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: <584@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 13:01:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.584
Posted: Mon May 13 13:01:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 13-May-85 14:14:53 EDT
References: <638@lsuc.UUCP> <558@mnetor.UUCP> <641@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: can
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 77
Summary: 

In article <641@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>     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 have a great deal of respect for and confidence in the judiciary.  I
used to work for the "Royal Commission of Enquiry into the
Confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario" with Supreme Court of
Ontario Judge Horace Krever and I know a few other judges quite well.
I have sat through almost a year of hearings.  Re: jury duty - I'd like
to, but never have been called.  Even if called, I suspect that I'd
spend the two weeks twiddling my thumbs - the general impression that
many people get is that "techie" people are usually not selected for
trials.  (Lawyer: "What's your occupation?"  me: "Computer Systems
Designer", Lawyer: "Thank you, next!")  We're too logical I guess :-)!

Yes, juries determine guilt by ascertaining what they believe to be the
adduced-during-trial facts when taken along with the relevant points of
law provided by the judge.  Dave Sherman's posting implied that the
juries can also go beyond this by, in effect, determining that the law
is wrong (when applied to a specific case or in general) and thus
providing a protection against improper or improperly applied laws.  I
wasn't disagreeing with him - I raised Morgantaler as an example of
where I think that this happened.  The point I was trying to make is
that normally this is not done nor is it enshrined in the law.
Normally it is frowned upon (and it is probably being used as
justification of an appeal w.r.t. Morgantaler).  In many cases such an
action by a jury would probably be based upon pre-conceived opinions -
hence it is not particularly effective when the case is about something
unpopular.  I'm not blaming the jury either - I don't know if I could
disassociate my personal beliefs within the context of a specific trial
on such a subject.  Normal jury duty is easy in this respect because
the topic does not usually touch you personally.  Being a juror on the
Zundel case must not have been fun at all.  Imagine that Zundel was
acquitted because the jury wasn't satisfied that he knew that he was
uttering false statements - the jurors would have been called Nazis and
probably would have been threatened by the lunatic fringe.  It's
happened before.

In the Zundel trial, I am rather surprised that the jury could actually
come to a determination that he *knew* what he was saying was false.
Humans, being as they are, are perfectly capable of deluding themselves
into believing anything.  The fact that *you* believe in something
doesn't automatically make someone propounding a different view
dishonest and out for ulterior motives (eg: Zundel was just out to
promote hatred of jews).  If we make such an assumption (and Canadians
seem to be particularly adept at such a thing) all sorts of absurdities
become possible (eg: the RC hierarchy invented the RC theology merely
to obtain 15% of everybody's salary - some people actually *believe*
that!  Another popular one is the fact that Thatcher's popularity shot
up because of the Falklands - many believe that she caused the invasion
of the Falklands *only* for that reason!)

Most of the time such a person sincerely believes what he is saying.
If his beliefs can be clearly determined to be wrong (as in the case of
Zundel) such a person may be insane, merely mistaken, or have a
different opinion on what is right - it doesn't necessarily make
someone a criminal to disagree with society.  We normally don't put
people in jail who claim that they are Napolean do we?  Maybe it would
be just better to ignore them totally and institutionalize them in
mental institutions if they become a real danger to society (Zundel
wasn't really).  But, again, we gotta be careful, because that's what
they do in the USSR (and, to a lesser extent, North America too - until
the laws were changed).

In his own mind, I'm sure that Zundel was doing what he believed to be
right, warning society about an insidious conspiracy, and within that
context his actions were heroic and patriotic - sticking to his beliefs
come hell or high water.  Unfortunately for him, he's a nut-case and
his premise was completely wrong.  Criminal?  probably not.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321