In 1924, the author Saki wrote that A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.

For those who committed post-Second World War immigration fraud, the little inaccuracy meant omitting details about their wartime activities, saving tons of explanation about rounding up human beings for transport or immediate slaughter, facilitating mobile killing squads, guarding concentration and death camps, and various other war crimes and crimes against humanity in some cases. These Holocaust-enablers lied about their wartime records, fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship and then lived among us, escaping justice, for decades.

[W.Z. Ed Morgan paints a very selective image of immigration fraud supposedly perpetrated by people who arrived in Canada after WWII. He fails to mention a very substantial number of immigrants (many of Jewish origin), who had participated in the Ukrainian Holodomor of 1933; in the extermination of the Ukrainian clergy and intelligentsia; in the terror apparatus of Dzerzhinsky, Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria that incarcerated and/or exterminated millions; in the paroxysm of denunciations, tortured confessions and show trials which progressively crept from the lower echelons of society to the very highest levels in Stalin's circle, such that even the Jewish wives of Molotov and Voroshilov were incarcerated.

WWII started directly as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Stalin and Hitler carved up Eastern Europe to their mutual benefit. Thus, from Sep. 01, 1939 to June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union was de facto an ally of the German Third Reich. Stalinist terror next spread to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Western Belarus, Western Ukraine (Eastern Poland), and the edge territories of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania (Carpatho Ukraine, Bessarabia, Moldova). Hundreds of thousands of people were shot, imprisoned or sent to the Gulags. Immediately after the German onslaught on June 22, 1941 and as all Communist functionaries were being evacuated to the East, the NKVD torturers left thousands of mutilated corpses throughout their prisons in Western Ukraine and other occupied countries. How many perpetrators or "enablers" of these crimes managed to slip into Canada?

Ukraine's huge losses of some nine million people during WWII can be attributed more or less equally to the German and Bolshevik regimes. Stalin refused to allow any of his poorly equipped and outgunned armies to retreat or surrender. He created "blocking battalions" just to the rear of the front, whose purpose was to machine gun any Soviet troops retreating from the German onslaught. Rather than surrender, the Soviet soldier was expected to save the last bullet for himself. Directives were sent out that the families of deserters would be shot. Later, in the wake of the Soviet armies driving the Germans back, SMERSH and MVD units would gather civilians -- usually young boys, old men or invalids -- and send them unarmed to the front as "mine-sweepers" and "cannon-fodder". How many of these criminals "fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship"?

And finally, does Mr. Morgan include the Judenraten, the Jewish police and the Jewish Kapos in the ghettoes, labour and concentration camps as Holocaust-enablers? What about the Zionists, who deliberately sacrificed their fellow Jews to garner sympathy for the establishment of the State of Israel? Or the so-called survivors, who sacrificed others to facilitate their own survival? ]

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into War Criminals, headed by Justice Jules Deschenes. Following Judge Deschenes's ground-breaking report, the government of the day established a unit to investigate Nazi, and other, war crimes cases in Canada and to take action along three tracks: criminal indictment, the civil processes of denaturalization and deportation, and extradition.

[W.Z. It is now universally accepted that the Deschenes Commission was established under false pretenses and in bad faith. Its origin goes back to the Holtzmann Ammendment in the United States in 1978, the establishment of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and the show trials of John Demjanjuk. In an effort to transplant this monstrosity to Canada, the Holocaust Industry initiated a disinformation campaign about thousands of Nazi war criminals in Canada and inveigled Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to establish the Deschenes Commission with very narrow discriminatory terms of reference. Two very detailed Critiques on the Deschenes Commission have been written independently by Dr. William Zuzak and Dr. Lubomyr Prytulak. These are available at
/tp/wllzzk/deschene005.html
http://www.willzuzak.ca/lp/martin/martin07.html

Although Jules Deschenes declined to respond to the details in the Critique and has now passed on to answer to his Maker, Brian Mulroney is still with us, such that he can still redeem his soul on this issue.

Ed Morgan deliberately misleads the reader by stating that the Canadian war crimes unit was established "to take action along three tracks"; whereas Justice Minister Ray Hnatyshyn categorically stated that the government had opted for a made-in-Canada solution and that there would be no denaturalizations and deportations as in the United States.]

The government recently charged Desire Munyaneza with two counts of genocide, two of crimes against humanity and three of war crimes for his alleged actions during the Rwandan genocide. These are the first such criminal indictments under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act of 2000, which, in effect, restored the criminal-prosecution option eschewed by the Crown in the wake of 1990's jurisprudence that, among other things, gave credence to just following orders as a legitimate defence.

[W.Z. We are not familiar with the case of Mr. Munyaneza except to note that he is not a Canadian citizen, such that his case is not relevant to the d&d process, which is utilized to revoke citizenship. We have no objection to anyone charged with war criminality being tried in a criminal court of law in front of a jury of 12 of his peers. What we object to is the denaturalization and deportation (d&d) process, which fraudulently equates immigration infractions with war criminality.

In the first half of the second sentence, Mr. Morgan admits that criminal indictments for war crimes are possible. So why weren't the d&d victims charged under this act? One would certainly hope that all war criminals, including Israeli soldiers torturing, maiming and killing Palestinians, would be tried in criminal courts of law.

In the second half of the sentence, Mr. Morgan is indirectly referring to the Imre Finta case. Mr. Finta was, indeed, found innocent of war crimes charges by a 12 person jury, who simply could not be convinced of his guilt. To blame the Supreme Court of Canada for upholding the verdict is simply spurious. That the Supreme Court did, indeed, outline restrictions on the evidence that could be used was because the war crimes statute (Bill C-71 in 1987) was written in bad faith. Under this statute Canadian war veterans -- who bombed German civilians, repatriated refugees into Stalin's clutches, shot surrendering German soldiers, used flame-throwers to fry German soldiers trapped in disabled tanks, etc. -- could have been charged with war crimes. In a letter to Mssrs. Mulroney/Turner/Broadbent dated 09Aug1987, I stated:

"Whereas I expected that Bill C-71 would apply to all extraterritorial crimes (past, present or future) committed by Canadian citizens or residents of Canada, Clause (191)(a) of Bill C-71 in reality restricts its application to:

(i) born-in-Canada Canadian citizens,
(ii) so-called "Nazi war criminals" of World War II vintage as defined in the Deschenes Report,
(iii)immigrants from countries now behind the Iron Curtain who fought against Communist tyranny during World War II.

The government then concentrated its efforts on the civil route but, while more files are currently under review than in previous years, over the intervening two decades fewer than 25 individuals have been served notice that the Crown was seeking to revoke their citizenship. The results have been mixed at best. Despite the ticking of biological clocks, these cases have been plagued by inordinate judicial and political delays. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied: Several of the cases have ended prematurely with the death of the accused.

[W.Z. On 30Jan1995, Justice Minister Alan Rock did, indeed, announce that he was abandoning the made-in-Canada solution and replacing it with the d&d process imported from the OSI. It was a complete victory for the Holocaust Industry. Why the leaders of the Ukrainian community did not vehemently protest is a mystery. That the legal profession and the judiciary have allowed this d&d monstrosity to be initiated and to continue for the last nine years shall be recorded as a blot on their record for eternity.

Yes, the Canadian war crimes unit did bankrupt and ruin the lives of 25 Canadians and their families. But the sad fact is that in not one case was criminality proven or, in some cases, even alleged. The d&d process fraudulently equates alleged immigration infractions with war criminality. For Ed Morgan to speak about "justice" within this framework is the height of hypocrisy.]

Now the House of Commons citizenship and immigration committee wants to increase the difficulty of revoking fraudulently obtained citizenship. In its summer report, the committee recommended that new citizenship legislation raise the burden of proof in denaturalization cases from the current balance of probabilities to the higher threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, effectively stripping the Crown of the civil option of revocation.

[W.Z. CIMM Report 10 (pdf file) on Citizenship Revocation made detailed recommendations requiring a rigorous judicial process. Of the 12 CIMM members, only Hedy Fry and David A. Anderson objected. Of the more than 130 submissions during public hearings, only representatives of B'nai Brith Canada, the Five Montreal Synagogues and the Canadian Jewish Congress supported the present d&d process. (See Mtgs. 28, 53, 57 in CIMM 2005 on my website.)

My personal view is that even the concept of revocation of citizenship should be wiped off the face of the planet!]

The report's view that the balance of probabilities burden of proof for denaturalization proceedings is not commensurate with the seriousness of citizenship loss is specious. Civil revocation cases are not criminal proceedings and the proposed higher evidentiary threshold is inappropriate and unnecessary to denaturalize individuals with contemptible pasts who entered Canada and fraudulently attained citizenship. This profound change would derail the government's efforts to protect the integrity of Canadian citizenship by stripping it from those who acquired it by cheating.

[W.Z. By using weasel words like "contemptible, fraudulently, cheating", it is Ed Morgan's argumentation which is specious. And it is the d&d process that is destroying the "integrity of Canadian citizenship".]

The Crown already faces great logistical challenges, as war-crimes cases address grave offenses in foreign jurisdictions, requiring proof of events often from the distant past. Since the consequence for an accused is not deprivation of liberty, the Crown must not now be stripped of authority to denaturalize with the current burden of proof, to mete out some form of justice against individuals who fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship.

[W.Z. For most true Canadian citizens loss of citizenship is of greater consequence than deprivation of liberty. Obviously, Mr. Morgan has a distorted view of the value of Canadian citizenship.]

Reports suggest that Citizenship and Immigration Minister Joe Volpe may introduce citizenship legislation in the fall. Based on his parliamentary secretary's dissenting opinion to the majority committee report, I surmise that the minister rejects the recommendation to criminalize the denaturalization process.

[W.Z. The hypocrisy of Joe Volpe has been documented by the Ukrainian News and others.]

But given the current government's minority status, Liberal and opposition committee members could combine to override any legislation that ignores their recommendation and maintains the status quo.

[W.Z. We would certainly hope so!]

This could result in the legislative entrenchment of the higher proof standard for revocation, thus hamstringing the government's efforts to revoke not only the ill-gotten citizenship of Hitler's henchmen but that of war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity from contemporary conflicts.

[W.Z. Only organized crime and its supporters benefit from retaining the power to revoke citizenship.]

While Canada's citizenship law needs updating, this must not serve as a pretext for further delays on four Second World War cases (there were five but one died this summer) currently awaiting cabinet action on judicial findings that the accused can be stripped of their fraudulently obtained Canadian citizenship. With cases as much as a decade old, the minister and cabinet must act quickly to underscore Canada's claim to not be a haven for war criminals.

[W.Z. But the courts and CIMM Report 10 have stated that the present d&d process is unacceptable, as Mr. Morgan himself admits.]

Canadians acknowledge the fundamental notion that acquired citizenship is a privilege, not a right. They understand that the precious commodity of our citizenship is tainted by the presence of even a small number of individuals complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity who lied or misrepresented themselves to obtain it.

[W.Z. Weasel words, once again. None of the 25 d&d victims were "complicit" in war crimes and crimes against humanity.]

There is consensus that Canada must have functioning authority to denaturalize, and then deport, such individuals in the interests of both justice and the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

[W.Z. This is exactly opposite to the reality. Mr. Morgan speaks only for the Holocaust Industry, not for the vast majority of witnesses who testified at the CIMM public hearings nor for Canadian citizens.]

------------------------------
Ed Morgan is national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a law professor at the University of Toronto.