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!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Zundel etc.
Message-ID: <641@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-May-85 23:09:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.641
Posted: Fri May 10 23:09:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 23:18:00 EDT
References: <638@lsuc.UUCP> <558@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Distribution: can
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 14
Summary: My last (?) comment on Zundel


     I don't understand your argument.  The decision of the jury was
whether or not Zundel was lying when he said *he* believed that what
he was saying was true.  That's what the judge would have tried to
impress upon the jury.  Maybe you should sit on a few juries or sit
through some cases from beginning to end.  I think you'd generally
approve of what the judges do in these situations.  By and large we
have an excellent judiciary.  Our judges, all across Canada, in the
superior courts (anything above the Provincial Courts and Magistrate
level) are of very high calibre.  I haven't always agreed with everything
they've done, but the quality of the minds of our judges can't really
be disputed.  Similarly, you'll find their intentions are by and large
good and they take very seriously, the rights of all people before them.