ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

wrote a column about "Swindler's List" and commented on the preponderance of Jews in Hollywood. He and his paper had to

defend themselves before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, which, in the end, ruled in his favor, after his

paper spent more than $200,000 and Collins spent $50,000 of his own money. Barely had he won the case when he was

re-charged - for the same column, along with three others!

Dr. Robert Countess

Vilified by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the intervenor lawyers in the most recent Political Show

Trial case of Ernst Zьndel.

Background and contribution:

The American Revisionist, former army chaplain, lecturer, writer and globe-trotting good-will ambassador,

Dr. Robert Countess, was targeted for a special smear- and vilification campaign by Jewish intervenors at

the Zьndel CHRT Inquisition in Toronto in June 1998. He was sneeringly denied expert witness status, even though he was

completely familiar with all the major works discussed and had been in touch with most authors, even in person, dealing with

the Holocaust topic - pro and con. Dr. Countess left the "People's Republic of Canada", as he called it, for the safety and

constitutionally governed and protected USA, from where he vowed to carry on the struggle for freedom of speech with still

greater vigor.

IYP-L Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje

Subject: IYP-L Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje

From: zBigniew Koziol

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:04:05 -0500

Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje

Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 3:11 PM

Dziennik GAZETA w Toronto, dn. 21 stycznia 1999:

"Zydzi sobie zalatwili..."

Toronto - Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej oraz Kongres

Ukrainski protestuja, gdyz pominieto je podczas obecnej

wizyty premiera Kanady w Polsce i na Ukrainie. Szefowi

kanadyjskiego rzadu bedzie towarzyszyc jedynie trzyosobowa

delegacja Kongresu Kanadyjskich Zydow. W zwiazku z

pominieciem reprezentacji KPK, organizacja ta wystosowala

oficjalny protest do biura Chretiena domagajac sie

rownoprawnego traktowania.

Tygodnik ZWIAZKOWIEC w Toronto, dn. 21 stycznia 1999:

"Niezrozumiala polityka premiera Kanady...

Najpierw Oswiecim, pozniej Warszawa"

W sobote 23 stycznia premier Kanady Jean Chretien

przybedzie z oficjalna wizyta do Polski. Program pobytu

przewiduje, najpierw odwiedzenie bylych obozow

koncentracyjnych Oswiecim-Brzezinka, nastepnie w

poniedzialek, 25 stycznia przybycie do Warszawy, gdzie

odbedzie sie oficjalne powitanie premiera Chretiena.

Program bobytu premiera Kanady przewiduje miedzy innymi

rozmowy z premierem Jerzym Buzkiem oraz prezydentem RP

Aleksandrem Kwasniewskim.

Jak podaje "The Globe and Mail" oraz "The Canadian Jewish

News", w skladzie rzadowej delegacji udajacej z oficjalna

wizyta do Polski, znalezli sie takze przedstawiciele Kongresu

Zydow Kanadyjskich. Na specjalne zaproszenie premiera

Jean Chretiena do waskiej ekipy towarzyszacych mu gosci

dolaczyli sie prezes CJC Moshe Ronen oraz jeden z

dyrektorow tegoz Kongresu, Jack Silverstone. Obydwaj

przybeda do Warszawy z ojcami, ktorzy sa bylymi wiezniami

obozu zaglady w Oswiecimiu-Brzezince. Odwiedzenie

najwiekszego cmentarza swiata, jest jednym z istotniejszych

punktow programu wizyty premiera Chretiena.

Poniewaz kanadyjska delegacja wylatuje do Polski w sobote,

czyli w dniu Sabatu, zydowscy goscie - cytujemy za "The

Canadian Jewish News" - powitaja Jean Chretiena juz w

Warszawie. Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej zwrocil sie do szefa

tzw. PMO (Prime Minister's Office), Petera Sparksa z prosba

o uwzglednienie w skladzie delegacji takze kilku

przedstawicieli KPK. Niestety - jak nas poinformowala

sekretarz generalna Zarzadu Glownego KPK Alicja Gettlich

premier odmowil uwzgelednienia prosby Zarzadu Glownego

KPK. Peter Sparks powiedzal, ze decyzja dotyczaca wizyty

premiera Kanady w bylych obozach smierci z

przedstawicielami tylko grupy zydowskiej zostala podjeta "ze

wzgledow tylko premierowi znanych - jest to wizyta prywatna

i premier moze na nia zaprosic kogo chce". Przedstawiciel

premiera dodal, ze podczas swojej oficjalnej wizyty w Polsce,

premier jako glowa panstwa, reprezentuje wszystkich

Kanadyjczykow, i ze nie mial on zamiaru obrazac zadnej

grupy etnicznej. O tej kompromitujacej decyzji poinformujemy

Panstwa w kolejnym wydaniu "Zwiazkowca".

Ponizszy komunikat ZG Kongresu Polonii Kanadyjskiej

dotyczy wizyty kanadyjskiego premiera J. Chretien'a w

Oswiecimiu 24 stycznia br. Premier zaprosil, aby go tam

towarzyszyc, delegacje z Zydowskiego Kongresu w Kanadzie

na koszt panstwa kanadyjskiego. Podobnego zaproszenia nie

otrzymal KPK pomimo interwencji i protestow.

Jest to kolejnym - i wybitnym - dowodem, ze judaizacja

Oswiecimia jest faktem dokonanym na Zachodzie. Mozna

przypuszczac, ze jesli zostanie usuniety krzyz papieski z terenu

zwirowiska, za kilka lat zupelnie zaniknie - i tak juz slabiutka

swiadomosc, ze w Oswiecimiu rowniez zgineli Polacy.

[1992] 1 S.C.R.

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli

711

The Minister of Employment and Immigration Appellant and Cross-Respondent

v.

Joseph (Giuseppe) Chiarelli Respondent and Cross-Appellant

and

The Security Intelligence Review Committee Intervener

Indexed as: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli

File No.: 21920.

1991: October 28; 1992: March 26.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubй, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Immigration -- Deportation -- Permanent resident convicted of serious offence and ordered deported -- Appeal to Immigration Appeal

Board on compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with organized crime -

Summary provided of Committee's in camera proceedings -- Whether infringement of s. 7 right to liberty and right not to be deprived

thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice -Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, ss. 4(2), 19(1)(d)(ii),

27(1)(d)(i), (ii), (3), (4), 32(2), 72(1)(a), (b), 82.1(1), (2)(a), (c), (3), (4), (5), (6)(a), (b), 83(1)(a), (2).

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of

fundamental justice -- Deportation of permanent resident convicted of serious crime -- Appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on

compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with organized crime -- Summary

provided of Committee's in camera proceedings -- Whether infringement of s. 7 right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except

in accordance with principles of fundamental justice -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7.

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Cruel and unusual punishment or treatment -- Deportation of permanent resident convicted of

serious crime -- Whether infringement of s. 12 right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or treatment -- Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 12.

Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -Deportation of permanent resident convicted of serious crime -- Appeal to

Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with

organized crime -- Whether infringement of s. 15 right to equal benefit before and under the law -- Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms, ss. 1, 15.

Administrative law -- Natural justice -- Fair hearing -- Security Intelligence Review Committee considering whether permanent

resident involved with organized crime -- Part of Committee hearing in camera -- Background material and summary of proceedings

provided -- Finding of involvement with organized crime barring appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds.

This appeal called into question the constitutionality of the statutory scheme providing for the deportation of a permanent resident on

conviction of a serious criminal offence. The main appeal concerned the removal of a ground of appeal from a deportation order and the

procedure by which that removal is effected. The cross-appeal attacked the general statutory scheme.

Respondent was identified in an immigration report made by an immigration officer in January 1986 pursuant to s. 27 of the

Immigration Act, 1976, as a permanent resident convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be

imposed and therefore a person described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii). An adjudicator, after an inquiry attended by appellant and his counsel, found

respondent to be a person described in that section and ordered him deported. The hearing of respondent's appeal to the Immigration

Appeal Board against the deportation order, brought pursuant to s. 72(1), was adjourned after the Solicitor General and the Minister of

Employment and Immigration made a joint report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee pursuant to s. 82.1(2) indicating

respondent to be a person reasonably likely to engage in organized crime.

The Review Committee conducted the required investigation and held a hearing. Prior to the hearing respondent was provided with

a document giving background information as to the hearing and summaries of information. A summary of the evidence taken in in

camera proceedings of this hearing and provided to respondent indicated that evidence was led that respondent, together with certain

named individuals, was a member of a criminal organization which engaged in extortion and drug related activities and that respondent

personally took part in the extortion and drug related activities of the organization. The information made available to respondent and

the criminal records of respondent and his associates were before the Committee when he appeared and was asked to respond.

Counsel for respondent objected to the fairness and constitutionality of the proceeding.

The Review Committee reported to the Governor in Council, pursuant to s. 82.1(6)(a), that respondent was a person there are

reasonable grounds to believe will engage in organized crime as described in s. 19(1)(d)(ii). The Governor in Council adopted the

conclusion of the Review Committee and directed the appellant Minister to issue a certificate under s. 83(1) with respect to respondent's

appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board from the deportation order. This certificate was issued, with the result that respondent's appeal

would have to be dismissed in so far as it was brought pursuant to s. 72(1)(b).

The hearing of the appeal was adjourned when respondent gave notice that he intended to raise constitutional questions before the

Board and three questions were referred to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination. The court found that: (1) ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and

32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not infringe ss. 7, 12 or 15 of the Charter; (2) ss. 82.1 and 83 did not infringe ss. 12 or 15 of the

Charter but the question as to whether they contravened s. 7 was not a question that the Board could refer to the Court pursuant to

s. 28(4) of the Federal Court Act; and (3) the Board would, in relying upon the certificate, violate respondent's rights under s. 7 and this

violation was not justified under s. 1.

The constitutional questions stated in this Court queried whether: (1) ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976 infringed s. 7 of the

Charter, and if so, whether that infringement was justified under s. 1; (2) whether reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the

Act filed in respondent's case infringed s. 7 because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committed did not meet

the requirements of s. 7.

The respondent in the main appeal was granted leave to cross-appeal, and the constitutional questions stated there queried whether

ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) of the Act infringed ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter in that they required the deportation of persons convicted of

an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender,

and if so, whether that infringement was justified under s. 1.

Held: The appeal should be allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed. With respect to the main appeal, assuming without deciding

that s. 7 is applicable, ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, do not infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not result in an

infringement of s. 7 having regard to the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. With respect to the

cross-appeal, the requirement that persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more be deported,

without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, does not offend s. 15, or ss. 7 or 12 assuming without deciding that

these sections applied.

The Court must look to the principles and policies underlying immigration law in determining the scope of principles of fundamental

justice as they apply here. The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to

enter or remain in the country. The common law recognizes no such right and the Charter recognizes the distinction between citizens

and non-citizens. While permanent residents are given the right to move to, take up residence in, and pursue the gaining of a livelihood

in any province in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right "to enter, remain in and leave Canada" in s. 6(1). Parliament therefore has

the right to adopt an immigration policy and to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to

enter and remain in Canada. It has done so in the Immigration Act.

A permanent resident has a right to remain in Canada only if he or she has not been convicted of a more serious offence -- one for