OTTAWA, June 22 (LSN) - In a May 25 ruling, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decided that exposing the truth about a person or group is illegal in Canada, if it could be interpreted to open the person or group to “hatred or contempt.” Columnist Rory Leishman covered the story June 15 in the London Free Press. At issue was Ernst Zundel’s attempts to justify his absurd denial of the Jewish holocaust. The tribunal, led by Claude Pensa, said the truth or falsity of Zundel’s claims is irrelevant. “The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will evoke the emotion, but rather how it is understood by the recipient.” Leishman notes that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act bans communications by telephone or over the Internet that express hatred or contempt based on “race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, (or) conviction for which a pardon has been granted.” Thus true statements about people given special status in the CHRA could be illegal, if they could be interpreted to engender hatred or contempt. Few would sympathize with Zundel’s cause; but many might fear the implications of the tribunal’s decision. It is quite possible, for example, that Christians preaching from St. Paul could be falsely interpreted as engendering contempt of sexually-active homosexuals. Leishman calls for the repeal of the CHRA, pointing out that the Zundel decision is not a novel one in finding truth irrelevant. In 1990, in a similar case, former Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “I am of the view that the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) does not mandate an exception for truthful statements in the context of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”