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: Re: Ban the new testement with the Zundel law
Message-ID: <602@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 16:13:36 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.602
Posted: Mon Apr 15 16:13:36 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Apr-85 16:28:47 EST
References: <407@mnetor.UUCP> <5459@utzoo.UUCP> <260@looking.UUCP> <413@mnetor.UUCP> <414@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 18
Summary: that's what the jury is for

In article <414@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
||	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?

That's why we have the jury system. In the Zundel case, a jury
of 12 ordinary men and women were convinced, UNANIMOUSLY, beyond
a reasonable doubt, that Zundel knew what he published was false.
I think that says it all.

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