One of Doug's Favorite Songs

Doug's singing voice was very much like Paul Robeson's deep bass that is evident in this song. "On My Journey, Mount Zion" is a song that Doug sang a lot, especially in the weeks just prior to his death.

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...

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 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.

A View of Free Speech in 1997

Doug Christie wrote the following foreward in 1997 to the second edition of his booklet Free Speech Is the Issue! which reproduced his arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keegstra case:

It is now 1997, December, about eight years after my speech in the Keegstra case to the Supreme Court of Canada. I said on page 8 of this booklet:

"It will legitimize many other laws. ... I do not need to worry about that, but it is an improper attempt to legitimaze these laws." There I was attempting to describe the unanimity with which the Attorneys-General of the various provinces all agreed in arguing for the "hate" laws.

It is now clear after the passage of the last eight years that the people really don't care. The laws have become more severe. The prosecutions of innocent people have become more numerous.

Malcolm Ross has been fired from his job for merely expressing his own religious views off the job, by a one-man human rights tribunal appointed by the New Brunswick government. Paul Fromm has been fired for speaking at a free speech conference in Vancouver and at a funeral memorial in Urbana, Illinois, both on his own time.

The future seems very unstable and unclear.

The future for freedom of speech is more restricted as the Liberty Net case in Ottawa was lost before the Supreme Court. The internet case of Ernst Zundel is before a Canadian Human Rights tribunal. Both the latter two cases involve the action of Canadians in other countries, like the United State, where Ernst Zundel's website is located and where the Liberty Net's phone message was transferred.

Doug Collins' case has gone before the one person B.C. Human Rights Tribunal consisting of Nitya Iyer (a lawyer for the Yukon Status of Women in a previous case) and, after $203,000 in legal fees, he was found not guilty but the B.C. Human Rights law (section 7.1) which allows a tribunal to control publications in newspapers, still stands.

[In 1999, Doug Collins was found guilty of a discriminatory practice under the same law for four columns, including the one originally found not to offend. He was fined $2,000. Mr. Collins is now seeking judicial review of the constitutionality of this law.]

The chill remains. The power of the state grows.

The individual diminishes and most people in Canada have given up on freedom as long as it doesn't affect them.

The bites out of the freedom apple have taken even the core.

This time is a dark hour for freedom.

We have allowed ourselves to be imprisoned and robbed of our freedom by a government which is run by questionable men.

For my part, I believe that we must remain calm, rational and tolerant. We must write rational and persuasive letters to newspapers. We must give money, time, energy and prayers to those who are threatened and persecuted for their beliefs. The people need to be awakened and reformed into articulate speakers for freedom.

Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada had rejected the arguments you are about to read. They rejected them four to three. The majority even said that truth is not a defence worth recognizing, if hatred is promoted. The same three who sided with me in the first appeal sided against me in the second when Mr. Keegstra was convicted a second time.

The cases since have been even worse for free speech.

The future of those who stand on these issues can improve only if people read or are better informed, active and more articulate. We must circulate this booklet and make people aware of what is really happening.

The suppression of thought, belief and opinion which is so ominous in our time can only be reversed by self-sacrificing efforts of each of us to restore our freedoms by peaceful means. We must do this because where freedom is lost irrevocably, it cannot be recovered by peaceful means.

The governments of most provinces, the federal government, the various pressure groups all agree. They want more power to suppress speech they don't like.

They push and push and push, until freedom is squeezed into a tiny place where it is surrounded and hemmed in, where people can only talk to each other in a whisper and even then, they suspect their neighbours might turn on them and destroy them by informing.

They will be pushed until they are afraid to talk in their sleep or until they push back. Then and only then will freedom return as only then will it have many worthy champions. Dear reader, the challenge is yours.

Douglas H. Christie
Victoria, B.C.
December 30, 1997

Words to Remember

In a letter that Doug wrote to T.A. Klingel on March 28, 1986 he said:

"No space or time divides those who love the truth."

Now that Doug has passed from this life, that is something we are trying to remember.

Doug's Speech at University of Ottawa, April 8, 2010

Notes for Doug’s Speech
University of Ottawa
April 8, 2010

I’m here to talk about free speech. I’m not here to practice it.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I don’t need a warning from the provost. I am a Canadian, trained by law in the way of silence, sullen silence, and code language. I have been trained by the Supreme Court not to engage in hate speech, even though no one can define it in advance, so I can avoid it.

There are general taboo topics which I must avoid or tread lightly around, like race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability or mental status. Then there are peripheral taboo topics like multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action programs and a host of other ill-defined topics.

I have been trained to remain very sensitive to the broad political implications of these topics lest I face a very expensive lesson in the Human Rights Tribunal.

What the Supreme Court taught me when I appeared in Taylor and Zundel and Keegstra was that free speech has its limits in “hate” which means “extreme dislike.” So presumably I must like all races, religions, ethnic origins, etc. equally or at least dislike them only moderately. Or at least pretend to, which is more Canadian. I cannot denounce any one as evil.

The Law Society, through its decision of Harvey Strosberg taught me that if I speak in public, “law students” may tape some but not all of my words, and the Chairman of the Discipline Committee can issue a statement to the media condemning me as “identifying with a lunatic fringe,” even in the very act where he decides not to give me the benefit of a hearing where I could answer the allegation with evidence where both sides could be heard.

I learned in McAleer and Malcolm Ross, both of which went to the Supreme Court of Canada, that expressing your religious beliefs on your own time, is no defence and placing the messages in the United States where it is legal, is no defence if you mention where you can get the message to someone in Canada.

I learned that our parliamentarians of all parties love free speech so much that they banned someone from the precincts of Parliament who wanted to rent the parliamentary press gallery, a place anyone can rent for a press conference.

What was the press conference about? That the Human Rights Tribunal had ruled in Zundel’s case that “Truth was no defence,” and the truth of the statement could not be proven by any evidence. I know because that someone was me, the only lawyer in Canadian history to be banned by all party agreement from the precincts of parliament. Because in Canada truth is no defence. Orwell was right about double speak. Randy White a so-called Reform MP said he did not want me in his work place. Orwell was right about a lot of things.

I have learned and been carefully taught to avoid the taboo topics, to measure every word lest a tape recorder in the audience be taken to the Human Rights Commission, the police, the Law Society, or someone who likes to complain to the Human Rights Commission.

I have learned to talk about free speech but never practice it. Never say anything like Ann Coulter would say, coming from a free society. And being in a university setting is all the more reason to be very careful about how you chose your words. The left-wing political giants who run most universities are able to let loose the mob with a wink and the students know their success with many professors depends on how successfully they can entrap a political foe.

Universities are the most dangerous place to practice free speech. Even topics like abortion which you would not normally [expect to] involve a taboo topic can quickly be spun into forbidden territory and sexism can result in expulsion or criminal charges. The civility of universities is accorded to those who can mobilize the largest screaming mob. No one listens.

I have to even be careful how I speak about Freedom of Speech.

So let me just speak about freedom of speech... I do not want to be cynical or bitter. But since 1984 when I took up the cause of freedom, I have become aware of the price to be paid for this precious legacy of freedom.

My office has been vandalized, repeatedly; my name has been defamed in the press; I have been the target of spurious complaints to law societies, I haven been banned from the precincts of parliament. The very press who today became the target of complaints themselves because they post on the internet, who have come late to the battle, because of their money and power, are turning the tide. They were not long ago in the forefront of the mob, vilifying my clients and myself, since it was not their ox that was gored. Irony, thy name is Canada.

1984, the year Orwell entitled his most famous work was actually the year I got involved in the defence of James Keegstra. From that moment on, the lawyer who had defended successfully all manner of criminal cases from drugs to rape to murder and with no ill effects to his reputation other than professional jealousy became in the eyes of many, through the window of the media, a hated nazi-lawyer. This title, I have worn to this day, at first reluctantly and gradually resigned myself to it, knowing as “Human Rights” law tells us, “Truth is no defence.” Promoting hatred of an individual is no offence.

I would never be elected anywhere to anything. Any party would expel me, the right or left for fear of the media. I was warned this would happen. “Better alone than in the company of hypocrites,” I reasoned.

There is one hope and that is that truth cannot be buried forever, and people will tell it, come what may, even about race, religion, or ethnicity. There are some truths to be told on that score. They are the building blocks of culture and even the government of Quebec is recognizing this, even though they wrap it in convoluted language. Oops! I almost practiced free speech!

The best indication of what is the true value of free speech is provided by what happens when it is taken away. The thinking people become “bush league.” The first reaction to a controversial idea is not to hear the person about whom you heard, but to adopt the mob-mind view.

Left-wing, multicultural, tolerant, good. Right wing, xenophobic, intolerant, bad. A few code words and the mob takes the argument to the streets. The psychological guillotine cuts off debate and civility like the real guillotine cut off heads in Paris in the revolution till there were no heads to cut off. Everybody was at the same low level of passive, intellectual obedience to the omnipotent state. Then a forceful tyrant like Napoleon can impose his will with very little difficulty. Do we really have to go through these cycles of oppression, revolution, depression? Have we no intellect to listen for ourselves, evaluate for ourselves, accept or reject an idea with a civil attitude of tolerance? Do we need to have a hysterical violent reaction to every idea of a different perspective?

The Roman maxim: “Audi Alteram Partem” was over the door of the law library at McGill University where I once spoke. I entered through that doorway to face a hostile screaming mob, much like Ann Coulter faced. They had never met me. They could never hear me. Why did they reject me before hearing me? Why not hear both sides? Sometimes all sides need to be heard. Until they are, how can you really form an intelligent and informed opinion?

I believe the truth is that the idea of tolerance has been used as an Orwellian doublespeak smoke screen for intolerance and is really about narrowing the scope of debate before the debate begins. This is consistent with Marxism, but it is not consistent with liberalism or of constitutional principles of free speech. Certain topics cannot be discussed.

We don’t absolutely make it illegal to talk about certain subjects, we just make it so dangerous, with so many obscure and complex rules that no one dares to go there. Somewhat like gun laws. We don’t overtly ban all fire arms. No, we would find too much resistance and rational criticism. The hypocritical Canadian way is simply to regulate them out of existence, gradually, just like controversial speech. Hate laws mean whatever we say they mean. We will only tell you after you say something if you have offended. This is the process of gradual Marxism. The state gradually disarms the citizen of their weapons and their free speech by slow degrees so that absolute control both physical and mental will be with the state.

The other side of this equation is the enforcers, state agents, professional complainers, the enablers of state power. These are the people who go from politicians to judge or from politician to president of a University. They create a network of willing and compliant officials who can be counted on to cleverly manipulate and manage the progress from freedom, which they call “anarchy,” to the tyranny they call a “benevolent oligarchy.”

Thus they acquire through a system of servants and paid enforcers, through Human Rights Commissions and police forces where they are the only persons authorized by law to break into your house, seize your computer, examine your files, your books, your speeches, your appearances and even your surreptitiously recorded comments as in the case of David Ahenakew.

They can ruin you. They can prosecute you. They can and will vilify you in the press. As was done to David Ahenakew and then even if you win, you still lose. You go through court for four years of stress and when you are finally acquitted, no one says “sorry” or pays your costs. On the contrary, they repeat in the media around the world the words of the judge condemning you in the very act of acquitting you.

And the state has all the guns, police, sheriffs, jails, probation officers, all paid by the state which you support with your taxes. If you want to be a paid bully, there’s a job for you. If you want to shoot people, just don’t say so, join the RCMP. You can taser people like Dziekanski. If you want to shoot teenagers like Ian Bush, or misfits like Jeff Hughes, and never be charged, join the RCMP.

Just be sure you don’t admit what you did and the establishment will protect you. You are after all, protecting them. We are paying for our own enslavement. Only a few really know where we are going. The rest are following along for the ride, and the free lunch.

(Oops! Too much free speech!)

So if you want to carry on down the road to tyranny, just shout me down. If you want to go quietly into the night of tyranny, just ignore what I have said. Put it out of your mind and never think of it again. But if you want to move forward to a better world keep this in mind. The legitimate function of the state is to preserve and maximize the freedom of the conscience, belief and opinion of the individual. It is not to create a social model of artificial cultural stew, enforced by law. We have inherent rights to survive as a free people only to the extent we articulate, manifest with rigorous debate, and listen to, all opinion with an enlightened and critical mind. Let us not presume we are possessed of all knowledge before the discussion starts, and set a limited agenda for social and acceptable speech.

Where once sex was a taboo topic, it has now become an obsession. Speech about race, if suppressed becomes an obsession and if further suppressed, leads to violence. Let’s get debate out of the closet on all matters. Let’s use it, or we’ll lose it.

I have not said anything. More than anything, I have been allowed to speak here without interruption on the belief I would be ineffectual and secondly I would make the administration look better than the last speaker who was cancelled. I realized this at the beginning, but it is an opportunity to make the point that the redemption of an individual like me, or a society like your university, or of a country like Canada, is only possible if we listen to each other and talk openly about all of our serious and sensitive issues. Unless this really happens, Canada isn’t worth saving and neither is this university.

I will leave here knowing more than anyone in this room about the battles for free speech that have gone on in this country in the last thirty years. I see only minor changes occurring. This is your chance to ask what you need to know to make a difference. Questions?