's most notorious far-right figures.
Doug Christie, addressing the hate speech hearing of
freedomsite.org Web master Marc Lemire on behalf of the Canadian Free Speech
League, said Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits messages
"likely to expose" identifiable groups to hatred, has created
"a political elite who alone can communicate their views and decide who
else can communicate."
Originally formulated for telephone hate lines, Section
13 now applies to the Internet, and by extension, a wide array of published
material.
"We believe what is at stake is control of the
media, because now the Internet is the home for Maclean's magazine, the
National Post, and not just what used to be called the lunatic fringe,"
Mr. Christie said.
Mr. Christie is best known as a defence advocate in
high profile cases such as those against anti-Semitic teachers James
Keegstra and Malcolm Ross and the Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. His failed
defence of neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor at the Supreme Court in 1990 now stands
as the leading precedent on hate speech in Canada, which guides Section 13
cases.
Mr. Lemire is accused under this law over messages
posted by other people on the long-defunct chat forum of his Web site; for a
satirical poem about immigrants he posted on a U.S. white supremacist Web
site; and for his alleged involvement with jrbooksonline.com, a
clearing-house for historical articles on white supremacist or anti-Semitic
themes, such as Henry Ford's The
International Jew.
Although Mr. Lemire's name was once listed as an
administrative contact, he says he set the site up for an unidentified
American.
Mr. Christie said that the Taylor precedent did not
envision an Internet in which people can engage in a dialogue, as opposed to
passively listen to recorded messages.
"True belief is intolerant and conflict is
inevitable where people believe different things," he said.
In a rhetorical flourish, he cited various historical
issues that, if discussed truthfully, could conceivably expose certain
groups to hatred: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation,
the battles of Waterloo and Tours, the Charge of the Light Brigade and the
War of the Roses.
Mr. Christie compared Richard Warman, a former CHRC
employee and serial Section 13 complainant who brought the case against Mr.
Lemire, to Tomas de Torquemada, the leader of the Spanish Inquisition, as
someone who is "creating heresy where he wants to find it, then
becoming a hero for prosecuting it."
He said the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recent
rejection of a prominent complaint of Islamophobia against Maclean's
magazine, under Section 13, was a "convenient afterthought,"
rather than a principled application of law. "I think what they thought
about was the political implication of prosecuting Maclean's magazine, and
the media's reaction," he said.
Final submissions in Mr. Lemire's case are expected to
conclude Wednesday, nearly five years after the complaint was initially
filed.
NationalPost-jbrean@nationalpost.com
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=794816
______________________________
Something
resembling common sense made a sudden and shocking appearance today before a Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal hearing:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080915.whumanrights0915/BNStory/Technology/home
An
adjudicator of a human rights hearing into an Internet hate case expressed
serious misgivings Monday about whether a provision used to attack hate
speech can continue to exist in the Internet age.
The Human
Rights Act provision permits anyone who objects to even a borderline case of
alleged hate speech to expose the author to a costly, cumbersome human
rights adjudication process, said Athansios Hadjis - who is presiding over a
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against Internet webmaster Marc Lemire.
Citing a recent case in which Maclean's magazine columnist Mark Steyn
defended himself against a complaint from a Muslim group, Mr. Hadjis said it
may be all too easy for an individual to be “dragged through the
process.” Mr. Hadjis said that the controversial provision created to
combat hate messages left on telephone machines operated by member of the
far right - made sense in the past. However, he said that its usefulness may
be in the past.
(Via
BCF) Whether
Section 13 ever
made sense is debatable, but let's take these victories as they come.
Perhaps this could mark a turning point in this debate - we'll have to wait
and see. The hearing concludes tomorrow.
Morehttp://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=792277.
UPDATE:http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=793031,on
the other hand, is much less encouraging: (Simon Fothergill, a lawyer for
the Attorney-General of Canada) answered that if Section 13 puts a chill on
public discourse, it is only to be around the fringes of hate speech, and
that this is not "a terribly bad outcome. A little bit of chilling is
tolerable" he said.
http://www.am770chqr.com/Blogs/TheWorldTonight/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10008244
______________________
“No
political will for prosecuting former Nazis”. 16
September 2008 | 15:35 | Source: B92, Tanjug
BELGRADE
-- Efraim Zuroff says that there is a lack of political will for processing
cases of former Nazi war criminals. “The problem of processing Nazi war
criminals does not lie in the fact that the perpetrators are hard to
find
or that the evidence is hard to come by, the key problem is the lack of
political will of those countries where they are hiding to arrest them, and
here I am thinking primarily of Austria and Hungary,” the Simon Wiesenthal
Center Director told journalists in Belgrade.
The
Simon Wiesenthal director met yesterday with the Serbian war crimes
prosecutor and the justice minister. He said that there were very few
countries in the world ready to face and process war crimes cases, and that
after his meetings yesterday it was obvious that Serbia was one of the few
that were willing to do so.
The
reason for Zuroff’s visit is the recent cases that the Serbian war crimes
prosecution has launched against those suspected of committing war crimes
during World War II.
An
application has been filed for an investigation against Peter Egner, who is
suspected of committing crimes against Serbs, Jews and Roma.
There
are also pre-trial hearings ongoing against Croat Milivoj Ašner and Sandor
Kepiro, who are accused of committing crimes in Slavonska Požega in Croatia
and Novi Sad respectively. “Above all, it is important for society and the
government to make sure that those who killed Serbs, Jews and Romas are
brought to account. That sends a strong and positive message. Unfortunately,
not many governments are ready to make such efforts to see crimes punished.
Because of this, I send support for the steps that this government has
taken, both on my behalf and that of the Simon
Wiesenthal
Center,” he said. Egner is suspected of committing war crimes in Belgrade
during World War II.
The
U.S. government recently transferred evidence regarding his crimes to the
prosecution in Belgrade and began the process of stripping him of his U.S.
citizenship.
The
situation is more complicated in the other two cases.
Ašner,
who was the chief of the Ustasha police in Slavonska Požega, is suspected
of killing hundreds of Serbs, Jews and Romas. He lives in Austria and has
not been extradited to Croatia because of poor health.
The Croatian courts are waiting on a new decision from Austria, after he was
recently photographed drinking wine in a café and watching a football
match.
The
third suspect, Kepiro, lives in Budapest and has already been found guilty
of crimes committed in 1944, when Hungarian fascists threw more than 1,300
Jews, Romas and Serbs under the ice of the Danube River.
However,
he never served his sentence, and he is suspected of being responsible for
other crimes which claimed the lives of 4,000 people.
Zuroff
believes that neither Austria nor Hungary have the political will necessary
to process the cases of these former Nazis. Serbia has, however, shown a
strong will to do so. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there are
still several hundred Nazis alive who committed crimes during the war. Ten
were identified during the Center’s ‘Last Chance’ operation, while the
exact addresses are known of nine others.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimesarticle.php?yyyy=2008&mm=09&dd=16&nav_id=53518
_________________________
US pledges US$1.8 million for Cambodian tribunal. The Associated Press, September 16, 2008
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia: The
United States will give US$1.8 million to Cambodia's genocide tribunal to
aid its work in trying former Khmer Rouge leaders for their alleged crimes
against humanity, a top U.S. official said Tuesday. The pledge will be
the first direct U.S. contribution to the U.N.-assisted tribunal, which
inches toward convening a trial for its first suspect later this year.
Deputy Secretary of State
John Negroponte said the U.S. government believes "the conditions are
both appropriate and opportune to make this contribution." The
tribunal has detained five former Khmer Rouge leaders on charges of crimes
against humanity and war crimes. "We want to help this tribunal
succeed, and we think it definitely has a chance to succeed,"
Negroponte said at a press conference at the end of a three-day visit to Cambodia.
The money will be given to the tribunal's U.N. side, which is staffed by
international personnel. The tribunal, which is seeking justice for
atrocities committed in the 1970s under the Khmer Rouge's rule, is jointly
run by Cambodian and U.N. officials under a pact both sides signed in 2003.
The radical policies of the
ultra-communist Cambodian group, which ruled from 1975 to 1979, caused the
death of some 1.9 million people from starvation, diseases, overwork and execution.
Negroponte also toured the S-21 prison, the largest Khmer Rouge torture
center in Cambodia's capital, Phnom Penh, to see what he called "a
reminder of the holocaust."
It is now known as Tuol Sleng
Genocide Museum, and holds exhibits of prisoner's mug shots, skulls, and
other traces of the crimes committed during the Khmer Rouge's brutal rule.
"It's a very moving
experience to see this museum, to see the reminiscence of the
holocaust," Negroponte told The Associated Press after touring the
museum early Tuesday morning. He said the site is "a reminder of
the holocaust that took place, and I think it's important to document it."
Up to 16,000 men, women and
children were held at the prison before being taken out for execution before
the Khmer Rouge's regime was ousted from power by a Vietnam-led invasion in 1979.
Washington has spent more than US$7 million over the past decade to support
the work of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, an independent group that
collects evidence of Khmer Rouge crimes.
The group has given many
documents to the tribunal to assist it in investigating cases against the
Khmer Rouge suspects. More U.S. funds would also be available for the
tribunal in future fiscal years, Negroponte said.
But he added that the U.S.
"will certainly spare no effort" to ensure that all donor
contributions "are put to good use," following recent
mismanagement and corruption scandals faced by the tribunal.
The pledge came at a useful
time as the existing funds for the U.N. side of the tribunal's operations
are expected to be completely exhausted in December, said Peter Foster, a
tribunal spokesman. He said Cambodia and the international community
have invested a great deal of time and money in making the tribunal happen
and it would be "a real tragedy for it to fail now."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/16/asia/ASCambodiSKhmer-Rouge.php
_______________________________________________________________
Fredrick Töben : Canada and New Zealand again at the forefront of
revealing Jewish pressure at work
When in 1998 I submitted as part
of my defence before
Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – the Equal
Opportunity has now been dropped in the tribunal’s name – Dr Joel
Hayward’s MA thesis that dealt with the lack of homicidal gassing evidence
at Auschwitz the HREOC commissioner was appalled. The thesis contradicted
what Jeremy Jones had offered as evidence before her, namely that no-where
in the world was there a university that considered ‘Holocaust denial’
as a worthy topic for academic consideration because the Holocaust was
beyond debate, was not up for questioning.
When I emerged from my seven
months German imprisonment at the end of 1999, Hayward rang me to express
his sorrow at my having been inside for a while on account of refusing to
believe in the Holocaust lies. He informed me that he was now also feeling
the pressure because the heat was turning on him because he had given me his
typed copy of the thesis, which had duly photocopied and submitted to our
associates and to HREOC. Hayward double-flipped and cried out: ‘I stuffed
up’.
New Zealand’s organized Jewry
then began a massive campaign against the degree-granting tertiary
institution, Canterbury University, and insisted the conclusion of the MA
thesis be nullified and the academic honour be downgraded to a BA hons.
Hayward had a nervous breakdown, quit his job at Massey University and
recanted. The University initiated a commission that concluded with a
profuse apology to New Zealand’s Jews for having caused hurt and pain and
suffering, but the university did not take away the MA degree because there
was no evidence Hayward had been dishonest. One ray of academic moral and
intellectual integrity shone on to the two professors who awarded Hayward
the MA Honours degree – they remained steadfast and silent.
When the HREOC decision was
handed down on 5 5ctober 2000,
the MA thesis had been ‘discredited’ and the Commissioner did not have
to give it any consideration when condemning the work published on Adelaide
Institute’s website. Jeremy Jones had his point confirmed that the Jewish
Holocaust-Shoah is beyond debate and that anyone who doubts or questions it
is a hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, Nazi – something the
commissioner went along with in her unbalanced written decision.
