Message 02414 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02222 Message: 21/31 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Robin Green's accusations

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:30:46AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Robin Green wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:31:47PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
>>What are you training to do with your mind ?

To have empathy and understanding for all my fellow humans.

So why on Sat Feb 9 2002 did you falsely claim that "Canada's highest
court found that Zundel was telling the truth and dismissed all charges
against him." ( )

It did NOT find that the Holocaust denier Zundel was telling the
truth in his publications. No-one who read the actual judgement could
be misled about that fact.

In January 1987, a five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal (The
Supreme Court of Ontario), overturned Zundels 1985 conviction for
spreading "false news", and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the
panel's decision.  Zundel was convicted a second time in 1988, but on
August 27, 1992, Canadas Supreme Court threw out the conviction.

Both times Zundel was tried by a hostile jury, and both times the
Supreme Court of Canada struck down the judgements against him.

As for the "truth" that Zundel was telling; he was telling the truth
that he honestly believed what he wrote.  That was one of the issues at
stake; how do you prove malicious intent?  It is those with unorthodox
opinions who are most in need of protection from accusations of
malicious intent and "disrupting the public order".  Remember how
Socrates was made to drink hemlock poison for his unorthodox opinions?
Shouldn't we have advanced a bit farther than such barbarity by now?

Another true thing is that during the Human Rights Tribunal trial of
Zundel, one of the judges stated for the record, "truth is no defense".
If truth is no defense, then there is no honorable defense, and no room
in the world for honorable men.  Nor can any judgements rendered under
this credo be considered honorable and worthy of respect.

Why did you, in the same post, claim that Zundel is "not a Nazi, or
even a sympathiser"? Zundel is certainly a Nazi sympathiser at the very
least - see for example.

Ah, to "prove" that Zundel is a Nazi sympathiser you quote the same
organization that called Christianity "anti-Semitic" and tried to
prevent Mel Gibsons new movie about Jesus Christ from playing in
theaters?  Doesn't seem like a very credible source to me.  In fact, I
would say you chose to quote from an organization known for telling
"malicious falsehoods" to smear and slander its chosen victims.

To others reading this post, I'd like to quote two bits from that
discussion from Simon Kinahan:

It is nice of you to paste two paragraphs describing "holocaust
deniers", but you fail to show any equivalence between my beliefs and
actions (which you never inquired about), and the beliefs of those you
describe.  Perhaps you hope that the average reader will assume such a
connection exists due to the way you phrased your email.  You are
bordering on slander by using such tactics.  I hoped for better from

"Those usually labelled holocaust deniers hold a number of viewpoints,
and often one individual will advocate different perspectives to different
audiences or at different times."

(In other words, holocaust deniers are like spammers. Two-faced.)

"It should be noted that there is enough documentation in existence
showing that Holocaust deniers are willing liars and have links to
neo-Nazi groups that you should take anything written or commissioned
by them with entire deserts of salt".

I hope noone ever tries to smear you the same way that you
have been attempting to smear me.  Have a nice day.

Jonathan Walther

Address: 13685 Hilton Road, Surrey, BC V3R5J8 (Canada)
Contact: 604-951-4142 (between 7am and 10pm, PST)

Thread: oxenT02222 Message: 21/31 L12 [In index]
Message 02414 [Homepage] [Navigation]