RE: Canada Imprisons People For Human Rights Activity

qut@netcom.com (Skip)
>... you support imprisoning and deporting people based purely on their 
political ideas, ... Re: Ernst Zndel and his years of imprisonment by a court 
for merely expressing his racist ideas, racist political ideas being 
strictly illegal in Canada...

Actually, he was charged with inciting hatred against a recognizable group but
was eventually freed on appeal. I think the problem was that the prosecution
could not find anyone who listened to Zundel and didn't already hate the same
groups. Hence, no incitement.

He is currently fighting to get his Canadian citizenship, (he is a German
citizen) while many other people are fighting to prevent this. Zundel believes
that returning to Germany would result in imprisonment.

It's nice to know that the people we imprison for their views are still willing
to go to court to become a Canadian citizen.

James

Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada. 
Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see which
country makes political ideas illegal.

jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
> Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada.=20
> Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see wh=
> ich
> country makes political ideas illegal.
> 

OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal
of secession of Oklahoma from the United States?

	- Igor.

> OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal
> of secession of Oklahoma from the United States?


  ...already bought the T-shirt.;   Check out the Southern League, POB 
40910, Tuscaloosa Alabama 35404   205-553-0155

They have stgate chapters in every southern state are working towards 
devolution.

I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. On the other hand.... the 
bigger they are, the faster they fall.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
> > Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada.=20
                                                  ^
> > Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see wh
> > ich
> > country makes political ideas illegal.
>
> OK, so what would happen if I organized a party with the proclaimed goal
> of secession of Oklahoma from the United States?

You'd make The Right Reverend Colin James III very happy because you'd
be deported back to Sovok. :-)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

> Nota: Quebec recently held a referendum on seperation from Canada. 
> Just talk about secession of a state in the U.S., and you'll quickly see
> which country makes political ideas illegal.

You mean stuff like this? :-)

 http://www.softdisk.com/comp/dan/politics/parties.html#Seccession

The one about the Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas is a hoot. 
The reason you don't hear people wanting to secede from the US is, well,
they don't want to, not because we can't take it. That little incident in
the 1860's was really an international conflict, not a secession.

Some other entertaining sites that would probably be frowned upon in
lily-livered Canada include: 

 http://www.nationalist.org/platform.html#Social
 http://www.natvan.com/WHAT/na2.html#aryan

Back to Zundel, the full text of the Supreme Court decision is at
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-court/ The
reasoning is rather different than what you said, but maybe you were
thinking of the earlier postal decision, which I haven't read. The latest
attempt at a criminal charge never even got to trial. 

I also just received a copy of Judge Heald's ruling on the citizenship
matter. Unfortunately, it's a second-generation Xerox that my OCR software
just looks at and laughs. I'll key it in manually if I ever find the time. 
Essentially, it says the government either has to give him citizenship or
change the law, because the only body that is legally empowered to advise
the Crown whether he's a threat to Canadian society or "of bad charater" has
already concluded that he is, so it can't be objective. Very strange
reasoning, but I agree with the outcome. 

-rich