Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel etc.
Message-ID: <592@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 09:31:31 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.592
Posted: Thu Apr 11 09:31:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 09:45:47 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 57
Summary: group libel is a good approach

In article <407@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
||Maybe a better way to deal with Zundels is to extend the libel
||definition to include "groups" instead of just individuals.
||Then, the onus would be on the Zundel to *prove* his assertions.
||This is probably a lot easier on the courts (and us) than having 
||to have the Crown prove that the Zundel knew it was false and
||was doing it to incite hatred.  Then you can sue them into oblivion.

This is a good idea and was suggested by several speakers at the
community rally held at the O'Keefe Centre following Zundel's
conviction. It's very hard to define who the libelled party is,
though, and who should be entitled to act for the group if there's
any divergence of opinion in how to approach it. Should any Jew
be able to sue Zundel? Any Holocaust survivor? When the group which
is being harmed is large enough to constitute a "public", then laws
aimed at protecting the public come into play, which is how it got
into the criminal courts. But yes, the standard of proof would be
much lower.

||Also, presumably, you could also institute "court orders" on further
||publication, and then criminal charges apply if he persists.
||These probably would be nastier sentences too - contempt of court 
||has a higher maximum penalty doesn't it?

Yes; contempt of court has unlimited penalties, in the discretion
of the court. It's not a criminal charge, but a court-ordered matter.
If a libel conviction were obtained, an injunction against further
publication (such as Judge Locke issued anyway) would go with it.

||
||The only problem is that this could cause millions of "harassment"
||suits and bog the courts down completely.  That is, if they aren't
||already.

Not really a problem. Our court system awards costs against a losing
party, and "solicitor-and-client" (full) costs against a losing party
who instituted what the court considers a frivolous suit.

||
||I don't like 177, because it makes a complete zoo out of our courts and
||I cannot possibly see how they can manage to successfully prosecute
||under this law.  I am surprised (*and* pleased) that they actually 
||managed to make the charge stick.  I do hope that they deport him.
||God knows what will happen with the other one starting up now.

I don't think 177 will be applied except in the most blatant of
cases, such as this one. The Keegstra charge is under s. 281.2
(incitement of hatred against an identifiable group) rather than
s. 177 (wilfully spreading false news that is likely to cause
injury or mischief to a public interest).

Dave Sherman
(a lawyer but not speaking for...)
The Law Society of Upper Canada
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave