Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Zundel
Message-ID: <1008@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 01:58:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1008
Posted: Fri Apr 12 01:58:18 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 09:23:30 EST
References: <890@ubc-vision.CDN> <6@aquila.UUCP> <997@ubc-cs.UUCP> <578@lsuc.UUCP> <1004@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2706@garfield.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 40
Summary: 

In article <2706@garfield.UUCP> version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP version B 2.10.2 GARFIELD 20/11/84; site garfield.UUCP ubc-cs!ubc-ean!alberta!sask!utcsri!garfield!lionel lionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) writes:
>
>I don't think that we suffer the occasional inconvenience of Ernst
>Zundel. I think that we suffer the occasional holocaust, where maniacs
>turn much of the population against a particular group, and the group
>members are slaughtered to the tune of six million with the aim of
>killing every last one of them. You must note that to many members
>of society the protections offered by the law are real and now even
>enforced.

Would not our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevent such a massacre
of such a large number of this country's citizens? If not, then it is clearly
not worth the paper it's written on. Anyway, it should be noted that in 
order to have committed their atrocities against the Jewish people the Nazis
almost certainly must have had a stranglehold on free speech and the 
media. It is the existence of laws like section 177 that allow for
this type of stranglehold.

>..............  In fact, this case is a very bad example for an
>anti-177 argument, since, vague as the law is, one can easily see
>that Zundel's activities are precisely the things the law was
>meant to be aimed at.  The jury has done exemplary service to
>justice, and I thank the Crown.

I disagree. Section 281.2 of the criminal code ( wilfully 
promoting hatred against an identifiable group ) is the law that
is supposed to deal with hate literature. Section 177 was used 
because it was thought to be easier to get a conviction with it.
( As I have previously written, I would tend to think that it 
would be impossible *not* to get a conviction using s. 177)
At any rate, because of Zundel there is now the precedent of a 
conviction under 177. This simply makes it easier the next
time someone else is charged, even though the case may not be so clear
cut, e.g. someone claiming that his publication is merely an 
example of political dissent, whereas the Crown maintains that
said publication is a bunch of lies which undermine the national 
wellbeing of the country.

                                           J.B. Robinson