WPC0 .OZξPgvv}}_vGIc?n,[2GSO+ܭW^#D 󅸓㲴CVv'nxq\ѩKME=>Zgb94 }"k}f}KAC'sOr1t91=&o=r TucF9 hCU} ! ?.՞VF6A*}$R>B%-v6YuVhl&Iv`cAQ?C Aua`,G8z_ ;nn)ua ZӜ bپ-ʴ;~T+C` ʮ@*y 0  0 0.0 0< 0 0> 0v ! 0`! 0`! 0`@" 0`" 0`# 08`# 0# 02j$ 0$ 0:% 0Y% 0_+& 0 & 0j' 0( B** D/* D+* 0+ D/, 0, 06- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<]/U6/U>/U* 0N70 0N909090^ 0w04000 m0HP LaserJet 4P,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(O$7/ [/-3|x U !UKUS.,  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Zndel_Ԁv.Canada  CommunicationNo.953/2000 ` 27July2003 8  _CCPR_/C/78/D/953/2000  ` ADMISSIBILITY  $  Submittedby:Ernst_Zndel_Ԁ(representedbycounselMrs.Barbara_Kulaszka_)   Allegedvictim:Theauthor p Stateparty:Canada H Dateofcommunication:21August2000(initialsubmission)  p   TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenantonCivil 4 andPoliticalRights,   Meetingon27July2003,  Adoptsthefollowing:     Decisiononadmissibility  D! USUK.,  1.TheauthorofthecommunicationisErnst_Zndel_,aGermancitizenbornon24April1939, $X" residinginCanadasince1958.HeclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyCanada (1) ofarticles3, $D # 19and26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(theCovenant).Heis %4!$ representedbycounsel. & "% Thefactsassubmitted: (#' 2.1TheauthordescribeshimselfasapublisherandactivistwhohasdefendedtheGermanethnic *%) groupagainstfalseatrocityallegationsconcerningGermanconductduringWorldWarII.His l+&* communicationoriginatesfromacasebeforetheCanadianHumanRightsTribunalinwhichhewas X,'+ heldresponsibleundertheCanadianHumanRightsActofexposingJewstohatredandcontempt D-(, onanInternetwebsiteknownasthe"_Zundelsite_".FromthematerialssubmittedtotheCommittee  bythepartiesittranspiresthat,forinstance,oneoftheauthor'sarticlespostedonthatsite,entitled  "DidSixMillionJewsReallyDie?",disputesthatsixmillionJewswerekilledduringtheHolocaust.  2.2InMay1997,afteraHolocaustsurvivorhadlodgedacomplaintwiththeCanadianHuman ` RightsCommissionagainsttheauthor'swebsite,theCanadianHumanRightsTribunalinitiatedan L  inquiryintothecomplaint.Duringthehearings,on25May1998,theHumanRightsTribunalrefused 8  topermittheauthortoraiseadefenseoftruthagainstthecomplaintbyprovingthatthestatements $ t onthe"_Zundelsite_"aretrue.TheTribunaldidnotconsideritappropriatetodebatethetruthorfalsity  ` ofthestatementsfoundontheauthor'swebsitesincethiswouldonly"addasignificantdimension  L  ofdelay,costandaffronttothedignityofthosewhoareallegedtohavebeenvictimizedbythese  8  statements". (2)  $  2.3Shortlythereafter,theauthorobtainedabookingfromtheCanadianParliamentaryPressGallery,   anongovernmentalandnonprofitorganizationtowhichthedaytodayadministrationofthe   CanadianParliament'spressfacilitieshasbeendelegated,toholdapressbriefingon5June1998in   theCharlesLynchPressConferenceRoominthe_Centre_ԀBlockoftheParliamentbuildings. t Accordingtotheauthor,hemetthecriteriaforbookingthisconferenceroom.Inthepressrelease ` announcingthepressconference,dated3June1998,theauthorindicatedthathewoulddiscussthe L interimrulingoftheHumanRightsTribunalrefusingtoadmitthedefenseoftruth.Initspertinent 8 parts,thepressreleasereads: $t        ݌̌  0  "TheNewInquisitioninToronto!GovernmenttriestograbcontroloftheInternet!L(#(#        ݌̌  0  Ernst_Zndel_ԀistoldbytheCanadianHumanRightsCommissionanditstribunal:$(#(#        ݌̌  0  Truthisnota_defence_Ԁ(#(#     {   {݌̌  0  Intentisnota_defence_Ԁ(#(#     >   >Y݌̌  0  Thatthestatementscommunicatedaretrueisirrelevant!