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!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel etc.
Message-ID: <558@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 11:21:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.558
Posted: Thu May  9 11:21:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 12:18:22 EDT
References: <638@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: can
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <638@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>In article <1052@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>...
>The government certainly doesn't have the power to act unilaterally to
>suppress someone's right to say things. Remember that Zundel was convicted
>by a unanimous jury of 12, convincedd beyond a reasonable doubt that his
>actions were criminal. That's a pretty good check.

Not quite "were criminal".  The correct wording is "were against the
law".  That's what I understand juries are *supposed* to determine and
judges tell them to do most of the time.  The assumption is that the
law is "correct" and "complete" (the tolerable exceptions eg:
self-defense w.r.t.  murder) are already enshrined as exceptions to the
law.  When they've strayed (eg:  Morgentaler acquittal in Ontario) into
determining whether it is "criminal" judges sometimes get really
annoyed - I've seen nasty comments from judges on this issue before -
something like "I am disappointed in you...  but you've decided...".
Morgentaler appears to say that he *is* violating the law, but is
relying on juries determining whether his actions are "criminal" to get
him off.

Yes, I agree that juries sometimes do make decisions on "morality"
and/or "criminality".  And it is a protection.  However, it is not
enshrined in the law: it is an exception rather than the rule.  Mainly
"luck-of-the-draw" I suspect in many cases.  And, in Zundel's case, the
"fact" of the Holocaust was almost certainly a forgone conclusion to
the entire jury - hardly un-pre-prejudiced as juries are supposed to be.
Thus, part of the requirements for convictions were prejudged.

God no!  I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is not a "fact", it
*is* a fact.  I am merely pointing out that, contrary to the intent
of the law, Zundel's case was probably partially judged *before*
the trial.  And, in similar emotionally-loaded cases, they will always
be!
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321