The same unholy alliance — Communist Party and League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith — that was ranged against Canadian Association for Free Expression director Paul Fromm last year, now has coalesced behind communist instructor David Lethbridge who is being sued for libel by Salmon Arm publisher and patriotic activist Eileen Pressler.
Last year, Lethbridge, who has struggled to deny us meeting venues by pressuring hotels in Western Canada, gave B’nai Brith material which it passed on to the Peel Board of Education to try to get Paul Fromm fired. Both Lethbridge and B’nai Brith claimed credit for getting the 23-year veteran English teacher dismissed for his political views. At Lethbridge’s libel trial that took place in Victoria, November 10 to December 8 — final summations are scheduled for March — Pressler’s lawyer Douglas Christie extracted from Lethbridge the admission that his defence was being bankrolled by the Communist Party of Canada.
In a more sinister development, it appears that B’nai Brith is using its charitable status to raise funds for the communist agitator. Letter writer Ben Dayson stated in the Western Jewish Bulletin (December 26, 1997): “All funds raised … for Dr. Lethbridge’s defence, … which I might add are badly needed, are being done under the auspices of B’nai Brith. Cheques (tax-deductible) are to be made out to The Zikaron Society, c/o B’nai Brith Manor, 1260 Howe Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 1R5.” Revenue Canada is quite clear as to what constitutes “charitable” activities: the relief of poverty, the promotion of religion, education. Once again, B’nai Brith, as it did last year lobbying to get Fromm fired, seems to have strayed far from the definition of charitable. Concerned readers/taxpayers may wish to complain to :
Rheal Dorval,
Assistant Director,
Auditor’s Division,
Revenue Canada Charities,
400 Cumberland Street,
5th Floor,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0L5.
“Hate Laws” Are Political Censorship to “Get” The Right
In late May, a strong supporter of “hate laws” let the cat out of the bag: these laws are political censorship, an effort to criminalize, not “hate”, but opinions on the right of the political spectrum. “Earlier this week, … Calgary law professor Kathleen Mahoney testified in support of anti-hate legislation. ‘Hate speech is a practice of discrimination,’ said Prof. Mahoney.She said anti-hate legislation is necessary to combat the expansion of extreme right-wing movements which have sprung up since the end of the Cold War. …’B.C. is the place where some of the worst racist [incidents] have taken place.'” (Western Jewish Bulletin, June 6, 1997)
Littman Smears Oliver as ‘The Hate Capital of Canada”
In a January 10, 1998 letter to B.C. Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh, Sol Littman, Canadian representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre once again attacked Oliver businessman Bernard Klatt and his company Fairview Technology. “Oliver, B.C. is rapidly becoming the hate capital of Canada. … It is our opinion that the majority of the Internet sites serviced by Mr. Klatt breach Canada’s anti-hate legislation. We urge that criminal charges be laid against Mr. Klatt as owner and manager of the service and against the individuals operating the various hate sites.” Readers will note the broad brush smear tactics. None of the groups with pages at Fairview Technology has ever been charged or convicted of “hate”.
Yet, Littman, who has on numerous other occasions been found to stretch the truth beyond all recognition, has no hesitation in smearing Klatt and most of his clients as criminals. Littman then gloats at the success of the intimidation tactics used by censorship groups like his in cowing Canada’s normally timid businessmen, no friends of free speech or free thought for the most part. “Fortunately, most of the Internet Service Providers are responsible businessmen who do not wish to lend their service to the promulgation of hate. Right across Canada providers have quietly voided the contracts of known hate groups. As a result, Klatt is virtually the only provider to cater to hate groups.” No Canadian group has been charged or convicted of hate.
None of those Canadians ever convicted of hate have webpages at Fairview. As usual, Littman is accusing a whole range of political dissidents of a crime even before there’s been a trial. Littman staged a big media fest to publicize his venom. “Littman brushed aside critics who say the Internet is too fluid to be easily policed. ‘Let’s get rid of the notion that the Internet is such a big and diffuse system (that) there is no way you can regulate it or control it.
The Internet is not unlike any other medium. It is a form of communication dependent on electronics that uses telephone lines.’ But a member of B.C.’s new hate crimes unit said yesterday he doesn’t share Littman’s optimism. Investigators have been hamstrung as they await case law to set out rules on policing the Web.
Sergeant Rick McKenna also noted that police are still waiting for the outcome of the Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal in Toronto into charges that a San Diego-based Web site bearing the name of Canadian Ernst Zundel promotes hatred of Jews. … The Internet has allowed racists an audience far beyond anything they enjoyed in the past, said Littman. ‘The Internet has permitted them — for almost no cost at all — to reach out to millions of people without any inhibition.'” (Toronto Star, January 16, 1997) That is, of course, what drives the enemies of freedom to distraction.
The Internet permits people with different points of views, including those who have long been excluded or vilified by the largely “kept” establishment media, to express themselves and be heard. What the Littmans fear is that people will see that many of these people are not the freaks or hate-filled demons that he and his kind have so long said they were.
Free Speech Foe Lies
Sol Littman who has targetted Oliver Internet provider Bernard Klatt has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts. Freedom Site webmaster Marc Lemire writes: “On December 28, 1984, Sol Littman wrote a letter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney saying that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre had information that Josef Mengele had ‘applied to the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires for admission to Canada as a landed immigrant in late May or early June, 1962’ and Littman demanded an investigation.” Spooked, the gutless Mulroney government appointed the Deschenes Commission to look into alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada. “Littman claimed that his doucmentation had been analyzed by two ‘retired’ civil servants but that both had ‘exacted’ from him a pledge not to reveal their names. [Deschenes Commission, Vol. 23, p.3308]
Eventually, under threat of a criminal charge, he did reveal their names as Al Naylor and Corporal Fred Yetter. Under oath, Naylor testified that he had analyzed no document for Littman nor had he exacted any pledge of confidentiality. [Vol. 25, p.3446] He had never seen the documentation until it was shown to him by the commission. [Vol. 25, p.3426] He also testified that Littman had deliberately made up his ‘retired’ status in order to deceive the Deschenes Commission. [Vol. 23, p.3417] When pressed for his evidence about Mengele applying in Buenos Aires, Littman was forced to admit that this reference in his original letter was only an ‘assertion … a very strong belief.’ [Vol. 24, p.3363] ‘One had to speculate’ as to which of the hundreds of ‘Canadian embassies Mengele had applied, he stated. [Vol. 24, p.3363] Littman had already admitted to the Prime Minister , in a letter dated March 25, 1985, that his original allegation regarding Mengele adopting the alias ‘Menke’ was incorrect, and that in fact ‘Mengele had never applied to Canada and had never come to Canada.’ [Vol. 24, p.3338] .Littman was conceding that his original allegations were false.”
Mayor Shows Bias In Zundel Case
Signing the complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission on behalf of the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Community and Race Relations was outgoing mayor Barbara Hall. During three days on the stand in December, Hall was exposed as an evasive and biased woman who had spent all of two hours on a computer looking over the Zundelsite under the direction of then committee co-ordinator Janice Dembo, who had already written to numerous government officials to demand that Zundel be deported, charged with “hate” and investigated as to whether he was remitting provincial sales tax. Such conduct, defence lawyer Douglas Christie submitted, was vexatious as was the complaint. Hall couldn’t point to anything she’d seen on the site as hateful.
Her humiliation continued as Christie reminded her of her oath of office where she had sworn to act impartially. She admitted she had never invited Zundel to appear before her committee to tell his side of the story.