Friday, May 24, 2013
The FreedomSite Blog: [VIDEO] Doug Christie Debates Human Rights Hack on...
The FreedomSite Blog: [VIDEO] Doug Christie Debates Human Rights Hack on...: The Doug Christie Video Archive In memory of Douglas Christie Doug Christie on the Cherington TV show June 1984 Douglas Chr...
Friday, May 3, 2013
Transcript of Doug on "As It Happens" February 26, 2013
As It Happens, February 26, 2013
Doug Christie made a career out of defending those that many would find indefensible: racists, Nazis, Holocaust deniers. For decades, Mr. Christie has been representing those accused of hate speech, people like Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra, on the grounds of freedom of expression, but he will not be able to do so for much longer. He has advanced liver cancer and doctors do not expect him to live long. He fears that no other lawyer will fill the void that he will leave behind. We reached Doug Christie in Victoria.
Q: Hi Mr. Christie, how are you feeling?
A: Well, not too well today.
Q: What are your doctors telling you?
A: I have about six months according to them, but it sometimes doesn’t feel it.
Q: What’s your gut telling you?
A: Well, it hasn’t spoken to me lately except to express extreme pain.
Q: I’m sorry to hear that.
A: Yes well, that’s the way it is.
Q: You’ve done a lot in a career but what you’re best known for I guess is defending the free speech rights of those on the extreme right. Jim Keegstra was one of your first high-profile clients, charged in ’84 and eventually convicted for teaching high school students the Holocaust was fraud and Jews were evil. Why did you want to defend him?
A: Well, because everyone should be entitled to express opinions. I suppose it wasn’t the appropriate forum in the sense I would expect the fact the government of any province can dictate what can be taught. I think that what you said was somewhat of an over-simplication of the situation, but accepting what you say for the moment for the sake of argument, I don’t care what a person’s opinion is, and I’ve said many times, free speech is the one thing you have to give to your worst enemy if you want to keep it for yourself.
Q: You’ve represented Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, alleged leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, and white supremacists and I wonder why. What motivated you overall?
A: Well, because they’re the only people these days who are under attack for what they say. I don’t know, other than Little Sisters Bookstore, I don’t know too many people on the far left who’ve been hauled up before a Human Rights Commission or charged with promoting hatred. These people didn’t come to me or I would have represented them too.
Q: I wanted to ask you where you got that drive to take those kinds of cases, cases some lawyers would shy away from and you know, I half expect you to paraphrase that old story about the guy asked why he always robs banks who says “that’s where the money is.” Is that it if you want to take on freedom of speech cases, you have to take on the cases of the people testing it?
A: Well, that’s true, and their not usually people with money. They’re usually what I would call soft targets for the Crown, with the exception of the rather unwise decision of the Human Rights Commission to take on Maclean’s Magazine or Mark Steyn. They finally went one bridge too far on that. That’s when people began to question Section 13(1) in a serious way.
Q: What are the cases you’re most proud of?
A: Well, I think actually it would be the Finta case and maybe the Zundel case. The Finta case created a very important precedent that was contrary to Nuremburg law or the Nuremburg trials principles, which meant that obedience to superior orders is a defence if those orders are not manifestly unlawful.
Q: This was Imre Finta, the alleged war criminal.
A: Yes, the acquitted war criminal.
Q: And you refer to the Ernst Zundel case. What about that are you proudest of?
A: Well, it was basically a case where I would think he was about as unpopular as anybody in Toronto could be made to be, with the exception of the people who actually knew him. I think Madam Justice McLaughlin made a very courageous stand for free speech in that case and that’s where we finally won.
Q: There are those who believe you did the work because they sympathize with the politics of your clients. How often was that the case?
A: I don’t know if it’s ever been the case, really. I sympathize with every person who sincerely believes in an ideal, any ideal. And I don’t mean someone who puts it on for some sort of political game, and these people never did that by any means. So I sympathize with people who are persecuted, and I know of no people more persecuted than people in the position of James Keegstra or Malcolm Ross, or even Imre Finta or Ernst Zundel. They were the most vilified people I think ever to appear in the Canadian media.
Q: Was there a personal price you paid for taking on those kinds of cases, Mr. Christie? A stigma? Were you ever ostracized, harassed for it in any way?
A: Oh, my windows were broken, probably 15 times until I boarded them up. I’ve been spat at and hit, you know people have shouted at me on the street death threats. One time a guy was flying around my house and he said he was going to crash into my house, actually.
Q: Why do you think no one else is going to want to do the work that you’ve been doing? What do you feel will happen if no one picks it up.
A: Well, it isn’t something that anyone else was willing to do while I was alive, with the exception of Peter Lindsay, and I don’t know they’ll be a whole lot of people willing to do it after I’m dead, but you know, it’s essential in my opinion.
Q: You mentioned some of your clients. Do you have any regrets?
A: Only that I couldn’t carry on with other cases that are in the works now. I know the people that I’ve defended need help, and I feel that I’m going to be letting them down.
Q: Mr. Christie, thank you for speaking to us on As It Happens tonight.
A: It was a pleasure to speak to you.
Q: Bye-bye.
A: Bye-bye.
Doug Christie is a lawyer. We reached him in Victoria.
Doug Christie made a career out of defending those that many would find indefensible: racists, Nazis, Holocaust deniers. For decades, Mr. Christie has been representing those accused of hate speech, people like Ernst Zundel and James Keegstra, on the grounds of freedom of expression, but he will not be able to do so for much longer. He has advanced liver cancer and doctors do not expect him to live long. He fears that no other lawyer will fill the void that he will leave behind. We reached Doug Christie in Victoria.
Q: Hi Mr. Christie, how are you feeling?
A: Well, not too well today.
Q: What are your doctors telling you?
A: I have about six months according to them, but it sometimes doesn’t feel it.
Q: What’s your gut telling you?
A: Well, it hasn’t spoken to me lately except to express extreme pain.
Q: I’m sorry to hear that.
A: Yes well, that’s the way it is.
Q: You’ve done a lot in a career but what you’re best known for I guess is defending the free speech rights of those on the extreme right. Jim Keegstra was one of your first high-profile clients, charged in ’84 and eventually convicted for teaching high school students the Holocaust was fraud and Jews were evil. Why did you want to defend him?
A: Well, because everyone should be entitled to express opinions. I suppose it wasn’t the appropriate forum in the sense I would expect the fact the government of any province can dictate what can be taught. I think that what you said was somewhat of an over-simplication of the situation, but accepting what you say for the moment for the sake of argument, I don’t care what a person’s opinion is, and I’ve said many times, free speech is the one thing you have to give to your worst enemy if you want to keep it for yourself.
Q: You’ve represented Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, alleged leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, and white supremacists and I wonder why. What motivated you overall?
A: Well, because they’re the only people these days who are under attack for what they say. I don’t know, other than Little Sisters Bookstore, I don’t know too many people on the far left who’ve been hauled up before a Human Rights Commission or charged with promoting hatred. These people didn’t come to me or I would have represented them too.
Q: I wanted to ask you where you got that drive to take those kinds of cases, cases some lawyers would shy away from and you know, I half expect you to paraphrase that old story about the guy asked why he always robs banks who says “that’s where the money is.” Is that it if you want to take on freedom of speech cases, you have to take on the cases of the people testing it?
A: Well, that’s true, and their not usually people with money. They’re usually what I would call soft targets for the Crown, with the exception of the rather unwise decision of the Human Rights Commission to take on Maclean’s Magazine or Mark Steyn. They finally went one bridge too far on that. That’s when people began to question Section 13(1) in a serious way.
Q: What are the cases you’re most proud of?
A: Well, I think actually it would be the Finta case and maybe the Zundel case. The Finta case created a very important precedent that was contrary to Nuremburg law or the Nuremburg trials principles, which meant that obedience to superior orders is a defence if those orders are not manifestly unlawful.
Q: This was Imre Finta, the alleged war criminal.
A: Yes, the acquitted war criminal.
Q: And you refer to the Ernst Zundel case. What about that are you proudest of?
A: Well, it was basically a case where I would think he was about as unpopular as anybody in Toronto could be made to be, with the exception of the people who actually knew him. I think Madam Justice McLaughlin made a very courageous stand for free speech in that case and that’s where we finally won.
Q: There are those who believe you did the work because they sympathize with the politics of your clients. How often was that the case?
A: I don’t know if it’s ever been the case, really. I sympathize with every person who sincerely believes in an ideal, any ideal. And I don’t mean someone who puts it on for some sort of political game, and these people never did that by any means. So I sympathize with people who are persecuted, and I know of no people more persecuted than people in the position of James Keegstra or Malcolm Ross, or even Imre Finta or Ernst Zundel. They were the most vilified people I think ever to appear in the Canadian media.
Q: Was there a personal price you paid for taking on those kinds of cases, Mr. Christie? A stigma? Were you ever ostracized, harassed for it in any way?
A: Oh, my windows were broken, probably 15 times until I boarded them up. I’ve been spat at and hit, you know people have shouted at me on the street death threats. One time a guy was flying around my house and he said he was going to crash into my house, actually.
Q: Why do you think no one else is going to want to do the work that you’ve been doing? What do you feel will happen if no one picks it up.
A: Well, it isn’t something that anyone else was willing to do while I was alive, with the exception of Peter Lindsay, and I don’t know they’ll be a whole lot of people willing to do it after I’m dead, but you know, it’s essential in my opinion.
Q: You mentioned some of your clients. Do you have any regrets?
A: Only that I couldn’t carry on with other cases that are in the works now. I know the people that I’ve defended need help, and I feel that I’m going to be letting them down.
Q: Mr. Christie, thank you for speaking to us on As It Happens tonight.
A: It was a pleasure to speak to you.
Q: Bye-bye.
A: Bye-bye.
Doug Christie is a lawyer. We reached him in Victoria.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Doug Christie in 1985 on "Crossfire"
After the first Zundel "False News" trial in 1985, Doug Christie appeared on the show "Crossfire" and was aggressively questioned by Ian Mulgrew of the Globe & Mail, law professor Kathleen Mahoney, and George Oak of the Edmonton Journal.
He responds to them in true Doug Christie fashion.
Doug then was defense counsel in the first Keegstra "hate speech" trial, which went to the Supreme Court twice, and a second Zundel trial (1988) that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, resulting in the law being declared unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)