WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6,1985, PAGE 5 "I have aworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility againat every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Did Zundel trial serve the public interest? The trial of Toronto 'publisher' Ernat Zundel ended last week and in a few days time the judge lu that case is going to have 10 make one of the moat crucial legal decisions since the proclamation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Havlng been found guilty by a jury of his peers, the juulge must uow sentence Zundel. And no matter what sentence is imposed, the judge la going to be severely criticized. Defenders of the very powerful Jewish lobby lu Ibis country are going to be more than unhappy if Zundel isn't given the maximum sentence - that la, two years less a day. On the other baud civil rights activitists and the defenders of freedomn of speech wili cry out lu anger if he is sent to prison at ail. For me anyway, the real question is sliould this case have even gone to trial lu the first place? It was an act of lunacy on the part of the Attorney-General's of- fice to charge Zundel in the first place. Let's face it, bringing Zundel to trial has doue hlm a world of good. More people are aware of his books and his opinions now than ever were before the trial. Before the trial, Zundel wss an unknown golng no where. Now, he's a media personality and whether his books are true or not more people will buy thens sud read thens simply becanse of the charge and ils subsequent publicity. Despite the attempts of the Crown Attorney prosecuting the case to convince ns otherwise, there are some serions freedom of speech issues in this case. Throughout the trial, the Crown said that the freedornio! speech does not permit anyone to spread falsehoods on any other individual or groupa. In other words, freedomn of speech implies that freedomn must be exercised with defereuce to the truth. So wlit the Crown says, and riglitly so, is tlst freedom of speech does't give anyone the right to libel or lander sny other person. But, you can't libel the dead. Ernst Zundel wrote books questioning the historical validity of the Holocanat. He questions the commouly lield view that some six million Jews died lu the concentration campa of Central and Eastern Europe durlng the Second World War. But these people cannot sue for libel - tliey're dead. And their familles and decendsnta cal't sue for libel elîher. So what does our intrepid governmeut do? It passes a law tbat says that it la Wlegal 10 publish documents of any kind (and that includes pamphlets, books, magazines and newspapers) that may incite hatred, prejudice or apread falsehoods. What it did was re-write the libel sud slander laws s0 that, lu this case at least, the dead could sue. (I also fiud il iteresting to note that the only times this law la enforced is wlien the accnsed lias aomething unpopular to say about the Jews.) For the record, let me state that I support the kind of lsw the Zundel appears 10 have run afoul of. Freedom of speech, especially by what is called "The Media"' has an obligation 10 the trutli. What it says sud what it writes should be the truth. Wheu il offers opinions and commenta they, too, should be based upon the truth. We do not need to incite hatred and prejice tbrough the written word. Individuals can incite hatred and prejudice without me, or any other journaliat. Individusis can, and do, hate without Ernst Zuudel. But I am not sure that we were right to prosecute Zundel because he disputes the popularly held view of history. 1 think that this country and ils people would have been better served if, instead of insisting that he be charged, found guilty and subsequeutly jailed , the Canadian Jewisb commuity bad published their books and magazines giving their version of history. They sbould have banded together and proved that countiesa millions of people suffered great agony at the bauds of the Nazis and their collaborators before death finally freed them. Instead of making Zundel a national media sensation, the Jewish commuuity should have taken hlm on, ou his own turf sud in is own way. The trial did nothing but make hlm better kuown. As I said aI the begiuniug of this piece, I have a great deal of sympathy for the judge who lias yet 10 pasa sentence on Zundel. He will be reviled no malter wbat lie does. Flnaily, this observation. 1 don't thinlc that a case sucli as thia would ever have com;e to trial in tbe United States. Iu that land of liberty freedom of speech la so highly prized that tliey would have allowed Zundel to do bis thing. Anyoue believiug tliat he was wrong would have ample opportuxiity 10 debate hlm lu a public forum. Did we accompliali any good lu bringing Zundel 10 trial? Was the public lu- terest served? Did il make the eternal rest of Ibose wbo died aI the bauds of the Nazis, wbether they were Jewisli or not, any easier? 'm not sure Ibat the an- swer 10 any of Ihese questions la yes. From what I can see, Zundel was not proven a Nazi or a racial. Or even an an- ti-Semite. What lias taken a beating througbout thia entire sorry episode la our beloved ýi freedom of speech. Both aides have used il as a rallying cry. Bolli have said it 1 justified their positions. Il doesn't malter which aide is right. What does malter la that the corner atone of our civil liberty now bas a few chipa lu il. And, wbat la even worae, no good can be seeauasas result of Iis uuhappy incident. SOL WAY Funny stuff, politics Under tbe beading of: everything you neyer wan- ted 10 know but are going 10 hear - or - if you have read Ibis far, youre ready for more. The Liberals are politlcing shamelessly over the Tory governmeut'a inability 10 stem the faîl of the Canadian dollar. Man bites dog. Not a year ago il was the other way around. Funny stuff, politica. When the Liberals tried 10 aay our ecouomic woes were part of a world econornic criais they were sbouted down by the rigliteous Tories wbo claimed the goverument did nothing. Alriglit. Politica. Fair. Now Michael Wilson tries 10 stand up lu the House sud say that the fall of the Canadian dollar is part of a world-wide currency criais sud that we are doing well againat other curreucies. Indignant and equally rigliteous, John Turner says somelhing like: " Ia 71 cents doiug well? " It is no wonder the general public turus a des! ear 10 political infigbting. No wonder few know or care what la behind the fail o! the dollar. Depeuding on where your political alliances are the fal la: expec- table; shameful; reprebeusible; inevitable. Take your pick. Let's just presumne you have resd Ibis far. Let's just guesa that you haven't started to glaze over sud turu 10 peewee hockey results. Let's examine the 4criais." Step one. What la a deficit? A deficit la the amount o! mouey you spend that la grester than the amount o! money you take lu. Iu goverument lerma: the deficit la the difference betweeu expeuses sud tax revenues. Step two. 110w do you cover the deficit? You borrow the mouey sud you psy interest on il. Step tbree. Whst does this bave 10 do wllh intereat rates? Ifsa great many demanda are made for more mouey, the people who lend il have 10 charge more for it. This nsed 10, be calleri supply sud demaud. Goveruments borrow to cover their deficits. Business borrow 10, cover their debt.s. Elîher way you incresse debt sud interest paymeuts. Step four. Why does this create fluctuations lu the value of currency? The interest rate being paid (or the fundamental strength of the economy - one la supposed to, reflect the other) relates directly to the amount of money you borrow - the more you borrow the higher the rate. The more foreign currency you attract the stronger your currency gets. This lsaa false sense of 'prosperity" that relates not to, lu- creased productivity but to, an inflow of money. Canada had a high dollar during the sixties because we took in more currency than we sent out. Those were the days when we were expanding and borrowing. If this is starting to, get too heavy for you -- stop and try peewee hockey again. Goverumeuts that are forced 10, borrow lu large amounts put pressure on other countries (whose currency they are borrowing) while at the samne lime creating a false sense of satisfaction about their own cash position. Iu fact, your own currency la growing stronger because you are cornering a whole lot of the world's money for your own use. What's more-you are goîng to spend, all that money so it la probably good for business. But its& helI on world trade. The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board iu the United States - a normally conservative outfit, has said that the goverument la headîng for serious trouble. It la heading for trouble (and perliaps taking the reat of the world witb tliem) becanse the artificial rise o! the dollar reflecta only beavy worldwide borrowiug. The problem la compounded because of the U.S. balance of trade la lun a heavy deficil position. Simply said: witli other world currencies lu the toilet the Ainericans can buy (im- port) aI bargain basement prices, but cannot export because their dollar is too expensive. What does happen bowever la that to, compensate for the high dollar their commodities have t0 selI for lower prices. Hence the farmers and processors of CONT'D ON PC. 6