Sidney Zoltak, who has spent much of his life recounting his experiences as a Holocaust survivor, says he is unsure how he would characterize the efforts of some to deny the historical genocide.
“I don’t know what to call it … whether it’s a crime, a shame, a lie – what could be more appropriate,” said Zoltak, 91. As a child, he and his family fled the Jewish ghetto created by the Nazis in his Polish hometown and went into hiding.
“But what a crime, I’m not a legal entity, I’m not a lawyer, so I wouldn’t know how to legalize it.
Yet this is what the federal government will try to do and join several countries in Europe, including Germany, that make Holocaust denial a crime. However, like any legislation that seeks to limit expression, it can be challenging for the Charter.
“Probably unconstitutional”
The Holocaust refers to a state-sponsored initiative by the Nazi government during World War II that killed more than six million Jews and millions more, such as Roma.
The government’s plan to criminalize the denial of these events – out of private conversation – was unveiled for the first time in this year’s 280-page federal budget. Along with a number of anti-Semitism initiatives, including $ 20 million for a new Holocaust museum in Montreal, the budget also revealed the government’s intention to amend the Penal Code. The Penal Code currently prohibits the public disclosure of statements that intentionally incite hatred against any group identified.
The amendment will “prohibit the release of statements, except in private conversations that deliberately promote anti-Semitism by endorsing, denying or belittling the Holocaust.”
WATCH Holocaust survivor Sidney Zoltak describes how a Polish family saved his life:
Sydney Zoltak describes the brave deed that saved his life
Holocaust survivor Sidney Zoltak describes how a Polish family saved him from Nazi persecutors and why years later they refused to accept an honor that celebrated their bravery. 3:01
But while many advocates welcome the legislation, some legal experts question its constitutionality.
“I think it is problematic to criminalize Holocaust denial,” said Kara Zvibel, a lawyer and director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Fundamental Freedoms Program. “That doesn’t mean that this kind of expression is not harmful. But the truth is that we don’t criminalize lying for the most part.”
“I think if I add things that go beyond the narrow definition of what the court has said is hate speech, then that is probably unconstitutional.
“Reliable predictor of radicalization”
The news was welcomed by the Center for Israeli and Jewish Affairs, which said the amendment would “provide the necessary legal instruments to prosecute those who trade in this destructive form of anti-Semitism.”
“Holocaust denial is a reliable predictor of radicalization and an indication that anti-Semitism is on the rise,” said Gail Adelson-Markovic, chairman of the National Board of Directors of the Center for Israeli and Jewish Affairs.
Record levels of anti-Semitism are observed in Canada in 2021, according to an annual audit by the Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith. The number of violent incidents against Jews increased by more than 700 percent last year.
WATCH 2021 was a record year for anti-Semitism in Canada:
Canada recorded record levels of anti-Semitism in 2021, an audit found
WARNING: This video contains disturbing details The Jewish organization B’nai Brith says 2021 was a record year for reports of anti-Semitism in Canada, marked by an increase in violent incidents compared to the previous year. 2:17
Sarah Fogg, a spokeswoman for the Holocaust Museum in Montreal, said the organization was surprised to see such a measure in the federal budget, but welcomed the news as an “important step.”
“This is a really meaningful legislative effort to combat anti-Semitism,” she said. “I think that’s how the connection between Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism is really obvious.
Putting the Holocaust to justice
But Zvibel warned that the legislation could provide a platform for Holocaust deniers.
She cites the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was tried twice in the 1980s for publishing a pamphlet, “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth Finally. Although convicted, Zundel was eventually acquitted when Canada’s Supreme Court overturned the country’s laws against the spread of fake news as a violation of freedom of speech.
His trials also brought the Holocaust to justice, with the Crown attracting Holocaust researchers and survivors to support their case while the defense exposed Holocaust deniers.
“What is the persecution for? [Zundel] gave him a large platform and essentially allowed him to present a bunch of witnesses in court to try to prove that the Holocaust did not happen and the government to bring the survivors to justice. That’s disgusting, “Zvibel said.
Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was tried twice in the 1980s for publishing a pamphlet, “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth Finally. He was pictured here in Toronto in 1992 (Bill Becker / The Canadian Press)
Zwibel also suggested that there may be problems with how the amendment would define terms such as “approval” and “belittling” the Holocaust.
“There are a lot of different questions to try to figure out what will be caught here.”
Genevieve Grulks, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice, said in the end that the courts would decide what words like “understatement” meant.
“But it’s generally understood to include actions that try to make (something) seem less or less important than it really is and minimize (something). The court will have to conclude that the belittling deliberately promotes anti-Semitism, “she said in an email.
Richard Moon, a law professor at the University of Windsor whose research focuses on freedom of expression, said any such law that restricts speech is likely to be challenged at some point to determine if that restriction can be justified. in accordance with Section 1 of the Charter.
The main gate of the former German Nazi death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, in Auschwitz, Poland. The federal government wants to amend the Penal Code to “prohibit the release of statements other than personal conversations that deliberately promote anti-Semitism by endorsing, denying or belittling the Holocaust.” (Janek Skarzynski / AFP / Getty Images)
But Moon questioned whether the proposed amendment would add anything to what is already covered by the Penal Code, other than possibly clarifying or clarifying it in some way.
“So an opportunity doesn’t really do anything new,” he said.
“The way it is worded sounds like someone is being persecuted, the prosecution will have to establish what it has to establish under the existing Penal Code.”
“Must be bulletproof”
Bernie Farber, chairman of the Canadian AntiHate Network, said that while any tool that can tackle anti-Semitism is worth it, the legislation will need to be carefully considered.
“It has to be somehow armored in terms of the constitutionality test,” he said. “I think everything will be in the text of the legislation.
“I accept this in principle. I think it’s a long time. But people have a right to be stupid and insulting. And if people want to say that the Holocaust didn’t happen, it’s kind of their job. But that said, we know these are anti-Semitic dog whistles. And that will be really important in terms of the wording of the legislation on how it leads to anti-Semitism. “
In 2014, Holocaust survivor Sydney Zoltak embraced Sigmund Krinski, who saved Zoltak from a Nazi campaign against Jews in Poland. (CBC News)
Zoltak and his family were among the lucky few to survive the Holocaust. His family fled for two years, staying with various villagers who were forced to change places every few months. Eventually, they found a Polish family hiding them for 14 months in an underground bunker where they had not seen daylight for half that time.
When they were released and returned home, only 70 Jews out of 7,000 before the war remained in their village.
“We know that a number of nations around the world have made Holocaust denial a crime,” Zoltak said. “And they’ve been living with it for a long time. And it’s working for them. And why should we deviate from that?”
Add Comment