\ (#(#        5݌̌  0  Theinterimrulingwasrenderedafteroneyearof_CHRT_Ԁhearings,onMay25,1998bya 4"  CanadianHumanRightsTribunalnowsittinginjudgmentoveranAmericanbasedwebsite  #p! calledthe_Zundelsite_Ԁathttp://www.webcom.com/ezundel $\"(#(# 0  (Forthecompletedecisionseeattachedpages.)" (3) %4!$(#(# 2.4On4June1998,afterseveralMembersofParliamenthadbeencontactedbyopponentsofthe '#& author'sviewswhohadprotestedagainsttheauthor'suseoftheCharlesLynchPressConference (#' Roomand,afterthePressGalleryhadrefusedtocancelthebookingoftheroom,theHouseof )$( Commonspassedthefollowingunanimousmotion:"ThatthisHouseorderthatErnst_Zundel_Ԁbe *%) deniedadmittancetotheprecinctsoftheHouseofCommonsduringandfortheremainderofthe p+&* presentsession." \,'+  H-(, 2.5Asaresultofthismotion,theauthorwasbannedfromtheparliamentaryprecinctsandprevented  fromholdingthepressconferenceintheCharlesLynchPressConferenceRoom.Heheldan  informalpressconferenceoutsidetheParliamentbuildingsonthesidewalk.  Exhaustionofdomesticremedies: ` 3.1Theauthor'sactionagainstthepoliticalpartiesparticipatinginthepassingoftheunanimous 8  motiondenyinghimaccesstotheParliamentaryprecinctsaswellasagainstcertainindividual $ t membersofParliament,forviolationofhisrighttofreedomofexpression(guaranteedundersection  ` 2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms)wasdismissedbytheOntarioCourt(General  L  Division)on22January1999.TheCourtheldthatthedefendants,politicalparties,couldbesued,  8  whereastheclaimagainstindividualmembersofParliamenthadtobestruckoutforfailureto $  establishanyreasonablecauseofaction.TheCourtarguedthattheHouseofCommonshad   exerciseditsparliamentaryprivilegeindenyingtheauthoraccesstoitspremises.Thetestof   necessitywasmetsincethemotionrestrictingtheauthor'saccesstotheparliamentaryprecinctshad   beennecessarytopreservetotheproperfunctioningoftheHouse,thereasonbehindthatdecision   beingtopreservethedignityandintegrityofParliament.TheCourtnotedthattherestrictionofthe p author'srighttofreedomofexpressiononlyconcernedtheuseoftheprecinctsoftheHouseof \ Commons,withoutgenerallyprohibitinghimtoexpresshisviews. H 3.2On10November1999,theCourtofAppealforOntariodismissedtheauthor'sappeal,specifying  p thatthejurisdictionalquestionfortheCourttoconsiderwaswhether,inordertoensureitsproper  \ functioning,itwasnecessaryfortheHouseofCommonstohavecontroloveritsprecincts,including H thepowertoexcludestrangersfromitspremises.Thequestionwasnot,however,whetherithad 4 beennecessarytoexcludetheauthorfromparliamentaryprecincts,sincethatwouldamounttoan   inquiryintotherightfulnessorwrongnessofthedecision,whichwouldrenderanyexistingprivilege   nugatory.Sincecontroloveritspremiseswasanecessaryadjuncttotheproperfunctioningof  Parliament,thecourtswouldbeoversteppinglegitimateconstitutionalboundsiftheysoughtto  interferewiththatprivilege.Giventhatthemotiontoexcludetheauthorwasnomorethanan  exerciseofcontrolovertheaccessbystrangerstoparliamentaryprecincts,theauthor'sclaimwas l basedentirelyonmattersofparliamentaryprivilegeandhad,therefore,beenproperlystruckout. X  3.3On29June2000,theSupremeCourtofCanadadismissedtheauthor'sapplicationforleaveto 0"  appealagainstthedecisionoftheOntarioCourtofAppeal. #l! Thecomplaint: $D # 4.1Theauthorclaimsthatheisavictimofaviolationofarticles3,19and26oftheCovenant,as &"% hewas_discriminatorily_Ԁdeniedhisrighttofreedomofexpression. '#& 4.2Hearguesthathisrighttofreedomofexpressionunderarticle19oftheCovenantwasviolated )$( bytheHouseofCommons'motionwhichexcludedhimfromparliamentaryprecinctsand,in |*%) particular,theCharlesLynchPressConferenceRoom.Hearguesthatthemotionwasdiscriminatory h+&* andinviolationofarticles3and26oftheCovenant,becausehefulfilledallcriteriaforbookingthe T,'+ pressconferenceroom,hisexclusionbeing"thefirsttimeinCanadianhistorythatapersonhasbeen @-(, bannedfromtheprecinctsofParliament[8]becauseofhispoliticalviews".  4.3Itisarguedthattheauthorhasexhaustedalldomesticremediesandthatthesamematterhasnot  beenexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlement. t TheStateparty'ssubmissionontheadmissibilityandmeritsofthecommunication: L      T,   T,o,݌̌  5.1Bynote_verbale_of10August2001,theStatepartymadeitssubmissionontheadmissibilityand $ t meritsofthecommunication.  ` 5.2TheStatepartyconteststheadmissibilityofthecommunication,insofarastheallegedviolations  8  ofarticles3and26oftheCovenantareconcerned,arguingthattheseclaimsareinsufficiently $  substantiated.Inparticular,theauthorhasfailedtosubstantiatethathedoesnotenjoytheCovenant   rightsonthesamebasisaswomeninCanada(article3),andthathisexclusionfromparliamentary   precinctsamountstodiscrimination(article26).Moreover,theStatepartyarguesthattheauthor   failedtoexhaustdomesticremedieswithregardtotheseclaims,sincehiscourtactionwasrestricted   totheclaimthatthemotionoftheHouseofCommonsviolatedhisfreedomofexpressionunderthe p CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms. \ 5.3WhiletheStatepartydoesnotcontesttheadmissibilityoftheremainderofthecommunication, 4 itsubmitsthattheauthor'srighttofreedomofexpressionunderarticle19hasnotbeenviolated.It  p arguesthat,althoughthemotionoftheHouseofCommonsexcludestheauthorfromentering  \ parliamentaryprecincts,itdoesnotpreventhimfromexpressinghisviewsoutsidetheseprecincts. H TheStatepartysubmitsthatarticle19doesnotrequireStatestoensurethatindividualshaveaccess 4 toanyplacetheychosetoexercisethatright.   5.4TheStatepartycontendsthateveniftheauthor'sexclusionfromtheprecinctsweretobe  consideredarestrictionofhisrighttofreedomofexpression,suchrestrictionwasjustifiedpursuant  toarticles19,paragraph3,and20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant.Themotionbanningtheauthor  constitutedavalidexerciseoftheHouseofCommons'lawmakingpowerprovidedforin l constitutionalstandardswhich,inthecaseofparliamentaryprivileges,satisfiedthe"providedby X  law"requirementinarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant. (4)  D! 5.5TherestrictionimposedontheauthorservedthepurposeofprotectingtheJewishcommunities'  #p! righttoreligiousfreedom,freedomofexpression,andtheirrighttoliveinasocietyfreeof  $\" discrimination,andalsofoundsupportinarticle20,paragraph2,oftheCovenant. (5) Thus,the $H # HumanRightsCommittee,inGeneralCommentNo.11onarticle20 (6) ,hadobservedthatthis %8!$ prohibitionwas"fullycompatiblewiththerighttofreedomofexpressionascontainedinarticle19, &("% theexerciseofwhichcarriedwithitspecialdutiesandresponsibilities".Thefactthattheauthorhad '#& beenactiveforalmostthirtyyearsintheworldwidedistributionofmaterialsthatdenytheHolocaust ($' andotherNaziatrocitiesagainsttheJewssufficientlyexplainedtheHouseofCommons'concernthat )$( hewouldusethefacilitiesofParliamentasaplatformtodisseminateAntiSemiticviews,thereby *%) exposingtheJewishcommunitytohatredanddiscrimination.TheStatepartyarguesthatthemotion t+&* wasnotonlyjustifiedunderarticles19,paragraph3,20,paragraph2,and5,paragraph1,ofthe `,'+ Covenant,butlegallymandatedunderarticle4 (7) oftheInternationalConventiononthe L-(, EliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,totakemeasurestosuppressthedissemination  ofideasbasedonracialdiscriminationandhatred. (8) Inadditiontotherespectfortherightsof  reputationofothers,theauthor'sexclusionfromparliamentaryprecinctsservedthepurposeof  protectingpublicorderandpublicmorals.Sincetheprotectionofparliamentaryprocedure x constitutedalegitimategoalof"publicorder"withinthemeaningofarticle19,paragraph3, (9) the d privilegedoctrineanditsapplicationinthepresentcasewereconsistentwiththatnotion.Giventhat T  AntiSemitismiscontrarytothevaluesoftolerance,diversityandequality,asenshrinedinthe @  CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomsandotherdomestichumanrightslegislation,themotion , | oftheHouseofCommonsfurtherservedtheprotectionofpublicmorals.  h 5.6TheStatepartycontendsthattherestrictionsplacedontheauthorwere"necessary",withinthe  @  meaningofarticle19,paragraph3,oftheCovenant,toprotecttherightsoftheJewishcommunity, ,  thedignityandintegrityofParliament,andtheCanadianvaluesofequalityandculturaldiversity.   Comparedtothepotentialharmoftheauthor'splannedpressconference,thedetrimentaleffectsof   hatepropagandaonsocietyatlarge,andtheimpressionthatsuchapressconferencecarriedthe   officialimprimaturofParliamentortheGovernment,therestrictionontheauthor'sfreedomof   expressionwasminimaland,therefore,proportionate.Ithadbeenlimitedonlytoaparticularplace, x theparliamentaryprecincts,towhichnomemberofthepublichadunfetteredaccess,anddidnot d curtailtheauthor'sfreedomtouseanyotherforumtoexpresshisopinion,providedthathis P statementsdidnotdenigratetheJewishcommunity. < 5.7TheStatepartysubmitsthatparliamentaryprivileges (10) areamongtheunwrittenconventions d formingpartoftheCanadianConstitution,havingtheirsourceinthepreambleoftheCanadian T ConstitutionActof1867,inhistoricaltraditionandintheprinciplethatthelegislativebranchmust @ bepresumedtopossesssuchconstitutionalpowersasarenecessaryforitsproperfunctioning.One , oftheseprivilegesistheauthorityofthelegislaturetoregulateitsowninternalproceedings.This  privilegeiscloselyrelatedtotherightofParliamenttocontrolaccesstoitspremisesbyexcluding  strangers.Bothprivilegesareconsideredessentialtothelegislature'sabilitytoupholdthedignity,  integrityandefficiencyofitswork.Theimportanceoftheseprivilegeswasemphasizedbythe  SupremeCourtofCanadainitsdecisioninNewBrunswickBroadcastingCo.v.NovaScotia,where x theCourtheldthat,inreviewingtheParliament'sexerciseofitsinherentprivileges,"[_t]he_Ԁcourtsmay d  determineiftheprivilegeclaimedisnecessarytothecapacityofthelegislaturetofunction,buthave P! nopowertoreviewtherightnessorwrongnessofaparticulardecisionmadepursuanttothe <"  privileges". (11)  (#x! 5.8TheStatepartystressesthatParliament'srighttoexerciseexclusivecontroloveritsinternal %T # proceedingsacomparativelysmallsphereoflegislativeactivity!!isvitaltoitsabilitytomaintain %@!$ itsindependencefromtheexecutiveandjudicialbranchesofgovernment.SubjectingParliament's &,"% decisiontoexcludeastrangerfromitsprecinctstoasystemofcourtreviewwouldnotonlyinfringe '#& theseparationofpowersprinciple,butwouldmeanthatsuchdecisionsarenotfinal,therebycreating ($' uncertainty,delayandpreventingMembersofParliamentfromperformingtheirimportantlegislative )$( tasks.TheStatepartyarguesthatsincethelegislatureisbetterplacedthanthecourtstodetermine *%) theconditionsforitsefficientconductofinternalbusiness,thecourtsshouldnotinterferewiththe x+&* questionofhowParliamentexerciseditsprivileges. d,'+  P-(, 5.9Inthealternative,iftheCommitteeweretodeclaretheauthor'sclaimsunderarticles3and26  admissible,theStatepartychallengesthispartofthecommunicationonthemerits,reservingthe  righttomakefurthersubmissionsItcontendsthattheauthorwasnotsubjecttodiscrimination,as  hisexclusionfromparliamentaryprecinctswascompatiblewiththeprovisionsoftheCovenantand t wasbasedonreasonablegrounds,servingthelegitimatepurposeofpreventingthedisseminationof ` AntiSemiticspeech,andupholdingtheCovenantrightsofthemembersoftheJewishcommunity. L  Commentsbytheauthor: $ t     Q   QQ݌̌  6.1Byletterof13November2001,theauthorrespondedtotheStateparty'ssubmission.He  L  reiteratesthathiscomplaintsatisfiesalladmissibilityrequirements.Sincehiscasehadbeen  8  dismissedbythecourtsontheverybroadgroundofparliamentaryprivilege,anycomplaintthathe $  hadbeendiscriminatedagainstwouldhavebeenrejectedonthesamegrounds.Henotesthatithad   beenarguedbeforetheOntarioCourtofAppealthatitsbroadprivilegewouldgiveParliamentthe   unboundedrighttodiscriminateagainstanypersonorgroup.   6.2TheauthorarguesthattheprivilegeofParliamenttocontrolaccesstoitsprecinctsdoesnot p exemptthelegislativebranchfromtheStateparty'sinternationalhumanrightsobligations,especially \ sinceParliamenthasconsentedtotheseobligationswiththeStateparty'sratificationofthe H Covenant. 4 6.3Theauthorsubmitsthat,intheabsenceofanypoliticalmeanstoopposetheStateparty'spower,  \ judicialremediesweretheonlyavenuefortheauthortochallengehisexclusionfromthe H parliamentaryprecincts. 4 6.4Asfarastheclaimunderarticle19isconcerned,theauthorreiteratesthattheauthorfulfilledthe   necessarycriteriaforusingthepressconferenceroombecausethetopicoftheplannedpress  conferencewasoneofnationalinterest.TheHouseofCommonshadbannedtheauthorfromthe  CharlesLynchPressConferenceRoomtodenyhimtheuseofsuchacredibleforumforexpressing  hisopinionandtopreventthedisseminationofhispressconferencebythenationwidecable l channelwhichbroadcastspressconferencesheldintheparliamentarypressfacilities. X  6.5Accordingtotheauthor,therewasnoproofthattheauthorintendedtoincitehatredagainst 0"  Jewishpeopleduringtheplannedpressconference.Instead,thepressreleasestatedthathewasgoing #l! todiscussthedecisionoftheCanadianHumanRightsTribunalthattruthcouldnotbeinvokedas $X" adefenseinproceedingsundersection13oftheCanadianHumanRightsAct.CopiesoftheTribunal $D # decisionhadbeenpreparedfordistribution.However,theStatepartytendentiouslyadduced %0!$ argumentsofmoralitytointroducethataspectinthecase.Theauthorstressesthat,sincetheauthor &"% becameaCanadianresidentin1958,hehasneverbeenprosecutedfororfoundguiltyofincitement '#& ofhatredagainstJewishpeople.Hispreviousconvictionfor"spreadingfalsenews"hadbeen (#' overturnedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadain1992onthegroundsthatithadviolatedtheauthor's )$( constitutionalrighttofreedomofexpression. (12)  |*%)     m^   m^^݌ D-(, Ќ  AdditionalobservationsbytheStateparty:  7.1Bynote_verbale_of30May2002,theStatepartyprovidedinformationonthejudicial  interpretationofparliamentaryprivilegeandonthefinaldecisionoftheCanadianHumanRights t TribunalintheCitronv._Zndel_case. (13)  ` 7.2PursuanttoSection40oftheHumanRightsAct,anyindividualorgroupofindividualsclaiming <  tobeavictimofdiscriminatorypracticemayfileacomplaintwiththeCanadianHumanRights ( x Commission.Subjecttospecificadmissibilitycriteria,theCommissionismandatedtoinvestigate  d thecomplaintand,ifthecomplaintisnotdismissed,tomediateinordertoreachafriendly  P  settlement.Ifnosuchsettlementcanbereached,theCommissionmayreferthecomplainttothe  <  CanadianHumanRightsTribunal,anindependent,quasijudicialbodyempoweredtoconduct (  hearingsandtoadjudicatethematterbywayoforder.   7.3InJulyandSeptember1996,theTorontoMayor'sCommitteeonCommunityandRaceRelations   andSabinaCitron,aHolocaustsurvivor,lodgedtwoparallelcomplaintsagainsttheauthorunder   section13(1)oftheHumanRightsAct,allegingthatbypostingdiscriminatorymaterialonhis t website,theauthor"causedrepeatedtelephoniccommunicationthatwaslikelytoexposeJewsto ` hatredandcontempt".AftertheHumanRightsCommissionhadreferredthecomplainttotheHuman L RightsTribunalforahearingonthemerits,theTribunalissueditsfinaldecisionon18January2002, 8 orderingthattheauthor"oranyotherindividualswhoactinthenameof,orinconcertwithErnst $t _Zndel_Ԁceasethediscriminatory_practise_Ԁofcommunicatingtelephonically"materialofthetype ` beforetheTribunalandfoundonthe"_Zundelsite_","oranyothermessagesofasubstantiallysimilar L formorcontentthatarelikelytoexposeapersonorpersonstohatredorcontemptbyreasonofthe 8 factthat_that_Ԁpersonorpersonsareidentifiableonthebasisofaprohibitedgroundofdiscrimination, $ contrarytos.13(1)oftheCanadianHumanRightsAct".  7.4Section13(1)oftheCanadianHumanRightsAct(1985)provides:      i   ij݌̌  0  "Itisadiscriminatorypracticeforapersonoragroupofpersonsactinginconcertto p communicatetelephonicallyortocausetobesocommunicated,repeatedly,inwholeorin \  partbymeansofthefacilitiesofatelecommunicationundertakingwithinthelegislative H! authorityofParliament,anymatterthatislikelytoexposeapersonorpersonstohatredor 4"  contemptbyreasonofthefactthat_that_Ԁpersonorthosepersonsareidentifiableonthebasis  #p! ofaprohibitedgroundofdiscrimination." $\"(#(#     l   lm݌̌  0  TheprohibitedgroundsofdiscriminationarespecifiedinSection3(1)ofthatAct:%4!$(#(#     m   mm݌̌  0  "ForallpurposesofthisAct,theprohibitedgroundsofdiscriminationarerace,nationalor ' #& ethnicorigin,_colour_,religion,age,sex,sexualorientation,maritalstatus,familystatus, (#' disabilityandconvictionforwhichapardonhasbeengranted.")$((#(# 0  7.5InadditiontotheHumanRightsAct,theCanadianCriminalCodecontainsthree l+&* provisionsrelatingtohatepropaganda:(a)advocatinggenocide(section318),(b)public X,'+ incitementofhatred(section319,paragraph1)and(c)willfulpromotionofhatred(section D-(, 319,paragraph2).(#(# IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee:      ^q   ^qyq݌̌  8.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimcontainedinacommunication,theHumanRightsCommitteemust, ` inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornotthecommunicationis L  admissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. 8  8.2TheCommitteehasascertainedthatthesamematterisnotbeingexaminedunderanother  ` procedureofinternationalinvestigationorsettlementforpurposesofarticle5,paragraph2(a)ofthe  L  OptionalProtocol.UK.,US.,hCEUK.,  8  8.3Inrelationtotheallegedviolationofarticle3theCommitteefindsthattheauthorhasprovided   nosubstantiationforthisclaimwhichappearstobebeyondthescopeofthesaidprovision.   Consequently,theCommitteeconsidersthatthispartofthecommunicationisinadmissibleunder   articles2and3oftheOptionalProtocol.   8.4Withrespecttotheallegedviolationofarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,theCommittee \ observesthattheStatepartydoesnotcontesttheauthor'sclaimthatdomesticremediesareexhausted H inrespectofthedecisiontoexcludetheauthorfromtheprecinctsoftheHouseofCommons"during 4 andfortheremainderofthepresentsession",withtheconsequenceofpreventingtheauthorfrom  p holdingthepressconferencehehadannounced. Consequently,theauthor'sclaimunderarticle19,  \ paragraph2,isnotinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol. L 8.5However,anddespitetheStateparty'swillingnesstoaddressthemeritsofthecommunication, $ theCommitteeconsidersthattheauthor'sclaimisincompatiblewitharticle19oftheCovenantand  thereforeinadmissible_ratione_Ԁ_materiae_underarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.Althoughtheright  tofreedomofexpression,asenshrinedinarticle19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant,extendstothe  choiceofmedium,itdoesnotamounttoanunfetteredrightofanyindividualorgrouptoholdpress  conferenceswithintheParliamentaryprecincts,ortohavesuchpressconferencesbroadcastby p others.WhileitistruethattheauthorhadobtainedabookingwiththePressGalleryfortheCharles \  LynchPressConferenceRoomandthatthisbookingwasmadeinapplicablethroughthemotion H! passedunanimouslybyParliamenttoexcludetheauthor'saccesstotheParliamentaryprecincts,the 4"  Committeenotesthattheauthorremainedatlibertytoholdapressconferenceelsewhere.The  #p! Committeethereforetakestheposition,afteracarefulexaminationofthematerialbeforeit,thatthe  $\" author'sclaim,basedontheinabilitytoholdapressconferenceintheCharlesLynchpress $H # ConferenceRoom,fallsoutsidethescopeoftherighttofreedomofexpression,asprotectedunder %4!$ article19,paragraph2,oftheCovenant. & "% 8.6Finally,inrelationtotheallegedviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant,theCommitteefindsthat (#' thispartofthecommunicationisinadmissibleforfailuretoexhaustdomesticremedies,underarticle )$( 5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocol.TheCommitteenotesthat,inhisstatementofclaim *%) submittedtotheOntarioCourt,theauthorclaimstobeavictimofaviolationofhisrighttofreedom l+&* ofexpressionguaranteedbysection2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomswithout, X,'+ however,assertingaviolationofhisequalityrightsundersection15(1) (14) oftheCharter.The D-(, author'sargumentthatanycomplainttotheeffectthathewasdiscriminatedagainstwouldhavebeen  dismissedongroundsofparliamentaryprivilegeispurelyconjectural,and,therefore,doesnot  absolvehimfromseekingtoexhaustdomesticremedies.  9.TheCommitteethereforedecides: ` (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticles2,3and5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptional 8  Protocol; $ t (b)Thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorand,forinformation,totheStateparty.  L  [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequently   tobeissuedinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttotheGeneral   Assembly.]   **/ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent p communication:Mr._Prafullachandra_Ԁ_Natwarlal_Ԁ_Bhagwati_,Mr.Maurice_Gll_Ԁ_Ahanhanzo_,Mr. \ Walter_Klin_,Mr.Ahmed_Tawfik_Ԁ_Khalil_,Mr._Rajsoomer_Ԁ_Lallah_,Mr.Rafael_Rivas_Ԁ_Posada_,SirNigel H _Rodley_,Mr.Martin_Scheinin_,Mr.IvanShearer,Mr._Hip;lito_Ԁ_Solari_Ԁ_Yrigoyen_,Ms.RuthWedgwood, 4 Mr.Roman_Wieruszewski_ԀandMr.Maxwell_Yalden_.  p Notes 4     3   3N݌̌  1/TheCovenantandtheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenantbothenteredintoforcefortheState   partyon19May1976.      1   1L݌̌  2/CanadianHumanRightsTribunal,Citronv._Zundel_,interimdecisionof25May1998.  3/Italics,boldsandunderlinesasusedintheoriginalpressrelease. X  4/TheStatepartyreferstoasimilarfindingbytheHumanRightsCommitteein_Gauthier_Ԁv. 0"  Canada,CommunicationNo.633/1995,viewsadoptedon7April1999,UNDoc. #l! _CCPR_/C/65/D/633/1995,5May1999,atpara.13.5. $X" 5/Inthisregard,theStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceinRossv.Canada, %0!$ CommunicationNo.736/1997,viewsadoptedon18October2000,UNDoc. &"% _CCPR_/C/70/D/736/1997,26October2000,atpara.11.5andin_Faurisson_Ԁv.France, '#& CommunicationNo.550/1993,viewsadoptedon8November1996,UNDoc. (#' _CCPR_/C/58/D/550/1993,16December1996,atpara.9.6. )$( 6/HumanRightsCommittee,19thsession(1983),GeneralComment11:Prohibitionof h+&* propagandaforwarandincitingnational,racialorreligioushatred(Article20),adoptedon29July T,'+ 1983,atpara.2. @-(, Ї7/Article4oftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllformsofRacial  Discriminationreads:"StatesPartiescondemnallpropagandaandallorganizationswhicharebased  onideasortheoriesofsuperiorityofoneraceorgroupofpersonsofonecolourorethnicorigin,or  whichattempttojustifyorpromoteracialhatredanddiscriminationinanyform,andundertaketo t adoptimmediateandpositivemeasuresdesignedtoeradicateallincitementto,oractsof,such ` discriminationand,tothisend,withdueregardtotheprinciplesembodiedintheUniversal L  DeclarationofHumanRightsandtherightsexpresslysetforthinarticle5ofthisConvention,inter 8  alia: $ t 0  (a)Shalldeclareanoffencepunishablebylawalldisseminationofideasbasedonracial  L  superiorityorhatred,incitementtoracialdiscrimination,aswellasallactsofviolenceor  8  incitementtosuchactsagainstanyraceorgroupofpersonsofanothercolourorethnic $  origin,andalsotheprovisionofanyassistancetoracistactivities,includingthefinancing   thereof; (#(# 0  (b)Shalldeclareillegalandprohibitorganizations,andalsoorganizedandallother   propagandaactivities,whichpromoteandinciteracialdiscrimination,andshallrecognize p participationinsuchorganizationsoractivitiesasanoffencepunishablebylaw;\(#(# 0  (c)Shallnotpermitpublicauthoritiesorpublicinstitutions,nationalorlocal,topromoteor 4 inciteracialdiscrimination." p(#(# 8/TheStatepartyalsoemphasizesthat,accordingtoGeneralRecommendationXVofthe H CommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination,"theprohibitionofthedisseminationofall 4 ideasbaseduponracialsuperiorityorhatrediscompatiblewiththerighttofreedomofopinionand   expression".SeeGeneralRecommendationXV:Organizedviolencebasedonethnicorigin(Article   4),adoptedon23March1993,atpara.4.  9/TheStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sViewsin_Gauthier_Ԁv.Canada,CommunicationNo.  633/1995,Viewsadoptedon7April1999,UNDoc._CCPR_/C/65/D/633/1995,5May1999,atpara. l 13.6. X  10/InCanadianconstitutionallaw,thenotionof"privileges"referstothelegalpowersof 0"  Parliament. #l! 11/SupremeCourtofCanada,NewBrunswickBroadcastingCo.v.NovaScotia,[1993]1S.C.R., $D # atpp.384385. %0!$ 12/SeeSupremeCourtofCanada,R.v._Zundel_,[1992]2S.C.R.,pp.731844. '#& 13/CanadianHumanRightsTribunal,Citronv._Zndel_,decisionof18January2002. )$( 14/Section15(1)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedomsreads:"Everyindividualisequal h+&* beforeandunderthelawandhastherighttotheequalprotectionandequalbenefitofthelaw T,'+ withoutdiscriminationand,inparticular,withoutdiscriminationbasedonrace,nationalorethnic @-(, origin,colour,religion,sex,ageormentalorphysicaldisability."  {