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!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel etc.
Message-ID: <596@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:36:15 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.596
Posted: Thu Apr 11 13:36:15 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 13:56:32 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <592@lsuc.UUCP> <410@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 84

In article <410@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes:
||		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?)

Interestingly, this very issue has just come up on who should have
status to appear before the Royal Commission investigating Nazi
war criminals in Canada. The B'Nai Brith was granted full participant
status; Network, the Jewish student group, was granted only a partial
status on the basis that they don't directly represent any Holocaust
survivors, although as a Jewish group they do have an interest in
the commission's work.

||
||>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 to my knowledge. Contempt of court is something within the
jurisidiction of the court only. Just checked the new Courts of
Justice Act (in force since January 1985) - s.35(2) - contempt is
punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 6 months.
||
||>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?

No, it waits until the proceeding is over, since you have to resolve
the issue before you can decide it was frivolous (although if there's
no grounds for the suit, you can bring a motion early on to have the
suit dismissed).
||
||>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).

Since 177 uses the word "publishes", it wouldn't apply to yelling
"fire" in a theatre; that's dealt with via the general section
on public mischief. (I don't think publishing a pamphlet that said
"Fire!" and handing it out in a theatre would scare too many people :-) .)

||				 s.281.2 I don't like (what if the
||hatred is justified? - during a justifiable war

There are several exceptions preventing a conviction under s. 281.2.
In particular:
	(a) if he establishes the statements communicated were true;
	(b) good faith ... expressed opinion on a religious subject;
	(c) relevant to subject of public interest, discussion of
	    which was for public benefit, and on reasonable ground
	    he believed them to be true;
	(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the
	    purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to
	    produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada.
(s. 281.2(3))

These exceptions don't apply to a charge under 281.2(1), on
communicating statements in a public place and inciting
hatred against an identifiable group where such incitement
is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. The exceptions
apply to 281.2(2), the general "wilfully promotes hatred against
an identifiable group" provision.

So those who incite hatred against Nazi war criminals by pointing
to their crimes, if they can establish their statements as true,
can't be convicted.

Dave Sherman
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave