Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel etc.
Message-ID: <410@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 11:22:38 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.410
Posted: Thu Apr 11 11:22:38 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 12:46:02 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <592@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 51
Summary: 

Thanks for the ideas Dave,

In article <592@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>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.
>any divergence of opinion in how to approach it. Should any Jew
>be able to sue Zundel? Any Holocaust survivor?

Why not?  Sure.  Though, in this particular case, it might be better
for it to be limited to one group (or small number of groups jointly)
at a time.  Much like the Ontario Govt's refusal to further act
against Morgantaler until the appeal is heard.  An appropriate 
organization to initiate such action would be the largest Canadian 
Jewish group (B'nai Brith?) or, some group that might approach it a 
little more objectively (The Canadian Council of Christians and Jews?)
(Note: I don't know very much about either group, I was just throwing
them in as organizations that seem appropriate from their titles)

>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.

Is a "court-ordered matter" sufficient to allow deportation proceedings?
(As I think that a criminal conviction is?)

>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.

Can this process occur very early in the proceedings?  Eg: the first
day?  Does this happen often 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).

I have confused the laws - sorry.  177 I like (preventing people
yelling "fire" in a theatre).  s.281.2 I don't like (what if the
hatred is justified? - during a justifiable war (yes, there are such
things when you consider the reasons for one of the sides, but most 
wars aren't justified from either side).
>
>Dave Sherman
-- 
Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321