Zundel's Hate Crimes Case Could Set Precedent for Content on the Internet
Source: Kitchener- Waterloo Record | Monday February 26, 2001
Zundel’s Hate Crimes Case Could Set Precedent for
Content on the Internet
TORONTO (CP) – A human rights case against notorious Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel could set a legal precedent about whether hateful information is permitted on the Internet in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is expected to rule this spring on a case launched in 1997 against Zundel over the contents of a Web site which opponents say exposes Jews to hate and contempt.
The “Zundelsite” contains a stylized logo that resembles a swastika and posts information that the Human Rights Commission says depicts Jews as liars who are corrupt and control governments.
Zundel has refused to attend the hearings. He was stripped of his Canadian citizenship and fled to the United States a few months ago.
He’s believed to be living in Tennessee with his second wife, Ingrid Rimland. Irene Zundel has testified in the past against her former husband, saying he’s the author of the Web site despite a disclaimer on the site that Rimland is the Web master and editor.
Zundel’s lawyer, Doug Christie, failed to attend closing arguments Monday in his client’s case, saying the tribunal has no control over messages emanating from the California-based Web site.
But commission lawyer Mark Freiman said the tribunal does indeed have jurisdiction because the Web site can be accessed in Canada through telephone lines.
The tribunal possesses no power to influence Internet content in the United States, which supports a strong protection of constitutional rights to free speech. But the tribunal should consider enforcement secondary, said Freiman.
He added that France, Germany and Australia have laws about Internet content.
A ruling against Zundel could lead to his arrest and imprisonment for contempt of a court order should he return to Canada, said Edward Earle, a lawyer with the city of Toronto, which originally filed a complaint to the tribunal.
The case against Zundel poses wide-ranging implications for content on the Web. The human rights commission has argued that a section of the Human Rights Act that refers to telephonic devices should apply to the Internet as well.
If such a broadened definition is accepted, it forms an important precedent for future cases, says Marvin Kurz, national legal counsel for the Canadian B’nai Brith.
“This is the first Canadian case dealing with the jurisdiction of the human rights law to deal with hate messages on the Internet,” he said. “This is a first step in dealing with that medium. It’s not the last step.”
Added Bernie Farber, executive director of the Canadian Jewish Congress: “This will become the map for how the Internet will be used in the future.”
But Barbara Kulaszka, another Zundel lawyer, cautioned the tribunal against making a decision based upon a case she argued is moot because the messages emanate from the U.S.
“Potential Canadian respondents in future complaints about Web sites on the Internet should not be prejudiced by findings of fact and law in a case which has become moot due to changing circumstances,” she wrote in a letter to the tribunal. She didn’t attend Monday’s hearing.
Tribunal adjudicator Reva Devins acknowledged during the hearing that the potential impact of a decision on the Internet is “quite staggering.”‘
“It clearly will have very significant implications for future proceedings,” she said.
Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association of Free Expression, a group sympathetic to Zundel, decried attempts to expand the definition of the Human Rights Act.
“This is a massive expansion of the power of the federal government as it more and more tries to shut down debate in this country,” he said during a heated shouting match with Jewish leaders attending the hearing. Fromm will present his concluding comments to the tribunal Tuesday afternoon.
The two sides lobbed opinions at one another outside the tribunal court room during a break in the proceedings. A small group of Zundel supporters challenged comments made from a representative of B’nai Brith.
“Why can’t we debate the Holocaust?” asked Alex Calder, a grandfather from outside Toronto.
“Unless you say that all the Jews are like Fiddler on the Roof people, you’re an anti-Semite. I’ve got good Jewish friends and they sneer at you when you say this. I don’t have them as a group,” added his wife, Dorothy.
Fromm said his group’s agenda is to protect freedom of speech against political correctness which prevents people from discussing anything controversial.
“Unless you are advocating violence, there shouldn’t be limits on freedom of speech,” he added.
