Message 02416 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02222 Message: 22/31 L13 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Robin Green's accusations



On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 02:05:47AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 12:30:46AM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Robin Green wrote:
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." ( http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/2/7/19354/97335#122 )

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.

Some simple logic: truth is not the only defense, therefore being found
not guilty of spreading false news does not imply truth of his claims.

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.

Weasel redefinitions will not get you off the hook for misrepresenting
the case. It is clear that what you implied is quite different and is
insulting and offensive to the victims of the Holocaust and their
relatives who know how full of shit Zundel is.

 That was one of the issues at
stake; how do you prove malicious intent?

Which is the continual refrain of the more sophisticated trolls I
have encountered. "No malicious intent guv, just making people think!"
It is also a defence you are implicitly attempting
to apply to that post of yours that you are defending here. But you
refute it with your own weasel redefinitions above.

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 http://www.adl.org/blahblahblah 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.

I can't comment on the movie because I haven't seen it, and nor will I.
But on Zundel, the facts speak for themselves. Unless you are alleging
that the ADL has just made them up? If so please prove it with
specificity.

 In fact, I
would say you chose to quote from an organization known for telling
"malicious falsehoods" to smear and slander its chosen victims.

Such as?

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.

You have been given ample opportunity to put the record straight
on your beliefs. You still have that opportunity.

-- 
Robin


Thread: oxenT02222 Message: 22/31 L13 [In index]
Message 02416 [Homepage] [Navigation]