Since 11-12 December 2006,
however, when under the Iranian President’s directions a review of
the Holocaust was held at Teheran, the Hayward thesis’ discreditation had
become irrelevant.
The pattern of legal persecution
applied to those individuals who refuse to believe in the Jewish
Holocaust-Shoah narrative, in particular the assertion that Germans gassed
Jews during World War Two, is illustrated in the above Marc Lemire case and
in the following Kerry Bolton matter. Both Lemire and Bolten also confirm
for me my dictum : Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to
their pressure. Lemire and Bolton are not bending to the pressure – and
that is good!
Here is Dr Kerry Bolton’s story per submission to Waikato University
P O Box 1627
Paraparaumu
Beach
Kapiti
5252
04 904 1987 vindex@clear.net.nz
25 August 2008
Prof. R Crawford
Vice-Chancellor
Waikato University
Private Bag 3105,
Hamilton 3240
Dear Prof. Crawford
Further to my two e-mails to the University reception,
the first of which has, I’m informed, been passed on to the Social
Sciences & Arts Department, and to my e-mail to your office dated 20
August; although I have not as yet received a response from you, I am taking
the liberty of sending my Statement to you in regard to W R van Leuween’s
“MA thesis”, Dreamers of the Dark.
I hope you’ll appreciate that from a personal
viewpoint, having such a “thesis” posted in the public domain on the
internet amounts to what might be defined as criminal libel; secondly that
the flawed and inept nature of the “thesis” reflects badly on the
standards of your institution.
Please respond by Monday 8 September 2008.
I hope this can be resolved in a fair and just manner.
Yours sincerely
K R Bolton
Attached:
__________________________________
Complaint of Kerry Raymond Bolton re. Dreamers of the Dark, by W R van
Leuween, Waikato University 2008; plus Exhibits.
During the course of an internet search, I
inadvertently came across the above named thesis, posted by Waikato
University, and approved for public dissemination.
I
frankly do not have the stomach to carefully peruse and dissect page by page
the thesis, and feel literally, physically sickened by it. However, as will
be evident from the following, even a cursory reading establishes the thesis
to be, (1) personally abusive
and libellous, (2) lacking academic merit.
I
have had loss of sleep, anxiety, depression, loss of appetite, and loss of
concentration as a result. I am on medication for high blood pressure, and
this type of stress causes it to rise to unacceptable levels.
I
contend that the thesis is libellous, and ineptly researched. It does not
merit the awarding of an MA Degree, and should not be in the public domain.
It is motivated by personal malice, rather than scholarship.
Flawed Research
One
of the major failures of the thesis is that Leeuwen did not consult
me as the principal subject. I find it incomprehensible that he should have
been permitted to proceed without the basic premise being to gain input from
myself as to the accuracy of his material, or what might often be called
“allegations”.
Leeuwen claims in the body of the thesis and the Bibliography
a 2205 e-mail from me. He claims to his principal informant Graeme Wilson
that he tried to contact me but I wasn’t interested.
I
would like to know the nature of this alleged 2005 e-mail and how Leeuwen
is supposed to have initiated contact with me? I would like to know that if
such an approach did take place, whether he accurately informed me as to the
real nature of the thesis. Leeuwen did not indicate to Wilson at any
time that his thesis would primarily be directed at me personally.
I
must assume that Leeuwen’s initial e-mail to me, if real, did not
adequately describe the nature of his thesis. I conclude that the e-mail, if
genuine, would have vaguely stated that he was researching a thesis on
political ideologies and occultism, without indication that
there
was a primary focus upon myself. My response – if the exchange took place
– would have been that I was not involved in such matters. That scenario
is the impression that was given in correspondence with Wilson. Leeuwen
at an early stage ended contact with Wilson, and made no indication
as to the actual nature of the thesis. The three draft chapters sent to Wilson,
only one of which was focussed upon myself, give a different impression as
to the nature of the final version of the thesis, and were excluded.
As
is apparent by communications from Wilson, Wilson is quite
aggrieved by the deceptive attitude of Lueween, and the final outcome
of the thesis. Wilson was not aware of the completed thesis until I
pointed it out to him, and is not happy with it. (Exhibit A ).
Basic Errors
It
can be readily seen that the thesis is replete with basic errors. I do not
aim to engage in ideological or doctrinal points of debate, which are of no
relevance here. I’ll confine myself mainly to some salient blunders in the
thesis as far as research methodology is concerned:
1. Leeuwen states that I moved to Christchurch in the 1980s. (p. 17). I have only
ever stayed in Christchurch for about two weekends.
2. Leeuwen claims that I was ‘raised a Mormon’. He then proceeds with a tangent
on how this ‘Mormon upbringing’ might have contributed to my alleged
attitude toward ‘unclean races’ (sic). (pp.
18-19).
I
attended a Mormon Church Ward for about three months over thirty years ago.
I do not know of any Mormon doctrine on ‘unclean races’. The Naenae Ward
I attended had many Polynesians and Maori with whom I associated on cordial
and social terms. Leuween states that the Church only admitted
‘dark races’ in 1978, ‘well after my involvement in the Church’.
Given that it was probably 1978 that I was in the Church for around three
months, and that there were abundant Maori and Polynesians in the Church,
none of this makes sense. In addition, if I was supposedly raised a Mormon,
left well before the admission of ‘dark races in 1978’, and was born in
1956, even the basic arithmetic does not add up.
Five
minutes of research into Mormonism would have shown Leuween that
Mormonism has been preached successfully among Maori since 1883. So far from
some racist attitude towards Maori and Polynesians, Mormonism early regarded
them as descendents of the tribe of Lehi, which according to Mormon doctrine
was a part of Israel that migrated to America. Mormonism regarded them as
separate from the Lamanites and not
subjects of a supposed ‘curse’. The Missionaries taught that the Maori
were fully members of the Church including the priesthood. While Dr Bing
as a political scientist might have been too ignorant to pick up on yet
another flaw in Leuween’s research, what is one to make of Marg
Coldham Fussell as a supposed lecturer in Religious Studies? What
backgrounds did the examiners have not to pick up on basic errors that led
to gratuitous slanders against a religion? It is further hypothesised that
Mormon Temple ceremony and the
prospect
of a ‘secret brotherhood’ had an influence on my thinking. The Temple
ceremony is restricted to elders, as far as I’m aware, not to someone that
calls in to a Ward church for three months.
The
reference to my supposedly having a conception of ‘unclean races’ (sic)
is offensive and libellous. Leuween alludes to my son being of Maori
and Jewish descent. He never attempts to come to terms or examine that focus
of my life. To address this would have become problematic to the premise of
his thesis; namely the assumption that I’m a Nazi, racist, anti-Semite…
Therefore the paradox is ignored.
3. Leuween cites as his source the bizarre, self-admitted
‘anarchist’ Barrie Sargeant, (and the libellous hit-list blogsite
Fight Dem Back, (FDB) which advocates violence) who began a
blogsite rumour that I was once ‘involved with a child porn
scandal’;(sic) a libel that not even Leuween buys into. Leuween
gives no hint as to who and what Sargeant (and FDB) is, although his
background (and that of FDB) is documented in my Red Alert,
which was available to Leuween. He uses Sargeant and FDB
for other supposed biographical material, including the reference that I was
a ‘member of the NZ Nazi Party at 14’, again without properly sourcing
his material. His use of Sargeant, Jantsang and FDB as
references without indication as to whether they are of an authoritative
nature, is sloppy research.
4. Leeuwen states that I founded the group New Right. He does this to prove
that I am ‘still a Nazi.’ (p. 87). He states that New Right is my
‘ideological one man band’. He states that I continue to ‘lead’ it.
I
have never held any position with New Right. I wrote some leaflets under the
direction of NR chairman Steve Larsen, who suggested topics. I was
involved in NR marginally for about one year, and left two years ago;
ironically because I did not agree with some of the racial views expressed.
I have had no contact or involvement at all with NR since. (Exhibit B.).
The New Right website is supposed to be my creation and apparently
reflects poorly on my computer abilities. (pp. 88-89). I will concede the
quip about my amateur computer skills, although the quip itself is another
personal insult that has no relevance to an academic study? I was never
involved at any level with the NR website, let alone being its creator. Such
basic errors could have been avoided had Leuween undertaken
rudimentary research, rather than making baseless assumptions.
(Exhibit B.)
5.
There is some quip about my claiming a doctorate, which is described
definitively as a ‘life experience degree’ (sic). There is a quoted
unsourced alleged reference that it was obtained from a ‘prestigious
non-accredited institution’ (p. 96).. It is assumed I claim a degree to
‘enter the mainstream’, although what is meant by this is not explained.
This
is just another e.g. of ascribing a nefarious purpose to every aspect of my
life. Such personal quips seem irrelevant to the supposed purpose of the
thesis, namely the relationship between occult and ‘Nazi’ ideologies. It
is
one of numerous e.g.’s of how this supposed “thesis’ degenerates into
personal abuse. As to my implied
fraudulent
claims re. academe, I attach several referrals from eminent scholars. (Exhbits
C, D, E.). My writing has been ‘peer reviewed’ by numerous
scholars.. The most recent comment from an eminent African/US scholar and
educator after reading my book Thinkers of the Right and two doctoral
theses is that, “your work seems outstanding…” I am not about to
identify most of these scholars or the sources of my degrees given the
record of Drs Bing and Green. However, the three attached
referrals should at least indicate I’m not being misleading.
Considering the low standards that are sufficient to obtain an MA Degree
neither Leuween, nor those associated with the thesis are in any
position to pontificate about the scholarly merits or otherwise of anyone
else.
6.
The Bibliography alone indicates that Leuween is incapable of
rudimentary research methodology. Of the 48 works credited to me, at least 8
were not written by me, namely: Satanism and Race, Satanism,
blasphemy and the black mass, A sinister nobility, A master
morality, Dark Forces, Political and social realities of
Satanism, and Symphysis (sic). Three of these titles I have only
heard for the first time in the thesis. There are others that I do not
recognise, such as The Future. Of the titles that I’ve been able to
trace, they are clearly identified as to authorship.
Leuween
on the basis of misattributed sources can only have formed an inaccurate
view of my beliefs. Again it is very sloppy research methodology, to not
even have identified an author correctly.
7. Leuween quips in an e-mail to Wilson that I signed up to an “Odinist
board”, and this indicates again my duplicitous nature. The concept of
Internet boards, chat rooms, forums, etc. is alien to me, and something I
hold in derision. Leuween seems to have become obsessive-delusional. (Exhibits
A, F). He
ascribes Machiavellian motives to what he supposes is my continuing
interests in occultism while claiming to have ‘converted to Christianity
in 2002’: I fail to see why my lifelong, continuing interest in religion
and metaphysics should be interpreted as anything sinister or Machiavellian.
Personal Slander
Leuween’s inability to treat his subject in an objective
scholarly manner has resulted in the use of personal abuse. I find two
points particularly offensive: Both these two references are sourced to Tani
Jantsang, Leueween fails to identify the nature of Jantsang,
a self-described “Satanic
communist”, ex-Nazi of Turanian descent. Leuween’s primary
informant, Wilson, described Jantsang as a “nut”. (Exhibit
G)
Leuween
claims that I ‘mistreated a brain damaged man’. (p. 30). I don’t
understand the reference. Leuween might just as well have said I kick
puppies, but perhaps this will be included in a forthcoming Ph.D. thesis?
A reference is made to my son being of Jewish and Maori descent and of
the damage that he might undergo by being ‘raised in a racist milieu’.
(p. 30). This is a stupid, offensive assumption.
Leuween in failing to address the matter of how someone with a
family of Jewish and Maori background could also be a Nazi and a racist has
not resolved a
contradiction
that strikes at the premise upon which most of this thesis is based. .
I
have always been close to my son. I obtained custody of him when he was
about four, prior to which I had been involved daily with him. I was a solo
parent for around five years, after which my current partner, Kathy
Thomson, joined me.
When
I put Leuween’s crap to my son when he visited on the 16th
August, his initial reaction was to frown in puzzlement, then laugh and ask
who the hell this Leeuwen is? Attached is a signed statement by my
son (Exhibit H.)
Attached as Exhibits I, J statements by Leeuween’s
primary informant, Wilson, as to his observations in re. to any
‘racist milieu.’
Attached as Exhibit K a statement from Sean Bambrough,
now in his late thirties, whom I had known since teenage years. It is a
sincere, from-the-heart statement that indicates my character and attitude
to a number of matters raised by Leuween, namely my alleged
misanthropic attitude towards people with mental disabilities, and also
touches on the matter of my supposed ‘racism’, ‘extremism’ and my
‘Satanism’.
While
rants on blogsites are of little significance and credibility, what Leuween
has done, abetted by Waikato University, is to legitimise blogsite rants,
including those of someone (Jantsang) described by his primary
informant, Wilson, as a ‘nut’.
Leuween
does not concede anything to me in terms of sincerity or honour. Every facet
of my life is portrayed as Machiavellian. For e.g. Leuween regards a
number of documents that actually are written by me as being of self-serving
intent. Satanism in New Zealand for e.g. is said to be a strategy of
disinformation. (Exhibit G). A statement from my wife Kathy
Thomson on the origins and intent of this is included as Exhibit L.….
Selective Use of Material
The
manner by which Leuween selectively uses literature is dishonest. He
picks and chooses among a large corpus to ‘prove’ his preconceptions of
me as a Nazi and a racist. Therefore my booklet Nazism
- an answer to the smear-mongers is offhandedly dismissed as
self-serving rather than as a fundamental statement as to why I am not a
Nazi, racist or anti-Semite. Considering my family connections, Leuween
should have conceded me the benefit of the doubt, or at least cited the
booklet in an objective manner.
Leuween goes to some lengths to demonstrate that I am ‘still
a Nazi’, a racist etc. (p. 99). Again this is based on a dishonest
selection of references to ‘prove’ his assumptions; in addition to the
nonsense about my being the ‘leader of the New Right’.
For
e.g. Leuween neglects to cite a succinct expression of my personal
opposition to and distaste for ‘racism’ and neo-Nazism’ etc. addressed
in 1999 to Greg Hal of Otago. This was a personal letter
written to a ‘racist’, and would not gain me any friends or influence
within that
quarter. It cannot therefore be described as self-serving as far as the
supposed ambitions of a ‘racist activist’ can go. I wrote it as a
private letter, with no view to it ever being published for some
self-serving purposes. It did
appear
however 6 years later in my book Red Alert, which was a measured and
belated response to several years of smears by extremists, including those
cited by Leuween as authoritative (namely Sargeant and FDB).
Red Alert is the first book listed in Leuween’s Bibliography
y so he is aware of the letter but chose to ignore it. The letter is
attached as Exhibit M.
Leuween selectively uses words and terminology to fit around
his portrayal of certain groups such as the OLHP and by implication myself,
as ‘Nazi’. For e.g. he relates terms such as Realpolitik and Kulturkampf
to Nazism per se, in referring to a journal called The Nexus. Those
two terms are part of the English lexicon, and neither can be sourced to
Nazism. A basic knowledge of political science is lacking in his
definitions.
The
same can be said for other interpretations, such as construing terms like
“blood” as synonymous with “race” in a supposed Nazi context,
although the influence on the groups being referred to is that of Oswald
Spengler, an ideological opponent of the Nazi racial doctrine. Leuween
did not attempt to understand the subject, as indicated by the lack of any
reference to Spengler’s works in the Bibliography. Leuween
also attempts to characterise the doctrines and views of the groups such as
OLHP as a cohesive whole, rather than as giving free flow to a variety of
ideas from National Socialism and Fascism to Anarchism. He has chosen a
theme based on false assumptions and has built his theory around that theme
through dishonest and inadequate use of references.
