Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

 photo Counter-CurrentsLogo_zps74edbf7b.png

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/honoring-doug-christie/

DouglasHChristie

Honoring Doug Christie

James Holbeyfield

Douglas Hewson Christie died on March 11th, 2013 at the age of 66. He was among the greatest defense lawyers of his generation, in Canada or any other country, and his greatness was founded on two piers: courage and honor.

In his eulogy for his father, Doug’s son Cadeyrn has said that his father was meant for the battlefield, and in another age would have fought with sword and shield, but in our age, his battlefield was the courtroom.

This identification of warriors with the best lawyers helps us to understand a major lesson of the way Doug Christie lived his life. It is this: the courage to speak freely and publicly against the powerful, the courage to defend those the powerful deem indefensible, and the courage to face threats to career, home, and family from the tolerated minions of the powerful for the sake of principle; all these are first founded on physical courage.

Doug retained tremendous physical courage right up to the end. Incredibly, less than three weeks before he died, his liver riddled with metastatic cancer and refusing pain-killers, so that his brain and his examinations, would be as famously sharp and focused as ever, he had been in court arguing on behalf of a client. There, he collapsed and was brought to hospital. Even then, his chief desire was to be released so that he could finish that case and get back to another, his ongoing defense of Arthur Topham, who has been charged with promoting hate on the internet.

Sadly, that could not be, and Doug’s final regret was that he was unable to carry on for Mr. Topham, just as his greatest concern since he was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 was that once he was gone, there would be no Canadian lawyer to take his place of prominence in battling the endless attacks on freedom of speech in that fallen dominion. Canada is an Anglosphere country that’s particularly vulnerable to the bizarre new ‘tyranny of tolerance’ because it was founded as a nation, not of rebels so much as of men self-selected for conformity, because those men faced a subsequent requirement for an endless, uneasy truce with the pre-existing French population, and because breakdowns in that truce eventually led, under Pierre Trudeau, to a method for reducing its importance by transforming British Canada into multicultural Canada. Unfortunately, Canada shows every sign of needing more lawyers like Doug Christie going forward. Instead, it has lost the only one it had.

If a successor to Doug is waiting in Canada’s future, he will have large shoes to fill. “Very large shoes indeed,” Father Lucien Larré reminded hundreds of mourners at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Victoria in officiating at Doug’s funeral, “but we must never stop trying to fill them anyway.”

The reason for the magnitude of the task is straightforward: working as a solo lawyer with a staff of one or two assistants, over the course of three decades Doug Christie defined the legal defense of free speech in Canada. When Doug took on his first free speech case in 1983, that of Alberta high-school teacher James Keegstra when he was fired from his job and charged with willfully promoting hatred by discussing Jewish conspiracies with his students, Canada had had criminal hate laws on the books since the 1960s, but they were dormant. “It was a novel proposition to prosecute people for what they said,” Doug reminded the world. But since Keegstra, it has been used scores of times, and Doug Christie was the backbone of the defense in every landmark case. He argued more free speech cases before the Supreme Court of Canada than anyone. All of this from a tiny, sole proprietorship law practice of a type that has now virtually disappeared.

Doug’s widow, Keltie Zubko, has said that his proudest case, which they worked on so hard together, she as legal assistant, was that of Imre Finta. It remains Canada’s only war crimes trial. Following a two-year investigation, the trial took place in three countries, Canada, Hungary. and Israel, over the course of nine months. The prosecution spent millions. It all resulted in Mr. Finta’s acquittal, without needing to call evidence, principally on the basis of Doug’s cross-examination. The prosecution appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Doug argued against it so effectively that Canada has never attempted to prosecute a war crimes case since.

But the enemies of our race and of our heritage of freedom are legion; in hyperborean Canada, perhaps white enemies especially. They have power, and they have time. They are hydra-headed, and when one begins to tire, thoughts turning to sinecure, he is easily replaced by many more, as the unquestioning graduates of the academies multiply. Even the youngest have none of the fire in Doug Christie’s soul, but the whole corpus can afford to watch as the tiny band of defenders withers. Worse, a single hydra increasingly sprawls across many countries, in the form of international law.

This is underlined by the fate of Doug’s best-known client, Ernst Zündel. Doug had guided him through the ups and downs of a welter of trials, tribunals and appeals in the 1980s, leading to eventual success in R. v. Zundel before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992.  But the global enemies of freedom were not to give up. In 2003, the twisted arm of international law reached in among the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in America and plucked Mr. Zündel out of Tennessee for overstaying his legal visa, tore him from his American wife, and brought him back to Canada for two years in solitary confinement while it bided its time. Eventually, Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany, where he was ultimately convicted of holocaust denial in a trial filled with legal misadventures that smacked of the inevitability of religious ritual far more than it resembled anything within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Zündel spent five more years in prison in Germany, despite everything Doug had tried to do for him in the Canadian phase of this horror.

In such ways as this, the truly heroic war of our time, the war of a tiny number of outcasts to awaken a dispossessed majority, has been transformed. Doug Christie was too busy fighting the battles he could see all around him, one after another in a seemingly endless procession, to devote his great mental incisiveness and physical energy to strategy alone. That is necessarily the way of the hero, of the man who acts. Doug’s great role was in law, not in politics. That was not for lack of trying, and Doug struggled hard within the shrinking opportunities of electoral politics. He never overtly gave up on the political project as a potential solution, but the diminution of his efforts in that direction tells us a lot about the metapolitical nature of our fight today. Actions like his legal battles, and the cultural battle reflected here at Counter-Currents, are the ones we need now.

There is another side to Cadeyrn Christie’s metaphorical tribute to his father as warrior. Doug Christie was a man of principles and a man of honor. That was the yardstick by which he measured every proposal that came to him, whether from others or from within his own creative mind. His whole life was a duel over honor, but not the ferocious intensity of single combat on the Trojan plain; rather tireless, patient resistance.

But the principles are the same. Some men cannot be bought off into slavery, and Doug Christie was the most obvious such man in all the Canada of his generation. All who knew Doug knew he was a man who could have attained early what is considered great success in our world. He was tall, he was good-looking, and he had the manners and blue-eyed charisma of the born leaders of the old American and Canadian West. He was gregarious. People liked him right away and were motivated by him. He had a great legal mind, an appetite and flair for courtroom drama, and the courage to stick out every courtroom battle.

Instead Doug gave of himself unstintingly over many decades to the downtrodden and outcast. He did pro bono work. His friends struggled endlessly to raise money for his cases. He ran his tiny law office on a shoestring.

He lived his whole life the way he had been raised: “we always had enough to eat, but there was never anything left on the table.” He was proud of his Scottish roots in that regard. He drove an old pick-up truck, wore a cowboy hat, and throughout his whole legal career, he earned considerably less each year than can readily be made by skilled tradesmen throughout Western Canada, so long as it remains the prosperous corner of Western civilization that it now is.

Today, the pursuit of money, political approval, and comfort are indeed the chief ways in which a man throws his sword and shield down into the dust. It all happens so gradually that it is vastly more difficult for us to recognize our enslavement than it was for our ancestors. Most men never do, and die with the conceit of freedom.

But even today, some men seem to grasp the real message of our ancestors, almost from earliest youth. Doug Christie was such a man, a true man of honor.

——–

 

In Praise of Doug Christie by Ian V. Macdonald

DHCFreedomFighter photo DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter_zps51341e2e.png

In praise of Doug Christie
IanVMacd photo IanVMacd_zpse6d9af11.png

By Ian V. Macdonald

March 13, 2013

Dear Arthur – your tribute is very moving.  There is no doubt that Doug Christie was Divinely inspired and chosen for his gifted role in defending the ideals and high principles that our people have stood for over the centuries.  Kipling’s poem “If” also applies. He stood proudly head and shoulders above his contemptible, anti-Christian, anti-Canadian detractors and enemies, and will remain forever a beacon of truth and freedom of expression.  I called him BraveHeart since he demonstrated all the traits of character that made the like-minded William Wallace a super-hero. He deserves wide recognition for his patriotism and sacrifice.  I asked Peter Milliken, former Speaker of  the House of Commons, to nominate him for the Order of Canada (see below) but the award cannot be made posthumously, so we shall have to find some other medium.  Little praise can be expected from the Mainline Media, and even less from self-serving politicians, unfortunately.

Having known and admired Doug for many years, I am totally devastated by his sudden departure.  We must now redouble our efforts, in his honour.

Ian

—–

March 1, 2013

Hon. Peter Milliken,

Queen’s University,

Kingston, ON

 

Dear Peter Milliken,

Nomination of Doug Christie for Order of Canada award

We met at the Macdonald Laurier soiree where I boasted that I had graduated from Queen’s (Arts ’49 Econ) before you were born!  You said by ’49 you had been around already for 3 years.  You were much in demand at the soiree so we had little time to talk.  Otherwise, I would have told you that I am the patriarch of a Queen’s family, with 2 daughters (one of whom graduated in Mining Engineering), a son-in-law, one granddaughter (in Aeronautical Engineering with scholarships from Air Canada and National Defence), a second granddaughter pending, and a sister and brother-in-law, Arts and Engineering.

During my years at Queen’s I was Manager of the Brass and Pipe bands and had them fitted out for the first time with authentic Highland uniforms, raising the funds from soft-drink and cloakroom concessions.  I also led a Swing Band and played many dates in Grant Hall and the gymnasium, helping to pay my way.

After Queen’s I took an MA from Toronto and joined the Foreign Service, becoming, in rather short order, by far the most successful Trade Commissioner in the history of the Service. Eventually, after six foreign postings I became head of export development policy planning for the Department.  I was told if I “played the game”, I could go “right to the top”.

One of my prime policy proposals (1969) was the cultivation of markets in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, with all of which I was intimately familiar, having spent 2 years there as Commercial Counselor, based in Beirut.  The policy paper was not well received.  The Deputy Minister told me privately that Arab markets were ”not a popular cause”, that the issue was “politically sensitive”, and that I must never mention the word “Arab” again.  When I protested that the immense prospective benefits to Canada could not be ignored, he said if I wrote on the subject again I would “suffer the consequences”.  I said I had taken the Oath of Allegiance and would do as my conscience and mandate dictated.

I then produced a second policy paper, more forthright than the first, and included the recommendation that we end the counter-productive preoccupation with Israel in favour of alignment with the Arab countries.  Soon thereafter I was summarily dismissed, the specious grounds and legal protection of the Public Service Employment Act notwithstanding.  When I threatened to appeal. I was offered “reinstatement within a year when the heat from the Jewish Lobby dies down” - providing that I didn’t appeal nor contact any politician or the media on the subject.  I agreed, but a year later found I had been conned, and had nothing in writing.  Meanwhile, two Directors of PAFSO, the Foreign Service Officers’ Union, approached the DM on my behalf, only to be told that if they tried to assist Macdonald they would soon ”follow in  his footsteps”.   I promptly released them from their obligation.

I then took a position in Overseas Project Marketing, another branch of the Department, and was soon back in form, negotiating major contracts with the new Government in Libya with multi-billion dollar potential.  One was the reassignment of the former BP concession to a Canadian company.  The concession was producing 300,000 bpd, making the acquisition the largest in money terms of any ever achieved by a single Canadian.  I visited BP headquarters in London and obtained their blessing, news of which I telexed to the Department.  However, when I returned to my Ottawa office I met a furious reception, including curses, accusations of disobeying instructions, etc, the mildest of which was “poor judgment”.  i was immediately physically expelled from my office, with instructions not to return, rendered incommunicado and (as I later learned) was once again recommended for dismissal.  After several months’ purgatory, I was permitted to return to my office.

The dismissal was shelved at that time, but did take place in 1984 after I had negotiated an agreement in principle in 1983 for construction of a large lamb production project in Saudi Arabia where the client insisted that it be carried out by Canadians.  The client (Prince Badr) and his Manager insisted that I be present as mediator at the final contract negotiations in Riyadh between the Saudi client and  the Canadian consortium which I had formed for the purpose.  A few days before the departure date I was ordered not to attend the meeting on pain of dismissal for “insubordination” if I disobeyed.  My sudden, unexplained withdrawal cast a shadow on the negotiations causing them to fail.  The project was the largest of its kind with a value of at least $500 million.  I asked the Embassy in Jeddah to send someone but they refused!

To contest the 1984 dismissal, I approached all the law firms in Ottawa who advertised competence in “unlawful dismissal” litigation but, after initial enthusiasm, all declined when they ascertained that the Jewish Lobby (which included the Israeli Embassy) was the culprit.  In desperation, as the appeal deadline approached, I drew up the appeal myself.  I sent a copy to Doug Christie, whom I  had heard speak in Ottawa, to vet my handiwork.  He replied that he would be glad to represent me, despite the distance from Victoria, if I could find no other.

Since there were no legitimate grounds for dismissal, Mr Christie saw an easy win. As he began his examination, however, he was interrupted by the Judge who told him he should think twice if he intended to mention “Jews” or raise the subject of a “Jewish conspiracy” since to do so would seriously jeopardize his chance of success (it had not been his intention).  His presentation seemed more than adequate, especially since the Department of Justice lawyers presented no evidence.  Nevertheless, the Appeal failed.

I asked an old friend, who had specialized in Public Service law, how it was possible that I l could lose.  He asked the name of the Judge.  When I told him, he said the Judge was an “old political party hack who knows how the game is played”.  By chance I ran into a former neighbour, the renowned Judge John Matheson, at an Alumni Reunion at Queen’s and put to him the same question.  He asked the name of my lawyer.  When I replied “Doug Christie” he said “Well, that’s your answer – there’s no way they were going to let him win the case”.

More recently, I retained Doug Christie in a defamation claim I lodged against the CBC for permitting the egregious Warren Kinsella to state on national TV that I was one of  the main sources of finance for right-wing terrorism in Canada.  The Judge found that the comments were not defamatory even to the slightest degree and, falsely, that in any event I was out of time, giving credibility to Kinsella’s ludicrous story and forcing me to pay the Defendant’s substantial legal fees.  The decision was upheld on appeal.  A Supreme Court application was denied.

I have followed Doug Christie’s fortunes and misfortunes for many years and recognize him as being without par the epitome of all that is honourable and equitable in the practice of his profession, combined with an empathy for ostracized victims of our Politically Correct society who are shunned, condemned and punished, however worthy and valid their opinions.  He is virtually unique in Canada in his self-sacrifice on behalf of his victimized clients and in his willingness share their distress, although it has cost him any esteem he might have earned in law and politics, and an otherwise profitable legal career.

It has also cost him his health, as he has been struck down in his prime by a cancer that doubtless was induced by the stress and frustration of appearing before a hostile judiciary and facing the wrath of venal law society zealots, covering their shamelessness with invective, ad hominems and baseless condemnation of an ultra-respectable man whose Christian rectitude and respect for tradition are beyond their comprehension.

He has many admirers who now seek to memorialize him for all his good works as an outstanding Canadian, selfless Good Samaritan and proud Scot who dedicated his life to the struggle for truth, freedom and justice to a degree equaled by few if any others.  He deserves recognition by the people of Canada.  At a minimum, this should include the award of the Order of Canada and I ask, if you would be so kind, as a presumed sympathizer, that you nominate him.  Your sponsorship would more likely succeed than would mine, since you are widely respected and would have no perceived vested interest.

The nomination forms are available online as is all necessary information on the nominee.  I would be glad to prepare the forms for you, if you prefer.

Yours sincerely,

 

Ian Macdonald

455 Wilbrod Street

Ottawa ON K1N 6M7

613 241 5389

Ex-RCAF, RNFAA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GETTING READY TO SLAY CENSORSHIP

SmokeyFrSpeechHatLaws

GETTING READY TO SLAY CENSORSHIP

By Doug Collins
May 18th, 1997

From the North Shore News

That was the Week That Was. Coast to coast coverage. Plus long interviews with the Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Telegraph.  Perhaps Canada will wake up to the fact that the forces of censorship are a bit more dangerous than I am.

The Globe & Mail put the story on its front page [after my prosecution under the Human Rights Act was announced] and published an editorial headed “B.C.’s Gag Law,” in which it stated:

“The quality of his views is not the issue; his right to express them is. It is an inherent right. This presumptuous B.C. Legislation should be struck down by the courts….”.

Southam correspondent Ian Haysom sent a balanced account of this farce and fracas to the Southam papers. The headline in the Edmonton Journal was: “Does free speech give free rein?”

It should, but doesn’t. And won’t until this Jewish Congress attack on free speech is smashed. Will the courts be so bold? Who knows? This is Canada, not the U.S.

At the “tribunals” (lovely word) a multicult law professor by the name of Nitya Lyer is in charge. Gordon Watson the anti-abortionist says she is an NDP insider who helped to write the controversial “bubble law” that prevents demonstrators from getting too close to abortion clinics.

Freedom of speech is OK at a distance!

[Read more...]

CHRC: Something isn’t kosher here By Four Horses

[Editor's Note: First I want to thank Four Horses for putting together this excellent analysis of how B’nai Brith Canada has, via their persistent lobbying over the years, orchestrated the implementation of influential legislation now contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act that is having a devastating effect upon Canadians in terms of freedom of speech and Internet censorship. Were I to have written this piece I might have called it “B’nai Brith Canada In Context: Lobbying for a Self-Chosen Minority”.

What the writer has done here is weave much of the seemingly discordant B’nai Brith threads into a recognizable and coherent tapestry, one that I hope readers will recognize for what it is – a concerted , conspiring effort on the part of the Jewish Lobby here in Canada to create Bolshevik style legislation which restricts and silences all criticism of both the political ideology of Zionism and the racist, apartheid practices of the state of Israel.

As a tapestry it doesn’t present a pretty picture in terms of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our fundamental freedom of self-expression. Canada’s democratic foundation is being undermined by the likes of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. I’ve known this for a number of years and that is why I am challenging their motives and their position in this respect. Too many Canadians are still asleep at the wheel on this issue. They need to wake up before our rights and freedoms leave the highway and crash and burn. A.T.]

———————

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1267416#1267416

CHRC: Something isn’t kosher here

By Four Horses
November 27, 2008

In another bizarre twist in the CHRC-Free Speech saga, blogger No-Libs takes Harry Abrams to task. http://www.no-libs.com/index.php/MyBlog/Thought-Police/Harry-Abrams-Fascist.html

Abrams is the B.C. regional director for B’nai Brith and has received notoriety for his successful anti-hate campaign against Doug Collins. Free Dominion blogger, Maikeru compiled the following summary, in his post called the Collins Case.

In July 1998 the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada was granted intervener status in the case brought against Doug Collins by Victoria businessman, Harry Abrams. Mr. Abrams took both the North Shore News and Doug Collins to a Human Rights Tribunal because of four columns written between January and April 1994. Marvin Kurz, National Legal Counsel and National Co-Chair for the League for Human Rights, served as the League’s Counsel during the Human Rights Tribunal in July 1998.

This was the second of two human rights complaints lodged against the North Shore News and Doug Collins. The first complaint was brought by the Canadian Jewish Congress, but involved a single article criticizing the Academy Award-winning film, Schindler’s List.

The Tribunal in the Canadian Jewish Congress case upheld the constitutionality of the law under which the charges had been brought. However, even though the Tribunal determined the article was “…obviously antisemitic…” and “presents Jews in a negative light, as powerful propagandists and profiteers, and depicts, in grossly inaccurate terms, the extent and victimization in the Holocaust…”, the Tribunal concluded the column was not antisemitic enough to be considered “hateful” and warranting action under the B.C. Human Rights Code. The Tribunal also stated the case “does not carry the same weight as it would in the case where several publications are the subject of a complaint….”

The second Collins case involved multiple articles on denial of the Holocaust and Jewish conspiracies. Abrams’ complaint offered that these articles show a systematic antisemitic pattern in Collins’ writings, which had a cumulative effect of promoting hatred and contempt towards Jews. Abrams sought $5000 in damages from both Collins and the North Shore News for the League for Human Rights‚ legal fund, $2000 for his lost time and expenses, a full apology, and an order that the North…. On February 3, 1999 the B.C. Human Rights Commission ruled against Doug Collins and the North Shore News. The Commission stated that four of Collins’ articles put together are likely to expose groups to hatred and contempt. Mr. Collins and the North Shore News were ordered to pay $2000 to Harry Abrams, not to publish similar articles, and the North Shore News was ordered to print an unedited summary of the decision.

source:

Anti-Zionist Complaints

Abrams and B’nai Brith also lodged a complaint with the CHRC against the Canada-based Peace Earth and Justice News website. The complaint was based on 18 articles from 2006 on the PEJ News which dealt with their editorial which contained anti-Israel government policy commentary. Although the editors, Ingmar Lee and Chris Cook, publicly stood by their positions, they removed the articles from the website in order to avoid defending the complaint lodged against them.

Abrams is also noted for his 1999 stance against Canadians who opposed the boatloads of Chinese illegal immigrants into the country via British Columbia. This was a hot political topic during its time and one survey indicated that 90% of Canadians opposed this form of illegal immigration. In this issue, Abrams said Quote:

“…the issue of the boatloads of illegals is being used to piggyback a broader xenophobic campaign by Mr. Fromm and others.”

source:

Abrams and B’nai Brith have more recently lodged a complaint with the CHRC against the website RadicalPress.com. The complainants are contending that the author, Arthur Topham and his website http://www.radicalpress.com are promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel”. Their allegations are based upon the many articles which published that are critical of political Zionism and the Israeli state.

[Read more...]