Xref: utzoo misc.legal:4797 soc.culture.jewish:5743 can.politics:1539 Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!oscvax!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.jewish,can.politics Subject: Re: Zundel found guilty for lies on Holocaust Message-ID: <1988May13.080530.8265@lsuc.uucp> Date: Fri, 13-May-88 08:05:29 EDT References: <1988May12.093956.13333@lsuc.uucp> <1640@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 52 Summary: we've been over this before In article <1640@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >1) How did the prosecution prove that Zundel's book would cause > mischief or harm? What are the criteria for deciding this? I don't know how this was addressed in the second trial. The conclusion that it was "likely to cause mischief or injury to a public interest" (specifically racial harmony) was upheld by the Court of Appeal in the first trial, and so it's possible this was considered a matter of law and not left to the jury to decide. > > Does the law outlaw any sort of hoax, even if it isn't done for > material gain (in which case it would be fraud.)? The Criminal Code provision covers just what I've quoted. A separate provision deals with promoting hatred of an identifiable group. > While it would obviously weaken the defence case to assert that > nobody would be swayed in their opinion by such poppycock, it's > an interesting thing to consider. Yep. > >2) Can one get a copy of "Did 6 Million Really Die?" to judge for one's self? > I would guess not. I have heard it is actually mostly quotes from other > books with the same assertion. Who publishes these books? Samizdat Publishers, Zundel's company. I have no idea whether you can get it from him. > >It shames me to be a citizen of a country that has jailed somebody for >publishing lies. If you libel, you don't go to jail, you stop publishing, >print disclaimers and/or pay a remedy. You don't get a criminal record. And I might argue that it would shame me to be a citizen of a country that would do nothing about those who publish the vilest lies specifically for the purpose of inciting hatred against Jews. And we might both be right, for we are talking politics and not law. Which means we're not going to get very far talking about it on the net. >This goes far beyond any concept of "group libel." Telling lies without >intent to defraud should be a tort, not a crime. There is an intent to defraud, not for immediate material gain (as would be the case with false advertising, for which criminal penalties DO exist and nobody complains) but to promote the neo-Nazi ideology and racial hatred. It's not clear to me why this is less offensive than merely wanting to make a buck. David Sherman -- { uunet!mnetor pyramid!utai decvax!utcsri ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave