HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN
BEST LETTER •  RIZK REPORT •  PRYTULAK REPLY

Lubomyr Prytulak Reply to Hannya Rizk Investigator's Report
Lubomyr Prytulak to Mary M Gusella   27-May-2004

Mary M Gusella, Chief Commissioner
Mary M Gusella
Chief Commissioner
"Such a Canadian Jewish Congress enterprise is undeserving of success, and in fact has already failed the resort to spoliation being a confession of impotence, and the resort to wholesale spoliation being a symptom of panic.  From such a catastrophic collapse of the CJC Complaint, there can be no recovery all that remains is to see how many additional people the CJC will implicate in its skulduggery, and how deeply into disrepute it will drag them." Lubomyr Prytulak


  27-May-2004


Mary M Gusella, Chief Commissioner
Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)
344 Slater Street
Ottawa, ON    K1A 1E1


Re: File 20031527, UKAR reply to CHRC Investigator's Report


Dear Ms Gusella:


The instant letter constitutes the Lubomyr Prytulak reply to the two Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) papers received on 21-May-2004:

Exceptional circumstances, documented below, discovered in reading the two above papers make it impossible to confine the instant reply to the ten pages recommended in the Suzanne Best Covering Letter.

If Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) v Ukrainian Archive (UKAR), File 20031527, is submitted to what might be called the "Disposition Committee" in June, Lubomyr Prytulak requests that the instant letter dated 27-May-2004 be included among the documents presented to the Disposition Committee, and suggests that failure to disclose the instant letter to the Disposition Committee would constitute a denial of Prytulak's right to be heard.  However, a quandary which will be left for the CHRC to resolve is that the CHRC has as yet failed to conduct the required investigation, such that File 20031527 is not ready for presentation to the Disposition Committee, as will be documented below.


The CHRC is Guilty of Wholesale Spoliation of Prytulak Submissions

The two above-mentioned CHRC papers invite a reasonable apprehension that the CHRC is biased in favor of Complainant CJC and against Respondent Lubomyr Prytulak, the bias manifesting itself for the greater part in spoliating which is to say, suppressing or destroying all Prytulak submissions except one of secondary importance, and of showing intent to continue this wholesale spoliation into future CHRC proceedings.  Specifically, the only Prytulak submission whose contents the two above CHRC documents acknowledge is the following Prytulak-to-Helgason letter:

  1. 22-Dec-2003  Sherri Helgason: Respondent request for adequate time to answer  www.ukar.org/chrc/chrc05.html
The above Prytulak-to-Helgason letter is the only Prytulak document relied on in the Best Covering Letter and in the Rizk Investigator's Report despite that Prytulak-to-Helgason letter emphasizing in its last paragraph that it did not constitute Prytulak's answer to the CJC Complaint:

The instant letter is not Lubomyr Prytulak's answer to the Canadian Jewish Congress complaint, but only a request for adequate time to answer, with a small number of issues glanced at that follow from a consideration of the age of the UKAR material complained of.

Altogether suppressed in the Rizk Report were the following nine letters addressed to employees of the CHRC:

  1. 09-Dec-2003  Sherri Helgason: Prytulak Rejection of CHRC Censorship  www.ukar.org/chrc/chrc03.html
  2. 19-Dec-2003  Kessie Joseph: Repeat Request for Complaint Materials  www.ukar.org/chrc/chrc04.html
  3. 20-Dec-2003  Mary M Gusella: Concerned About Richard Warman  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell01.html
  4. 09-Jan-2004  Mary M Gusella: Disclosure of usage statistics and personnel data  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell02.html
  5. 12-Jan-2004  Mary M Gusella: Muslims are targets of hate propaganda too  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell03.html
  6. 06-Feb-2004  Mary M Gusella: I join the boycott of the CHRC hate-messaging unit  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell04.html
  7. 20-Feb-2004  Mary M Gusella: UKAR philo-Semitism encounters a snarling Rottweiler  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell05.html
  8. 06-May-2004  Mary M Gusella: UKAR reply to the CJC Complaint of anti-Semitism  www.ukar.org/chrc/gusell06.html
  9. 10-May-2004  Lubomyr Prytulak (UKAR) to Sherri Helgason (CHRC)  www.ukar.org/chrc07.html

Altogether suppressed in the Rizk Report, also, were the following six letters addressed to other than CHRC employees, but that were copied to Chief Commissioner, Mary M Gusella:

  1. 28-Jan-2004  Ed Morgan: CJC Fanaticism Infects the University of Toronto  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan02.html
  2. 06-Feb-2004  Ed Morgan: Fine words plus lousy deeds equals hypocrisy  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan03.html
  3. 12-Feb-2004  Ed Morgan: Spreading poison about Canadian Jews  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan04.html
  4. 21-Feb-2004  Ed Morgan: Was the decision to ghettoize democratic?  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan05.html
  5. 07-Apr-2004  Ed Morgan: Why no reply?  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan06.html
  6. 21-Apr-2004  Ed Morgan: Who was the anonymous caller?  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan07.html

On top of that, the CHRC might be expected to have read UKAR documents that had been cited and linked within the above letters, but which are too numerous to itemize here.

And finally, the CHRC might be expected to have acquainted itself with all documents on the UKAR web site for the reason that the CHRC is obligated to know what it is being asked to suppress, and not to imagine that it already knows this from the one one-thousandth of one percent of the site that the CJC has quoted in its Complaint, out of context and riddled with errors and with indefensible and prejudicial CJC commentary attached.  Among the discoveries that such a comprehensive reading would permit is that much of the UKAR web site contains material unrelated to the CJC Complaint, as for example the Lubomyr Prytulak book on scientific method at www.ukar.org/corr/corr02.html.  And another reason why the CHRC is obligated to acquaint itself with the entire UKAR web site is that it provides the context which gives meaning to complained-of UKAR passages.  "The danger to be avoided is the dissection of an overall inoffensive whole into incriminating fragments" (attributed to Maxon J. by Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada, 2nd edition, 5-16).  If an offending passage is the "bane," then the CHRC is obligated to search the environs of that bane for a possible "antidote" capable of rendering the whole harmless, as is required in defamation actions:

Under the law of defamation, if something disreputable to a plaintiff is stated in one part of a publication, but this stain is removed in another part of the same publication, the bane and antidote must be taken together when a court is asked to consider whether the publication is defamatory of the plaintiff.
Attributed to Brooke L.J. in Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 5-16.

For such several reasons, then, the CHRC was obligated to read not only such key Respondent submissions as are cited above, but also the entire Ukrainian Archive web site, and the CHRC's seeming failure to have done either of these presents an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the CHRC disposing of CJC v UKAR equitably.  Such extensive reading should have begun with the documents cited above, and then continued toward mastery of the entire site by digesting next the 15 letters cited immediately below which were written with the CJC v UKAR proceedings particularly in mind, and which were cited on the UKAR CHRC INDEX page at www.ukar.org/chrc/chrc.html as being relevant to the CJC v UKAR proceedings:

  1. 24-Dec-2003  Bernie Farber: Bernie Farber runs into Max Silverman  www.ukar.org/farber04.html
  2. 20-Jan-2004  Ed Morgan: The Martin-Luther-King-Was-A-Zionist Hoax  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan01.html
  3. 10-Mar-2004  Paul Martin: What kind of Justice Minister have you appointed?  www.ukar.org/martin/martin01.html
  4. 13-Mar-2004  Irwin Cotler: Who's afraid of holocaust denial?  www.ukar.org/cotler/cotler01.html
  5. 14-Mar-2004  Paul Martin: American war crimes  www.ukar.org/martin/martin02.html
  6. 15-Mar-2004  Paul Martin: Italian War Crimes  www.ukar.org/martin/martin03.html
  7. 16-Mar-2004  Paul Martin: Still more Jewish war crimes  www.ukar.org/martin/martin04.html
  8. 25-Mar-2004  Paul Martin: Irwin Cotler collaboration with Steven Rambam  www.ukar.org/martin/martin05.html
  9. 26-Mar-2004  Leonard Asper: Do you wage war on Ukrainians?  www.ukar.org/lasper/lasper01.html
  10. 04-Apr-2004  Paul Martin: Disenfranchising Ukrainians, Germans, and Lithuanians  www.ukar.org/martin/martin06.html
  11. 27-Apr-2004  Paul Martin: Irwin Cotler Leadership in the Deschenes Commission Witch Hunt  www.ukar.org/martin/martin07.html
  12. 02-May-2004  Paul Martin: Comparing American-British with Ukrainian war crimes  www.ukar.org/martin/martin08.html
  13. 14-May-2004  Paul Martin: Please dismantle the CHRC hate-messaging unit  www.ukar.org/martin/martin09.html
  14. 16-May-2004  Ed Morgan: A recent war-atrocity story debunked  www.ukar.org/morgan/morgan08.html
  15. 19-May-2004  Paul Martin: What David Zimet tells us about Irwin Cotler  www.ukar.org/martin/martin10.html

CHRC Spoliation Expurgates Prytulak's Central Challenge to Jurisdiction

Particularly inexcusable has been CHRC spoliation of the Prytulak-to-Gusella letter of 20-Feb-2004 because this letter contains Prytulak's paramount defense, and which letter within its opening paragraph identifies itself as containing material of central importance: "The instant letter presents one further argument, this one being among the most determinative namely that UKAR does not discriminate on the basis of national or ethnic origin, or religion, and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) § 13."

What Prytulak's main defense argues is the indispensability of distinguishing between (a) disliking Jews on the ground that they are Jews, which logically excludes the possibility of liking some Jews, and (b) joining with one faction of Jews to criticize a segment of the Jewish leadership that happens to be corrupt.  It is only the former that falls within the jurisdiction of the CHRA; it is only the latter that UKAR occasionally engages in.  It is not the Jewish people who complain of UKAR, but rather it is a segment of corrupt Jewish leadership.  It is not the Jewish people who can anticipate harm from UKAR, it is the corrupt Jewish leadership which rightly fears the Jewish people sweeping it out of office.

Had Prytulak arguments on this question been read instead of suppressed, CHRC personnel would have recognized the inadequacy of the summary of the CJC Complaint which appears in Rizk Report paragraph (1): "The complainant alleges that the respondent is repeatedly communicating messages through the internet which are likely to expose members of the Jewish community to hatred or contempt."  What CHRC personnel would have recognized is that this statement can be construed in two senses, one which falls within the jurisdiction of the CHRC, and one which does not.  The construction which does fall within the jurisdiction of the CHRC has the following italicized material understood: "The complainant alleges that the respondent repeatedly communicates messages over the Internet which are likely to expose all members of the Jewish community to hatred or contempt on the ground that they are Jewish."  And the construction which falls outside the jurisdiction of the CHRC has the alternative italicized material understood: "The complainant alleges that the respondent repeatedly communicates messages over the Internet which are likely to expose some members of the Jewish community to hatred or contempt on the ground that they are corrupt."  In the case where only some members of the Jewish community are exposed, then the ground of UKAR discrimination is obviously something other than the prohibited ground of religion, and so the CHRC is without jurisdiction.  Or if the ground of UKAR discrimination is corruption, then this is not a prohibited ground, and the CHRC is without jurisdiction to limit the inciting of emotions against the corrupt.  The alternative is unthinkable in a free and democratic society which would be the suppression of criticism of any Jews, followed inevitably by the claiming of the same privilege by other groups, with the asymptote approached being the prohibition of all criticism, which to the mind of a child might seem a Utopia.

Such is the core of Prytulak's defense, and it is supported in the above Prytulak-to-Gusella letter by some startling data; as that letter is spoliated, however, neither Prytulak's argument nor his data make any appearance in the Rizk Report.

On this question, the CHRC would do well to avoid attempting to ground its excess of jurisdiction upon a misrepresentation of the CHRA, which is what it does when it includes the words "segments of" in the Suzanne Best statement below:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has received a complaint from Len Rudner alleging that your website (the Ukrainian Archive) is discriminating against persons or groups of persons because of religion and national or ethnic origin by communicating messages to Internet newsgroups which would likely expose individuals who are of the Jewish faith, and segments of the Jewish faith identified by their national or ethnic origin to hatred and/or contempt contrary to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Suzanne Best, Covering letter dated 27-Nov-2003 accompanying original CJC Complaint dated 07-Nov-2003, at www.ukar.org/cjc01.html, bold emphasis added.

However, the fact that only segments of an ethnic-national-religious group are being exposed to disapproval is the unmistakable signal that ethnic-national-religious group membership is not the ground of the disapproval, and is thus the unmistakable signal that the CHRC is without jurisdiction.  The CHRA does not authorize prosecution for discrimination against segments of any ethnic-national-religious group, and must not be implied to so authorize.

But to return to the question of spoliation fair and reasonable operation of the CHRC would require that submissions delivered to different CHRC personnel be collected in a central file, and that any CHRC employee who obtained relevant information would share it with others working on the file.  The alternative which the CHRC seems in fact to have implemented (suppressing or destroying submissions without notification to the sender) might only be justified if the CHRC first proclaimed that it operated formally, and if it published all active rules of procedure, among which would have to be rules defining which submissions would be filed and which spoliated.  The CHRC's being given leave to operate informally is surely for the purpose of expediting justice, and not for the purpose of permitting the CHRC to choke off the voice of one of the parties.

What excuse, then, can the CHRC offer for having failed to include in the Investigator's Report the argument which Prytulak identifies as "among the most determinative"?  What justification can the CHRC offer for this lack of coordination within the CHRC, and this abandonment of any pretense to fairness?  Of what use can it be for a CHRC investigator to have the power to obtain search warrants, and to enter premises, and to demand of all individuals discovered in the raided premises to turn over relevant documents (as described in CHRA § 43), when the investigator's own boss may be sitting on a pile of the most relevant documents without telling anyone?  And most importantly will the individual responsible for the decision to spoliate Prytulak documents step forward and disclose under what authority he or she acted?


CHRC Spoliation Expurgates Prytulak's Reply to the Complaint of Jewish-Holocaust Denial

What the CJC Complaint describes as Jewish-holocaust denial is nothing more culpable than a debunking of war-atrocity stories, a subject that Lubomyr Prytulak has written about at length, as at:

The CJC considers reinterpretation of any detail of the Jewish holocaust as a manifestation of denial, in that the reinterpretation denies the interpretation demanded by the dominant segment of Jewish leadership.  Under this rule, the reinterpretation that collaboration in the Jewish holocaust was more often practiced by Jews than by Ukrainians constitutes Jewish-holocaust denial:

Debunking even of palpable disinformation concerning the Jewish holocaust constitutes Jewish-holocaust denial, and so that debunking the Fifty-Confessions Hoax and the Deschenes Commission are varieties of Jewish-holocaust denial, and so that the CHRC is obligated to read, and has no authority to spoliate, the following Prytulak discussion of the Fifty-Confessions Hoax and of the Deschenes Commission, respectively:
CHRC Spoliation Expurgates Prytulak's Reply to the Complaint of Anti-Semitism

The CHRC spoliation of the following Prytulak-to-Gusella letter constitutes an expurgation of Prytulak's refutation of one of the most reprehensible of the CJC Complaints:
Appear, and you shall not be heard!

The above-documented suppression or destruction of Prytulak submissions constitutes spoliation, with which Lubomyr Prytulak is thoroughly acquainted, having been the victim of it in proceedings before the Los Angeles Superior court, to the ultimate discredit of the spoliators, as documented in the Prytulak Opening Brief before the California Court of Appeal at www.ukar.org/temp/a-2003-08-09.html#VII, and as has been supported by the Court's decision in Prytulak's favor which can be read at www.ukar.org/temp/b166388.pdf these two legal documents being among those which the CJC today asks the CHRC to suppress sight unseen.  Prytulak was surprised by the appearance of a similar spoliation in Ottawa; surprised, that is, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission echoing the coram non judice Los Angeles Superior Court cry, "Appear, and you shall not be heard!"

The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence.  Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable.  This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations.  A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.  That there must be notice to a party of some kind, actual or constructive, to a valid judgment affecting his rights, is admitted.  Until notice is given, the court has no jurisdiction in any case to proceed to judgment, whatever its authority may be, by the law of its organization, over the subject-matter.  But notice is only for the purpose of affording the party an opportunity of being heard upon the claim of the charges made; it is a summons to him to appear and speak, if he has anything to say why the judgment sought should not be rendered.  A denial to a party of the benefit of a notice would be in effect to deny that he is entitled to notice at all, and the sham and deceptive proceeding had better be omitted altogether.  It would be like saying to a party, Appear and you shall be heard; and, when he has appeared, saying, Your appearance shall not be recognized, and you shall not be heard.  In the present case, the district court not only in effect said this, but immediately added a decree of condemnation, reciting that the default of all persons had been duly entered.  It is difficult to speak of a decree thus rendered with moderation; it was in fact a mere arbitrary edict clothed in the form of a judicial sentence.
Windsor v McVeigh, 93 US 277, cited in Hovey v Elliott, 167 US 409, 17 SupCt 841 (1897), from Book 42, Lawyer's Edition.  A more extensive discussion of this question can be found in the Lubomyr Prytulak 11-Apr-2003 letter to Los Angeles Superior Court judge James R. Dunn, Appear and you shall not be heard at  www.ukar.org/temp/dunn04.html

Prytulak was surprised by the appearance of spoliation in Ottawa but perhaps he should not have been, because the Plaintiff in California, convicted terrorist bomber Steven Rambam, was from the same gang of CJC Fifty-Confessions Hoaxers who today seek suppression of UKAR through their Ottawa complaint, a gang of hoaxers in which Justice Minister Irwin Cotler is a card-carrying member, as has been documented in The Fifty-Confessions Hoaxers picking themselves off the floor so soon after their California defeat and trying the same failed tactic spoliation calls to mind the lack of conscience and inability to learn from experience which Prytulak discusses in his demand for parity in rendering psychiatric diagnoses:

Piecemeal Investigator's Reports Are Unauthorized

Lubomyr Prytulak views as indicative of CHRC fraudulent intent the discrepancy between the Rizk Report's title and the reference to the Report in the Suzanne Best Covering Letter.  The title of the Rizk Report, on the one hand, is simply "Investigator's Report" which is as it should be.  That is, the CHRA authorizes a single Investigator's Report, and this is it.  The Suzanne Best Covering Letter, in contrast, states: "A copy of the report on the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the complaint is enclosed for your review."  However, a report on only jurisdiction is not authorized by the CHRA.  Rather, the CHRA authorizes a single report:

Thus, in addressing only (a) timeliness and (b) the exhaustion of alternative recourses, but not (c) merit, the Rizk Report does not comply with CHRA § 44 requirements.  Respondent Prytulak is distressed that not having been informed what documents will be supplied the Disposition Committee, and having strong reason to fear that predominantly CJC documents will be supplied, he perceives that he has no protection from the Disposition Committee regarding the "Investigator's Report" silence on the question of merit as signifying that Prytulak stands nolo contendere on the gravamen of the charge, than which nothing could be farther from the truth.  Prytulak perceives that he has no guarantee that the Disposition Committee will be shown the Suzanne Best Covering Letter, or that its sentence explaining what the "Investigator's Report" really is will be brought to the Disposition Committee's attention the sentence that explains that the "Investigator's Report" is really only a review of the questions of timeliness and alternative recourse.  Prytulak perceives that the Disposition Committee might never learn that the "Investigator's Report" ignores all but a single Prytulak submission, and might never learn that this single submission cautions that it is not Prytulak's answer to the CJC Complaint.

To prevent such a misrepresentation and undermining of the Prytulak position, it is essential that all who may be involved in the future processing of CJC v UKAR be provided with copies of the instant Prytulak-to-Gusella submission dated 27-May-2004.


The Litmus Test of Cruelty

Lubomyr Prytulak did not answer all the allegations in the CJC Complaint because he already had done more than enough to totally defeat the CJC Complaint, and because he expected Investigator Hannya Rizk to recognize its ineffectiveness from no more than reading it, and expected her to discover further confirmation for her conclusion by reading the UKAR web site.  The allegation relating to cruelty, in particular, struck Prytulak as illogical and ill considered, and he particularly awaited Hannya Rizk's declaring as much in her report.  Here is that CJC-Complaint allegation concerning cruelty:

3.    Antisemitic Canards (Cruelty, Disloyalty, Dishonesty)

Cruelty

Mr. Prytulak states, without proof, that Kosher ritual slaughter is cruel and inhumane.  He relies on insinuation to make this claim.  This insult is especially grievous, given the many prohibitions that rabbinical authorities have set down through the centuries to ensure that animals are treated humanely and with compassion.  Prytulak's "conclusion" is presented below:

"In view of the evidence that gratuitous and avoidable cruelty continues to be associated with Jewish ritual slaughter, then it is indeed reasonable to expect that the non-Jewish public would avoid meat identified as kosher, and conceivable even that if more Jews became aware of what their own representatives were doing in the slaughterhouse, that Jews themselves would begin avoiding ritually-slaughtered meat."

What Prytulak expected from Hannya Rizk first was that she would notice, from merely reading the CJC statement above, that the CHRC lacked jurisdiction because Prytulak had not said that all Jews were cruel, but only that ritual slaughter was cruel.  As almost no Jews perform or participate in ritual slaughter, then almost no Jews can be implicated in this cruel act.  And for UKAR readers to whom this insight does not occur spontaneously, there can be read within the CJC-quoted UKAR statement above that Prytulak believes Jews to be generally unaware of the cruelty of ritual slaughter, and believes that if they discovered how cruel it was, they would oppose it.

To sum up if Lubomyr Prytulak had said that Jews were cruel because they were Jews, this would have been discrimination on the ground of religion, and so would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the CHRC; however, as Prytulak actually does say that Jews collectively are unaware of the cruelty of a practice participated in by obviously an infinitesimal proportion of Jews, this unmistakably lies outside the jurisdiction of the CHRC.  More succinctly, the criterion of Prytulak disapproval is cruelty and not Jewishness; however, a CHRA-prohibited ground of disapproval is Jewishness but not cruelty.  As the CHRA does not proscribe discrimination on the ground of cruelty, there is no basis for CHRC prosecution.  Lubomyr Prytulak does not take a stand against Jews, but rather learned of the cruelty of ritual slaughter from Jews, and decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in their opposition to ritual slaughter.  The ignorance of the CHRA displayed by the writer of the CJC Complaint Len Rudner, presumably, since he signed it is staggering, and the frivolous and meritless nature of the complaint is blatant, and Hannya Rizk's failure to decry this in her report is disappointing.

An examination of the UKAR web site reveals a second fatal flaw in the CJC Complaint concerning cruelty that when Len Rudner says and emphasizes in bold that Prytulak levels the accusation of cruelty "without proof," and relying only "on insinuation," Rudner can readily be discovered to be mistaken by means of the evidence heaped up at At the very top of the above Prytulak-to-Ronen letter can be found in big, bold, red letters a rather unmistakable indication that Prytulak may not be making things up or insinuating them, but rather may be passing along the information of reputable authorities who have investigated the phenomenon and are in a position to know:

"We are united against the slaughter of conscious animals, consider it a horror in itself, and an abomination when coupled with the vicious devices used to restrain conscious livestock.  We have nothing to gain, neither on earth nor in heaven, by slaughtering God's creatures while they are conscious." Rabbi Dr. Eugen Kullman

Scanning down that same Prytulak-to-Ronen letter immediately reveals a number of people who don't merely hypothesize that Jewish ritual slaughter may be cruel, but who are in fact so convinced that it is cruel as to be willing to attach their names to the allegation on the pages of the New York Times, the list of such individuals including: The above is among the first information to strike the eye upon consulting the Prytulak-to-Ronen letter.  Much additional evidence follows in that letter, too voluminous to summarize here.  But no more than a glimpse at some of the signatories of a New York Times advertisement opposing the cruelty of ritual slaughter indicates that such opposition is responsible, and suggests that Len Rudner wrote "without proof" without having read the proof supplied in the Prytulak-to-Ronen letter, and suggests also that Hannya Rizk allowed Len Rudner's complaint concerning cruelty to stand unchallenged because she hadn't read the Prytulak-to-Ronen letter either.

The CJC Complaint concerning cruelty, then, appears to have been hurriedly thrown together, with insufficient consultation of either the CHRA to verify that the complaint had some basis in law, or of UKAR to verify that it had some basis in fact.  The complaint concerning cruelty, then, is trivial, frivolous, and meritless, brought recklessly and irresponsibly by a CJC writer handicapped by "an insufficient regard for evidentiary support" an expression coined in my last letter to you at precisely the following location: The above 22-Mar-2000 Prytulak-to-Ronen letter on ritual slaughter put many questions to Moshe Ronen, among them the following:

How humane is Jewish ritual slaughter in Canada today?  Has Jewish ritual slaughter in Canada won exemption from humane-slaughtering legislation the way that it has won exemption in jurisdictions outside Canada?  Has any Jewish ritual slaughtering in Canada today taken steps in the direction of adopting humane practices?

For the CJC to allow such questions to stand unanswered, and after an interval of four years to attempt to suppress the questions instead of answering them, will be taken by some to signify that the CJC is aware that Jewish ritual slaughter is cruel, and that the CJC after four years of searching has found no better reply to the questions than censoring them.


The Commission intends to extend its spoliation into the Disposition Hearing

Not only has Hannya Rizk excluded the Prytulak voice from her Rizk Report, so also does the Suzanne Best Covering Letter indicate that investigative services plans to exclude the Prytulak voice from the Disposition Hearing this June.

That is, the Suzanne Best Covering Letter dated 19-May-2004 mentions that "documents" will not be placed before the Disposition Committee:  "Documents which the parties provided and that have already been reviewed will not be placed before the Commission."  As it would be incongruous for investigators to place documents before the Disposition Committee which contained material excluded from the Rizk Report, it may be inferred that Prytulak submissions will be classified as "documents," and that they will be withheld from the Disposition Hearing.

But in the next paragraph of the Suzanne Best Covering Letter, it is revealed that some other papers are to be considered not "documents" but "submissions," and that such "submissions" will be placed before the Disposition Committee: "Submissions received from the parties, along with the complaint and the attached report, will be provided to the Commission when it makes a decision on the disposition of the complaint."

To summarize, the only two papers that the Suzanne Best Covering Letter says will be placed before the Disposition Committee are the CJC Complaint, and the Rizk Report, which already stacks the cards in favor of the CJC.  On top of that, some papers will be considered "documents," and these the Disposition Committee will not be permitted to see it being possible that these will be Prytulak papers.  Other papers will be called "submissions," and these the Disposition Committee will be permitted to see it being possible that these will be Canadian Jewish Congress papers.  The distinction between "documents" and "submissions" is not discussed within the CHRA, and Suzanne Best fails to define them, and fails to disclose precisely what papers the Disposition Committee will rely on all of which does little to allay the apprehension of CHRC fraudulent intent.

In view of the bias displayed by the CHRC both in its discriminatory funding over the years, and in its conduct of the instant CJC v UKAR proceedings, there can be little doubt that the Suzanne Best Covering Letter together with the Hannya Rizk Investigator's Report announce that the CHRC intends to conduct proceedings that are supposed to be adversarial, but with the UKAR voice choked off, and with the CJC chance of prevailing enhanced by being the only voice in the room.  Where the interests of justice require a debate, the CHRC intends instead to stage a monologue.


Timeliness and Alternative Redress

On the question of timeliness, Prytulak has already pointed out that the complained-of material came to the attention of the CJC from four to six years ago, and that the common law does not recognize the concept of an "ongoing" libel, and the CHRA does not contemplate an "ongoing" hate message as is evidenced by the CHRA not anywhere employing the words "ongoing" or "continuous" or "continuing," and that intake officer Kessie Joseph would not permit Lubomyr Prytulak to describe hate messaging on the Canadian Jewish Congress web site that he at one time wished to complain of as "ongoing," but rather demanded a date of discovery as a precondition for filing a complaint.

On the question of alternative redress, Prytulak has always offered as standard policy, and continues to offer, instant and unabridged publication on UKAR of all complaints, along with instant and comprehensive amendment or retraction where inaccuracy or unfairness are demonstrated a remedy which in many countries around the world provides the chief means of answering the complaint of libel, with many advantages over the alternative of litigation with which we are more familiar:

The right of reply gives any private citizen an inexpensive, expeditious, and convenient remedy for combating misstatements about himself in the press.  Instead of undergoing the trials and tribulations of a libel suit which, even if he wins, will not be reported in the press, he can usually get his reply published within three days.  In most cases he will not need to hire a lawyer or go to court.  He can attack misstatements directly without dragging in extraneous questions about the defendant's fault and the amount of damages.  He does not lay himself open to any charge of being a blackmailer or "a typical libel plaintiff."
Richard C. Donnelly, The right of reply: An alternative to an action for libel, 34 Virginia Law Review 867 (1948). pp. 897-898.

By way of demonstration of Prytulak readiness to redress is the instance of his having relied on Iraqi-abuse photographs which proved to be fraudulent.  Of note is that Prytulak did not wait to be asked to retract, but rather he monitored and published the growing doubt concerning the photographs, and at the very moment that they were discredited, not only retracted, but went farther than any of the other parties who similarly retracted like the Daily Mirror by also publishing an analysis blaming himself for having been fooled: In like wise, any evidence of inaccuracy or unfairness of any UKAR material, no matter through what channel it is discovered, or from what source it originates, or how inaptly it is phrased, will always have the same effect of full publication of the alternative view, and of full revision or retraction as called for, and with the same energy in dissecting Prytulak's errors as he demonstrates in dissecting the errors of others.

To take a second example, the 15-Feb-2001 Prytulak argument that a photograph of a pistol seemed forged was challenged on 19-Feb-2004 by a reader from Norway, with the result of Prytulak immediately publishing the challenge in the position of greatest prominence at the top of the original publication as can be seen at: But perhaps even more persuasive than either of these is Prytulak publishing the CJC Complaint just as soon as he received it.  Bizarrely, the expected attitudes of Complainant and Respondent reversed.  The Complainant, through the CHRC, demanded that his Complaint be removed from public view and threatened a court order: Prytulak, in contrast, refused to remove it: This role reversal can be understood in part by Prytulak being positively masochistic in his eagerness to throw himself open to disconfirmation.  He publishes the vilest lies about UKAR in order to show the world the worst that can be said of it.  However, in this particular case it happens to entail no loss, as that worst is pitiful.  The CJC, in turn, can only be understood to wish to keep its Complaint from public scrutiny because the CJC too recognizes that its Complaint is pitiful.  What better proof can there be that a complaint is trivial, frivolous, meritless, and vexatious, than the complainant being ashamed of it?  Were the CJC Complaint meritorious, then not only would the CJC have demanded its publication on UKAR, but would have published it on the CJC web site, and perhaps might even have persuaded Leonard Asper to broadcast it into every Canadian home through his media empire.

There is no way in which Prytulak redress has ever been stinting.  The CJC refusal to even test the adequacy of the Prytulak offer is indicative of the CJC wanting an outcome which it is aware is unreasonable, and so can be achieved only through the heavy hand of government coercion.

The Rizk Report paragraph 11 faults the Prytulak standing offer of redress as follows: "The alternative redress to which the respondent refers does not include an adjudicative body nor does it offer appropriate remedies."  However, Prytulak in truth offers all remedies, and Investigator Hannya Rizk seems content to not specify what remedies she or the CJC perceive Prytulak to have overlooked, and in any case the Complainant is free to request even a remedy which has not as yet been offered.  And the CHRA § 41(1)(a) does not require the Respondent to offer "adjudicative bodies," it requires the Complainant to exhaust all reasonably-available alternative procedures, and the simplest and fastest and least costly alternative procedure begins with laying one's complaint before the Respondent.  Not only does CHRA 41(1)(a) not require a respondent to offer any "adjudicative body," but the words "adjudicative body" do not appear anywhere within the CHRA, and even the word "adjudicative" does not appear anywhere within the CHRA.

Over intervals ranging from four to six years, then, the Canadian Jewish Congress has refused to present any opposition to Prytulak writing.  It has refused to answer Prytulak's questions, refused to complain to him of any inaccuracy or unfairness, and refused to publish any alternative to Prytulak's views, as for example on the CJC web site.  The CJC, then, gives the appearance of intellectual bankruptcy, of wanting concessions it knows it has no right to ask, concessions so unreasonable that they would be laughed at if disclosed to public view.  In this unattractive predicament, the CJC turns to its last resort which is government suppression of a web site which is odious to the CJC because it is of all things the most threatening to the usurper and the oppressor it is an invitation to public debate.  However, supporting the powerful in their suppression of writing which they find uncomfortable is not a proper use of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and is not a use of his money that the Canadian taxpayer has sanctioned.


The Ukrainian Archive Constitutes a "Special Program" Under CHRA § 16

Lubomyr Prytulak denies that UKAR practices any discrimination based on CHRA-prohibited grounds.  However, if anything which might have the appearance of a discriminatory practice were ever to appear on the pages of UKAR, then it would be only because after due deliberation it had been judged to be an indispensible component of a CHRA § 16 "Special Program" which exempted that practice from being considered CHRA-discriminatory:

Special programs 16. (1)  It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be based on or related to the prohibited grounds of discrimination, by improving opportunities respecting goods, services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.
Advice and
assistance
(2)  The Canadian Human Rights Commission, may

(a) make general recommendations concerning desirable objectives for special programs, plans or arrangements referred to in subsection (1); and

(b) on application, give such advice and assistance with respect to the adoption or carrying out of a special program, plan or arrangement referred to in subsection (1) as will serve to aid in the achievement of the objectives the program, plan or arrangement was designed to achieve.
Collection of
information relating to
prohibited grounds
(3)  It is not a discriminatory practice to collect information relating to a prohibited ground of discrimination if the information is intended to be used in adopting or carrying out a special program, plan or arrangement under subsection (1).


That is, the motivation for the creation of UKAR was to refute the defamation of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian nation, and which defamation may be more egregious than that suffered by any other Canadian group, and which thus defines Ukrainians as a "disadvantaged group."  Indeed, among the titles originally considered for what became the Ukrainian Archive was the UADL the Ukrainian Anti-Defamation League.  Although documentation of anti-Ukrainian defamation is scattered through every corner of the 214 mb web site, a few recent examples might be in order, starting with successive Canadian governments having been persuaded by the Canadian Jewish Congress defamation campaign into prosecuting Ukrainians for their conjectured peccadilloes, while granting others de facto immunity from prosecution for their provable crimes, as has been noted in the following comparisons:

In the same vein may be recalled the gratuitous persecution of Ukrainians Ivan Chrabatyn in Canada, Ivan Stebelsky in the United States, and John Demjanjuk in both the United States and Israel: Further documentation of various sorts of abuse that Ukrainians endure is documented in the following five recent letters:

Ukrainians, then, constitute perhaps the most defamed group in Canadian society, which cannot fail to have adverse impact upon Ukrainians in several areas, such as admission to university or application for employment or having accepted for publication a letter to the editor or a book.  The UKAR labor of refuting the defamation, and thereby mitigating the adverse impact, is in the public interest, and deserves protection as a "Special Program" under CHRA § 16.


The CHRA Setting Up Two-Tiered Freedom of Speech is Repugnant to Canadians

The deeply entrenched, and highly prized, right of free speech is possessed by all Canadians equally, by private citizens just as much as by newspaper reporters and editors:

The right of comment which the press and broadcasters have is one which they share with every member of the public.  "Who is entitled to comment?  The answer to that is 'everyone'.  A newspaper reporter or a newspaper editor has exactly the same rights, neither more or less, than every other citizen".  "A newspaper has the right, and no greater or higher right, to make comment upon a public officer or person occupying a public situation than an ordinary citizen would have."  "To whatever lengths the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but, apart from statute law, his privilege is no other and no higher ... the range of his assertions, his criticisms, or his comments, is as wide as, and no wider than, that of every other subject.  No privilege attaches to his position."
Gatley on libel and slander, Patrick Milmo Q.C. et al. (Eds.), Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1998, pp. 249-250.  Footnotes removed.

Nor has the press in Canada received any special protection in the law of defamation.  The courts have been unwilling to recognize any unique prerogatives on the part of the press to communicate matters of public interest or concern to the general public.  Thus Canadian courts have stated emphatically that the press enjoys no privilege of free speech greater than that enjoyed by a private individual, and that the liberty of the press is no greater than the liberty of every subject.
Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 1-16.  Footnotes removed.

The defence of fair comment is not the sole domain of the communications media, although it is of particular importance to them.  It is shared by all citizens, equally, the wealthy and poor alike.  It is "a common right of every citizen to comment upon or criticize a matter of public concern."
Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 15-11.  Footnotes removed.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, in contrast, sets up a two-tiered freedom of speech, wherein those who communicate by means of "the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking" are exempted from CHRC prosecution for publishing hate propaganda:

CHRA § 13 (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

What these "facilities of a broadcasting undertaking" are that provide exemption from CHRC prosecution for hate messaging is undefined but whatever they may be, the creation of two classes of people, one class utilizing some sort of "facilities" whose hate propaganda the CHRC winks at, and another class bereft of "facilities" whose hate propaganda the CHRC may or may not prosecute depending on the ethnicity-nationality-religion of the parties involved, is at variance with Canadian tradition.


The Ukrainian Archive Web Site is a "Broadcasting Undertaking"

Posting material on a web site is broadcasting because its effects are indistinguishable from broadcasting on radio and television:

Does Posting Material on the Internet Constitute a Broadcast?

      [49]  "Broadcasting" under the Libel and Slander Act makes no reference to either radio or television, nor to "push" and "pull" technology.

      [50]  The purpose of broadcasting definition is to single out information which is transmitted to mass audiences, where maximum harm to reputation can be done.  Traditionally, this involved radio and television.  In 1980, when the Internet was in its infancy, and not widely available, the Act was amended to [page 609] incorporate technology applicable to cable TV.  The legislature obviously sought to clarify the inclusion of cable television in the scope of the Act, recognizing the size of its audience.

      [51]  The court must recognize and give effect to the purpose of the Act, including the mischief it seeks to ameliorate.  In this Act, that harm is widespread damage to reputation when a mass audience receives defamatory material.  That is the rationale for applying particular rules to broadcasting that do not apply to other forms of defamatory communication.  It is the reason for the notice period, and the limitation found in ss. 5 and 6.

      [52]  The Internet, sometimes more than traditional broadcast media, reaches a mass audience.  It uses the same infrastructure common to radio and television, as set out in the Act.  I conclude therefore, that placing material on the Internet, via a website, where it may be accessed by a large audience, constitutes broadcasting within the meaning of the Libel and Slander Act.
Bahlieda v Santa (2003) 64 OR3d 599 at 608-609, bold emphasis added.

If UKAR broadcasts, then it "undertakes" to broadcast, and so is a "broadcasting undertaking," and it obviously utilizes exactly the "facilities" that are necessary to broadcasting or else it would not be able to broadcast, and so UKAR communicates "by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking," which provides CHRA § 13(2) cited just above exemption of UKAR from hate-messaging prosecution.  Repugnant though it may be to have two-tiered freedom of speech, as long as Canadians do have it, Prytulak will not submit to being excluded from the upper tier, and recommends the same insubordination to others.


CHRC Support for the CJC Effort to Strangle Free Speech is Odious to Canadians

In the ceaseless war of despotism upon liberty, the CHRC supports the side disapproved of by those who treasure the traditions upon which our civilization is founded:

Free discussion is the foundation on which free government itself is builded.  That lost, all is lost; the two exist or perish together.  They mean the same thing.  It is only in despotisms that one must speak sub rosa, or in whispers, with bated breath, around the corner, or in the dark on a subject touching the common welfare.  It is the brightest jewel in the crown of the law to seek and maintain the golden mean between defamation, on the one hand, and a healthy and robust right of free public discussion on the other.
Per Lamm J. in Diener v. Star-Chronicle Pub. Co., 230 Mo 613, 132 SW 1143 at 1149 (1910) in Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 15-9.

It is not now open to question that the publishers, editors and proprietors of newspapers, and indeed all other citizens, have the fullest and freest liberty to discuss and comment upon the public acts and conduct of a public man, and, if they see fit, not only to criticise his acts and conduct in the most hostile spirit and in the severest terms, but also to assail and denounce the man himself as unfit for his position for the want of such qualities as wisdom, judgment, discretion or skill and the like, as evidenced by his acts and conduct.  One who undertakes to fill a public office offers himself to public attack and criticism; and it is now admitted and recognized that the public interest requires that a man's public conduct shall be open to the most searching criticism ...
Per Bain J. in Martin v Manitoba Free Press Co. (1892), 8 Man Rep 50 at 71-72 (CA) in 15-9 in Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 15-9 to 15-10.

The UKAR writing complained of is based on facts.  The facts are true and undistorted, and are cited in the writing, and lay a proper foundation for discussion and commentary and opinion.  Although the doctrine of "fair comment" would protect such UKAR discussion even were it exaggerated, obstinate, prejudiced, and partisan, in fact such protection is not needed, as UKAR discussion is temperate, flexible, objective, and impartial.  Cooperation with the CJC project to destroy that which is protected by the law of the land invites the Canadian Human Rights Commission down the path of iniquity, and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

The CHRC should support any Canadian Jewish Congress initiative with skepticism and caution, because the CJC has today stepped into the role played in the 1950s United States by Senator Joe McCarthy that of instigator of a witch hunt which lays down a swath of devastation:

In another era, a false accusation of "communism" could drive artists and screen writers from employment in the movies, deprive novelists of access to reputable publishers, deny academics tenure or funds for research, and silence those critics of the status quo who might otherwise explore the outer fringes of respectable and not so respectable thought.  There are modern parallels.
Raymond E. Brown, The law of defamation in Canada (2nd ed.), Carswell Thomson Professional Publishing, Scarborough Ontario, 1999, 1-16.

In closing, let it not for a moment be forgotten that the instant CJC v UKAR proceedings are nothing better than an attempt by the Canadian Jewish Congress to strip Ukrainians of their feeble effort to defend themselves against the defamation that the CJC and sister organizations have become habituated to raining down on them.  Such a Canadian Jewish Congress enterprise is undeserving of success, and in fact has already failed the resort to spoliation being a confession of impotence, and the resort to wholesale spoliation being a symptom of panic.  From such a catastrophic collapse of the CJC Complaint, there can be no recovery all that remains is to see how many additional people the CJC will implicate in its skulduggery, and how deeply into disrepute it will drag them.




Lubomyr Prytulak

cc:

Irving ABELLA, National Honourary President, CJC, Department of History, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON  M3J 1P3
Suzanne BEST, Manager Intake Services, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, ON  K1A 1E1
Hon. Irwin COTLER, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 284 Wellington Street, Ottawa, ON  K1A 0H8
Bernie FARBER, Executive Director, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Sherri HELGASON, Director Investigations Branch, CHRC, 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, ON  K1A 1E1
Rt. Hon. Paul MARTIN, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, 80 Wellington Street, Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A2
Ed MORGAN, Chair, CJC (Ont), Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, 84 Queen's Park, Toronto, ON  M5S 2C5
Moshe RONEN, Chair Board of Governors, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2
Len RUDNER, Director of Community Relations, CJC, 4600 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON  M2R 3V2



BEST LETTER •  RIZK REPORT •  PRYTULAK REPLY

HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN