Subject: Re: Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech!

From: [email-masked] (Gerald H.Hall)
Date: 6 Apr 1996 17:19:55 GMT

NEWS ITEM:

Supreme Court attacks freedom of speech!

A ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada has now made school 
teachers in Canada second-class citizens: "Teachers voicing
views publicly that offends a particular group in our society,
even though the teacher believes his or her views to be the 
truth can be barred from the classroom for expressing
"intolerant views" the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in 
allowing an appeal against a New Brunswick teacher who published 
anti-Semitic writings. (Vancouver Sun, April 4, 1996, page A4).  

"A school board has the duty to maintain a positive environment 
for all children," the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday in 
allowing an appeal against New Brunswick teacher Malcolm Ross, who 
taught for years in the Moncton, New Brunswick area and has written 
books, pamphlets and letters to newspapers alleging that Christian 
civilization is being undermined by a global Jewish conspiracy.

Justice Gerard La Forest who wrote the court's unanimous decision, 
stated that Ross'action poisoned the school environment "even 
though the teacher did not express his controversial views in the 
classroom" - he was guilty of being intolerant.

So what this ruling by the Supreme Court means is that if a school 
teacher is sitting in his or her living room with a friend and he 
or she expresses their belief that the holocaust never took place, 
and their friend decides to tell the thought police what they said, 
the teacher can be hauled into court and charged with intolerance 
and spreading racial hatred.

I have read several books on the holocaust since the Second World 
War and I have visited the holocaust museum in Jerusalem; I have
also seen the Shindler's List movie, and I am convinced beyond a 
shadow doubt that the holocaust took place. A new holocaust museum 
has recently been opened in Washington in the United States, and 
hundreds of book are available written by credible authors and 
writers documenting the horrors and the reality of the holocaust 
that would convince any intelligent person that the holocaust is 
an authentic historical fact.

However, having said all that, I also am a great lover of democracy 
and freedom of speech. For instance, if my neighbor tells me that 
he does not believe the holocaust ever took place, I chalk it up to 
his ignorance.  Nevertheless, I will defend his right to say what he 
believes with all the means I have available.  Have we now reached 
such a sorry state in Canada - as a result of this Supreme Court 
decision - that we are going to weed out any teacher who holds 
private views outside of the classroom that might offend some
special self-interest group in society, simply because that teacher 
holds private views that this group might think are offensive or
intolerant towards it?  God help us if we have!  

The Jewish community in Canada has become overly sensitive to the 
small minority of people who deny that the holocaust ever took place 
and as a result they are threatening free speech in our country by 
appealing to the courts and prosecuting people like Malcolm Ross.  
If Mr.Ross had been teaching his views in the classroom to a group
of gullible students as Jim Keegstra was doing in his classroom in 
Alberta then that would be, in my opinion,a gross violation of his 
duties as a school teacher, and he should be dismissed from his 
teaching position.  But the private views of teachers held outside 
of the classroom are protected under the freedom of speech section 
of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and; therefore, should 
not be a reason to charge that person simply because he or she has 
publicly expressed a view not held by a majority of Canada's 
citizens. 

Section 2 of the Charter states that every citizen of Canada has 
the following fundamental freedoms:  (a) freedom of conscience and 
religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, 
including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly and (d) freedom of association.  
How the Supreme Court Justices could make their unanimous ruling 
in view of (a) and (b) is a mystery to me.

Every week we are reading in the media and hearing on television 
news about some special interest groups in our society resorting 
to the courts to stop all criticism of their group or their group's 
beliefs or lifestyle, regardless of whether or not the criticism is 
legitimate and true; and the courts are responding by restricting 
freedom of speech in Canada to the point where even our politicians 
are afraid to speak the truth anymore for fear of being hauled into 
court or labelled as a bigot, racist, politically incorrect or the 
more euphemistic term "intolerant" which can be used by any group 
to silence the views of people who do not agree with them. 

If there is any one group of people in Canada who should be in the 
forefront in guarding against encroachments on our freedom of speech 
-it should be the Jewish community.

If the media moguls in Canada don't soon start to speak out against 
these attacks on our freedom of speech by the courts, they will soon 
find their own freedoms curbed to the point where telling the truth 
will soon become an indictable offence in Canada.	A good example of 
how fragile is the protection of our freedom of speech in Canada
today is the specious reasoning in an editorial in today's Vancouver 
Sun, April 6, 1996, "A delicate balance," which supports the Supreme 
Court's decision.

Gerald H. Hall

--