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!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Ban the new testement with the Zundel law
Message-ID: <414@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 11:39:08 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.414
Posted: Fri Apr 12 11:39:08 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 12:24:21 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <5459@utzoo.UUCP> <260@looking.UUCP> <413@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 38

> I think that Zundel *did* believe the trash that he was publishing.
> WW II (and everything that goes along with it) place a colossal guilt-load
> on many Germans.  There are several possible responses: "ignore it",
> "accept it", and "deny it".  Zundel was just an extreme case of the
> latter reaction - 
> -- 
> Chris Lewis, Computer X (CANADA) Ltd.
> UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
> BELL: (416)-475-1300 ext. 321

	We may never know for sure, but I would not be surprised if
Zundel *did not* believe what he has said for the simple reason
that he is supposed to have a book coming out on the subject.
If this is so, he has just recieved a publicity campaign worth
millions of dollars. Call me cynical, (and a poor speller?), but
for my two bits, I think he's just out for a best seller.

	At the general level, I believe, (as you do, I'm sure), that
we cannot legislate against hatred. This falls under the category
of free thought. As far as inciting hatred goes, there appears to
be two categories;
	- using the truth to that end, and
	- using untruths to that end.
It seems to me that we cannot ban the truth for any reason.
As far as using lies to incite hatred, this we must oppose with
vigor! Otherwise we leave ourselves open for another group like
the Nazis to take over. 
	However, can we in good faith take away the principle of the
accussed being innocent until proven guilty? The answer I would
give is, "no". There seems to be just too much chance of 
innocent questioning being interpreted wrongly. How can we tell
that the accused intended to incite hatred? We are not mind
readers. And if we convict someone who had no intent, have we
not defeated the right of free speech? True, it is difficult to
obtain a conviction in most such cases, but as in general, we
must have certain safeguards to prevent conviction of the innocent.

Cheers,		Fred Williams