Leuween mentions to Wilson that he has read little of
my recent work.(Exhibit…. )
If this is the case – despite it being for obvious reasons the most
attainable – why does he pontificate so definitively on what my current
motives and activities supposedly are, which includes basic errors about my
supposed ‘leadership’ (sic)of New Right?
Was Leuween Manipulated?
When
Leuween approached Wilson in regard to his thesis he did not
inform Wilson as to its real nature, i.e. as primarily a personal
smear against myself. Wilson is quite perturbed by the final outcome
of the thesis. It’s not what he was given to understand when he assisted Leuween,
based on the three draft chapters that were sent to him. (Exhibits
J, N, O, P, Q).
Wilson knows Leuween personally, and met him in
Napier. Both seem to have a common interest in alchemy. Wilson
therefore has no personal axe to grind either for or against Leuwwen
or myself. Wilson is therefore a neutral source.
Leuween sent Wilson the drafts of three chapters. Of
these, two don’t mention my name at all. The chapter that does, Answering
the unspeakable, deals with my
efforts
to counter the ‘child ritual abuse’ stories that were imported from the
USA and reached hysterical proportions during the 1990s. All three chapters
are adequately researched and referenced, yet none appear
to
have been included in the final thesis. Leuween concludes his
assessment of me in Answering the Unspeakable by stating:
“Bolton’s
articles were undoubtedly polemical in nature as well and used language
which belittled, scorned and degraded SRA and SRA claimants.
However, it must be emphasised that polemical language, while being
used, was used in moderation and never threatened to swamp an article in
vindictive. At all times Bolton
maintained a register which implied rational discourse over emotive
reactions but at the same time left no doubts that claims of SRA should be
treated with contempt.”
What
appears to have been Leuween’s quite objective assessment of me in
this initial draft at some time underwent a dramatic change. Leuween
acknowledges Dr Dennis Green
as ‘planting the seed from which
the thesis grew’. Dr Green
while at Canterbury University as a student was a founder of a group called Opposition
to Anti-Semitism. (OAS).
He
attempted to incriminate his former friend and fellow OAS founder Joel
Hayward by trying to covertly videotape Hayward in conversation. Green
was subsequently involved in the harassment of Hayward, who had
become a defence lecturer at Massey, until the latter was driven to a
nervous breakdown and had to leave New Zealand to obtain employment.
One
of two thesis supervisors is Dr Dov Bing. As the University will
know, Bing is a fervent and vocal Zionist who postures to the media
as an authority on the ‘extreme right’, and was also a major factor in
the harassment of Hayward. He is listed on Waikato University’s
website as being available to advise on “extreme Right-wing” groups.
Both Green and Bing therefore have a private political agenda.
Does the crucial input of Green, Leuween’s inspiration, and Bing
his supervisor, account for a radical change of course of the thesis from
being a general study of occult and political ideologies, to being the
inept, biased dossier that finally emerged? This would explain why Leuween
broke off contact with Wilson at an early stage and that Wilson
was only sent three draft chapters upon which to comment, none of which
appear in the final thesis, and which do not accurately reflect what the
thesis became.
Suggested Remedies
1.
Immediate removal of the thesis from public access, including the internet.
2.
Guarantee that the thesis will neither at any time nor in any form or medium
be published or made publicly available.
3.
That Leuween’s MA Degree is revoked.
4.
That Dennis Green, Dov Bing and Marg Coldham-Fussell be
answerable as to their involvement in encouraging Leuween in the
direction he took.
5.
An explanation as to why the thesis was passed by examiners as being of
sufficient merit.
6.
Financial compensation from Waikato University for the emotional and
physical stress caused and the time and energy expended in dealing with this
matter.
Dated: 25 August 08.
Signed:…………………………………………………
