Joseph Conrad once observed that "the belief in a supernatural source of evil is unnecessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." This certainly rings true with respect to perpetrators and enablers of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Indeed, 2010 represents a year of benchmark anniversaries for the two key components of Canada's efforts to pursue justice in these matters.

Twenty-five years have passed since then prime minister Brian Mulroney established the royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Jules Deschenes to investigate the number of Nazi war criminals who had entered Canada illegally or fraudulently and to make recommendations to bring such suspects to justice. A full decade has now elapsed since Canada ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and passed legislation to implement its international obligations, including reviving the option of domestic war crimes prosecutions in Canada.

While no punishment could ever be commensurate with the magnitude of such heinous crimes, the Canadian Jewish Congress has always advocated the need to prosecute or denaturalize the perpetrators and enablers of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Canada. [W.Z. This is simply not true. The CJC has never called for the prosecution of several self-confessed Jewish war criminals living in Canada, nor of the Communist war criminals that immigrated to Canada, nor of the thousands of Israeli war criminals that travel freely betwen Israel and Canada.] Such actions are necessary both as a matter of fundamental justice and as protection for the integrity of Canadian citizenship. They also remind us of the stories of the victims who cannot bear personal witness.

Were he alive today, Justice Deschenes would likely be profoundly disappointed by how little has been accomplished on the World War II cases. [W.Z. As described in his report and illustrated below, Jules Deschenes was/is  profoundly disappointed with the heinous actions of Ralph Blumenthal, Sol Littman, Simon Wiesenthal, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Ephraim Zuroff, Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Jewish Congress,  B'nai Brith Canada and others for misleading the Commission.] Regarding contemporary conflicts, he might be more hopeful that Canada is finally beginning to act to give substance to its claim not to serve as a haven for war criminals and enablers of crimes against humanity. Hitler's henchmen may have essentially received "get out of jail free" cards but Rwandan and Darfuri genocidaires and their ilk may start to rethink their sense of impunity in coming to Canada.

[W.Z. Will Israeli war criminals rethink their sense of impunity in coming to Canada?]

For decades after World War II, successive Canadian governments were indifferent to the presence of Nazi war criminals in Canada. Sadly, they justified their inaction with the convenient fiction that no remedies existed to deal with these cases.

Now, ironically, in the short time that Canada has actually been dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity cases, it is the court system itself that has often left justice undone. Lengthy adjournments, protracted periods of decisions under reserve and questionable legal and constitutional detours have all contributed to the interminable and frustrating delays.

Multiple layers of appeal and case shelf lives measured in years make it impossible to claim that the accused have had insufficient due process of law or suffered violations of their Charter-guaranteed legal protection. If anything, there has been too much process and too little progress.

The most egregious example is the case of Helmut Oberlander, a translator for Einsatzgruppe 10A, the most deadly of the four SS mobile-killing units responsible for the murders of tens of thousands of Jews and other civilians. The government informed Oberlander in 1995 that it was seeking to revoke his citizenship as a prelude to possible deportation out of Canada. It took five years, but the Federal Court finally ruled that Oberlander had misrepresented himself on entry to Canada by concealing his wartime association with Einsatzgruppe A and was eligible for denaturalization. Slightly over a year later, cabinet revoked his citizenship and began deportation hearings. For all of that, Oberlander remains in Canada 15 years after first being served and much of that delay has been court-driven.

[W.Z. But the Canadian courts have repeatedly ruled that Mr. Oberlander is not a war criminal.]

Just last November, the Federal Court of Appeal sent the latest revocation order back to cabinet on a pure technicality of interpretation that placed procedural minutiae ahead of the merits of the case. The Court actually based its decision on an argument that Oberlander himself had not seen fit to raise in his own defence.

It had always been the hope of the Canadian Jewish Congress that Nazi war crimes trials would become part of the routine administration of justice in Canada, both to hold these individuals to account and to establish the moral authority to deal with cases from contemporary conflicts [W.Z. such as the Lebanon war, the Gaza Massacre, the West Bank of Palestine] we knew were heading our way. The 20 or so World War II cases launched in Canada since 1985 offer a meagre legacy for moving against the genocidal Hutus, Janjaweed and others who have found or will find their way into Canada. Unfortunately, it will have to do. [W.Z. Especially from Israel.]

The government, for its part, is committed to dealing with these issues but must ensure that the war crimes program is properly funded to keep suspects out of Canada in the first instance and to investigate and prosecute those who may slip through or have already done so.

We have a solemn obligation to the victims and the survivors alike to hold the wicked accountable for their heinous crimes and to effect some measure of justice for what they have done.

There is nothing supernatural about that.

The Editor:

Re: "Painfully slow court system gives war criminals free pass," Bernie Farber, Toronto Star, 16 February 2010.

The 1985 Commission of Inquiry into Nazi War Criminals in Canada headed by Justice Jules Deschênes was kicked-started by two alarmist allegations, both demonstrably false, self-styled Nazi-hunter Sol Littman made as Canadian representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. 

One had it that from Buenos Aires in 1962 notorious Auschwitz physician Dr. Josef Mengele had applied for a visa to emigrate to Canada; Littman even suggested Mengele may have actually set foot in Canada. His other allegation had it that between 2,000 and 3,000 Nazi war criminals were living in Canada; while Littman's mentor, the late Simon Wiesenthal, had pegged the figure at an astonishing 6,000 war criminals. 

In the decades since these sensational claims have fizzled to a far humbler and sober reality, with only a small handful of elderly men fending off the prospect of denaturalization and deportation based on a statistical "balance of probabilities" they had concealed some Nazi affiliation to Canadian immigration officers on entering the country. From a starting-point of lurid headlines, Canada's hunt for Nazi war criminals and collaborators turned out, as Farber has noted, to be altogether unremarkable. 

Sincerely,

Orest Slepokura, Strathmore, Alta

Note: Sources from Deschenes Report copied below

_____________________________ 

                The Deschênes Report [pp. 67-68]: The Mengele Affair 

The opening paragraph of Minute-of-Council 1985-348 states: 

WHEREAS concern has been expressed about the possibility that Joseph
Mengele, an alleged Nazi war criminal, may have entered or attempted to
enter Canada; 

Two weeks before the passage of this Minute there had indeed been a public
outcry following the publication on 23 January 1985 of an article over the
signature of "Ralph Blumenthal, the _New York Times_." The article was
captioned: "Records indicate Mengele sought Canadian visa".  The third
paragraph read: 

          Other records indicate that Mengele applied to the Canadian
          Embassy in Buenos Aires for a Canadian visa in 1962 under a
          pseudonym and that the Canadians informed American intelligence
          officials of the attempt. 

One month earlier Mr. Sol Littman, Canadian representative of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, had written to the Prime Minister of Canada a letter
where he unequivocally affirmed: 

         The documents we received on Mengele, who has been the object
         of world-wide search since the close of WW II, produced two
         shocking pieces of information. 

         (...) 

         2) Mengele, employing the alias of Dr. Joseph Menke, applied to
         the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires for admission to Canada
         as a landed immigrant in late May or early June, 1962. 

The relation between Littman's letter and Blumenthal's article is
established. In the course of an interview with Commission counsel in New
York, Blumenthal stated "that it was Mr. Sol Littman to whom he had been
directed by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, who introduced the
element of an application by Mengele to come to Canada from Buenos Aires". 

Littman confirmed: "I am reasonably sure that most of the information that
Mr. Blumenthal printed came directly from me." 

In his testimony before the Commission in December 1985, Littman conceded
his paternity of the assertion of the facts concerning Mengele: 

Q. [Gordon Whitehall]I see.  Let us just take a look for a moment, if we
may, at your letter of December the 29th, Exhibit 154. In that letter,
sir, you assert as a fact that Mengele, employing the alias of Dr. Josef
Menke, applied to the Canadian embassy in Buenos Aires for admission to
Canada as a landed immigrant. 

Now I ask you, sir, whether or not--whether that assertion of fact, did it
come from the documents, did it come from the Immigration Officer or did
it come from Corporal Yetter? 

A. [Sol Littman] The assertion of fact, Mr. Whitehall, is mine. 

Q. [Gordon Whitehall] The assertion of fact is yours? 

A. [Littman] Yes. 

And to describe the basis of his assertion of facts, Littman could find no
better words than "speculation"; "impression"; "possibility"; and
"hypothesis". 

[end of excerpt from The Deschênes Report]
____________________________________ 

On page 81 of the Deschênes Report it is further made clear that on the
basis of nothing more than "speculation,  impression, possibility, and
hypothesis,"  Littman offered a version of events for public consumption
as though it was factual and solidly documented.   

What is even more telltale is that Littman had been warned by one of his
sources that it would unwise to do so: "Littman was, therefore, put on
notice that, in view of the paucity of available information, it was
dangerous to make the assumptions with which he was playing."  He chose
instead to disregard the warning. 

On page 82, the Deschenes Report comes to the following conclusion
regarding Littman, the Wiesenthal Center maven, and his inglorious role in
the Mengele Affair: 

__________________________________ 

There is no documentary evidence whatsoever of an attempt by Dr. Joseph
Mengele to seek admission to Canada from Buenos Aires in 1962. 

The affirmation has come from Mr. Sol Littman, and from him alone. 

The documents which were then available to him related to a security
request from Canada, not an immigration check from Germany, and do not
bear out the theory of Mengele's visa application in Buenos Aires. 

The advice which Litman solicited (whether it were from one or two people)
did not support his assumptions, but put him on notice about their
fragility. 

As stated at the outset, all the Littman could rely on was "speculation,
impression, possibility, hypothesis".  Yet he chose to transmute them into
statements of fact which he publicized, with the results that are now
known. 

This is a case where not a shred of evidence has been tendered to support
Mr. Littman's statement to the Prime Minister of Canada on 20 December
1984, or Mr. Ralph Blumenthal's article in the _New York Times_ on  23
January 1985. 

Indeed Mr. Littman has stated before the Commission: 

Well, let me put it this way.  We have accepted the fact that Mengele did
not come to Canada and, in all likelihood, never applied to come over to
Canada. We had no difficulty accepting that. 

[end of excerpt from The Deschênes Report] 

Here is a verbatim rendering of the relevant pages [pp.245-249] from the
Deschênes Report.
_____________________________
                              WAR CRIMINALS IN CANADA? 

1) _Their alleged number_ 

Over the years various sources, more or less closely related to the matter
at hand, have thrown out for public consumption figures allegedly
representing the number of war criminals who had found refuge in Canada.
The high level reached by some of those figures, together with the wide
discrepancy between them, contributed to create both revulsion and
interrogation. The sensational allegations concerning Dr. Mengele's
connection with Canada were the straw that broke the camel's back: the
matter had to be clarified once and for all. 

This Commission of Inquiry was entrusted with the task, which it was
required to perform within a mercilessly short time frame. 

                             ____________________ 

The Commission has made an inventory of the statements published in recent
years on the number of war criminals in Canada; this has at once shown how
ambiguous those figures can be. One example will suffice to illustrate
this point. 

Both in his brief before the Commission and in his report to the Solicitor
General, Mr. Sol Littman has ventured the figure 3,000. However, care must
be taken in reading the text where that figure appears. In both documents,
Mr. Littman does not refer simply--and clearly--to war criminals: he
speaks of "war criminals and war-time collaborators". Now, there is more
than a slight difference between the two categories: war criminals were
collaborators, but surely not all collaborators qualify as war criminals.
So a figure which pretends to mix both classes of unsavory characters into
a single total may be quite misleading when one thinks of war criminals as
such. Yet no distinction has been made by Mr. Littman, and the Commission
entertains no doubt that his figure of 3,000 applies, in the public mind,
to war criminals and war criminals alone. This is the unfortunate result
of loose language and somewhat careless public statements. 

Now the Commission does not pretend to have carried out an exhaustive
review of the figures quoted from time to time as to war criminals in
Canada. Nevertheless, a schedule of the relevant statements which it has
collected, should help put the problem in focus. 

The Commission has compiled 31 statements uttered from 1971 through 1986:
by coincidence the earliest and the latest ones come from the same source,
Mr. Simon Wiesenthal. The Commission has arranged two different
presentations: the first one by order of dates, the second one by
increasing numbers of alleged suspects.
                             _________________________ 

_Ist Schedule_ 

_Statements in chronological order_ 

                                                 _Alleged number of war
                                                 criminals living in Canada

1971, 19 May    Simon Wiesenthal      Toronto Star     Several hundred
1975, 26 Dec.   Unidentified groups   Montreal Gazette   Over 50
1976, 1 Dec.    Michael Hanusiak      Toronto Star      At least 50
1977, 11 Nov.   Ian Adams             Weekend magazine    800
1979, 6 March   Robert Kaplan         House of Commons   Over one dozen
1979, 6 March   Maurice Dupras        House of Commons     Some 15
1979, 25 March  Olivia Ward           Toronto Star       Over 1,000
1980, 28 April  Meir Halevi           Globe and Mail     200
1981, January   Interdepartmental     Report to          50-100
                Committee             Government
1981, 24 Feb.   Sabina Citron         Globe and Mail     1,000
1981, 29 May    Abraham Cooper        Regina Leader-Post 1,000
1981, 13 July   Irwin Cotler          Ottawa Citizen      At least 100
1981, 15 Sept.  Adalbert Rueckerl     Vancouver Sun       500-1,000
1982, 18 June   David Matas           Toronto Star        50-60
1982, 12 Oct.   Charles Kremer        Windsor Star        Over 2,000
1982, 6 Nov.    Dept. of Justice      Toronto Star        Handful
1982, 6 Nov.    RCMP                  Toronto Star        80-100
1982, 6 Nov.    Irwin Cotler          Toronto Star        75-100
1983, 13 April  Robert Kaplan         Toronto Sun         Over 100
1983, 13 April  Irwin Cotler          La Presse           Maybe 1,000
1983, 5 July   Jewish Defence League  Globe and Mail      Maybe 1,000
1983, 21 July    Adalbert Ruerckerl   Globe and Mail      1,000
1983, 21 Nov. Solicitor General Dept. Globe and Mail      100
1983, 21 Nov.    Edward Grenspan      Globe and Mail      2,000
1984, 24 Jan.    Sol Littman          London Free Press   2,000
1984, 8 Nov.     Sol Littman          Toronto Star        3,000
1985, 16 Jan.    Simon Adler          London Free Press   1,000
1985, 25 Jan.    Sol Littman          Toronto Star        3,000
1985, 7 Feb.     John C. Crosbie      House of Commons    Relatively few
1985, 23 Aug.    Sol Littman          Report to Solicitor 2,000-3,000
                                           General
1986,16 May      Simon Wiesenthal     New York Daily News  6,000 

The above schedule shows that the issue of war criminals really came into
the limelight in Canada in the early 1980s and that, since the beginning
of 1983, the figures quoted by outside intervenors never fell below 1,000. 

                             ______________________ 

_2nd Schedule_ 

_Statements in increasing order of figures_ 

                                                     _Alleged number of war
                                                criminals living in Canada_ 

1982, 6 Nov.   Dept of Justice     Toronto Star        Handful
1985, 7 Feb.   John C. Crosbie     House of Commons    Relatively few
1979, 6 March  Robert Kaplan       House of Commons    Over one dozen
1979, 6 March  Maurice Dupras      House of Commons    Some 15
1976, 1 Dec.   Michael Hanusiak    Toronto Star        At least 50
1975, 26 Dec.  Unidentified groups Montreal Gazette   Over 50
1982, 18 June  David Matas         Toronto Star       50-60
1981, January  Interdepartmental   Report to government 50-100
                  Commitee
1982, 6 Nov.   Irwin Cotler        Toronto Star         75-100
1982, 6 Nov.   RCMP                Toronto Star         80-100
1983, 21 Nov.  Solicitor General   Globe and Mail       100
                  Department
1981, 13 July   Irwin Coltler       Ottawa Citizen       At least 100
1983, 14 March  Robert Kaplan       Toronto Sun          Over 100
1980, 28 April  Meir Halevi         Globe and Mail       200
1971, 19 May    Simon Wiesenthal    Toronto Star         Several hundred
1977, 11 Nov.   Ian Adams           Weekend Magazine     800
1981, 15 Sept.  Adalbert Rueckerl   Vancouver Sun        500-1,000
1983, 13 April  Irwin Cotler        La Presse            Maybe 1,000
1983, 5 July  Jewish Defence League Globe and Mail       Maybe 1,000
1981, 24 Feb.   Sabina Citron       Globe and Mail       1,000
1981, 29 May    Abraham Cooper      Regina Leader-Post   1,000
1983, 21 July   Adalbert Rueckerl   Globe and Mail       1,000
1985, 16 Jan.   Simon Adler         London Free Press    1,000
1979, 25 March  Olivia Ward         Toronto Star         Over 1,000
1983, 21 Nov.   Edward Greenspan    Globe and Mail       2,000
1984, 24 Jan.   Sol Littman         London Free Press    2,000
1982, 12 Oct.   Charles Kremer      Windsor Star         Over 2,000
1985, 23 Aug.   Sol Liitman    Report to Solicitor General  2-3,000
1984, 8 Nov.    Sol Littman         Toronto Star          3,000
1985, 25 Jan.   Sol Littman         Toronto Star          3,000
1986, 16 May    Simon Wiesenthal    New York Daily News   6,000 

Here one sees the dramatic increase in the figures which, in most if not
all cases, are only estimates and, more probably, guesses. They fall into
two broad categories: 100 and below, 1,000 and over. For the moment, the
Commission will not pass judgment on those figures, other than to note
that the discrepancies between them are blatant; and so must be their
various degrees of reliability. 

There the matter rested when this Commission was set up.