==================== "Someone who has provoked the Jewish community for years should expect this sort of thing [a vicious, near-fatal beating]." - Nazi-hunter Serge Klarsfeld on the savage attack against Professor Faurisson Questioned Holocaust, historian badly beaten Toronto Globe and Mail | Monday, Sept. 18, 1989, p. A5 Reuter CLERMONT-FERRAND, France A leading French revisionist historian who denies that millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust was recovering from surgery yesterday after a savage beating. Robert Faurisson, 60, suffered a broken jaw and ribs and severe head injuries in the attack by three youths while he was walking his dog in the town of Vichy. A hospital spokesman in Clermont-Ferrand, the central French city where he was transferred for surgery, said Mr. Faurisson's condition was stable. "He was conscious, but he couldn't speak," said a fire fighter who gave Mr. Faurisson first aid. "His jaw was smashed. They destroyed his face." A previously unknown group, The Sons of the Memory of the Jews, took responsibility for the attack, saying those who deny the Holocaust should "beware." Veteran Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld said they were not surprised by the attack. "Someone who has provoked the Jewish community for years should expect this sort of thing [a vicious, near-fatal beating]," Serge Klarsfeld said. This page is dedicated to the hundreds of people who have put their lives, reputation and freedom on the line to bring truth to the world. Dr. Fredrick Toben - latest victim! Though German in origin, Dr. Fredrick Toben was raised in Australia as an Australian citizen, and speaks both English and German. Becoming interested in exonerating the German people from the anti-German racism of the Holocaust legend, he at first edited a revisionist journal called Truth Missions, which was later renamed Adelaide Institute Newsletter. He then broadened out to establish Australia's revisionist website, Adelaide Institute. He has personally visited the site of Auschwitz and burrowed under the ruins of the alleged gas chamber, being unable to find the four holes in the roof which were supposedly used to throw in gas pellets. He conducted regular dialogue with Exterminationists, and did not expect to be arrested when he visited Prosecutor Klein in Mannheim, Germany, for a private discussion on the Holocaust laws in Germany, which make it mandatory to accept the entire Holocaust story. Nevertheless, he was arrested by Klein and police chief Mohr in Mannheim, Germany, in April, 1999, and is currently in Mannheim Prison awaiting trial for being a "holocaust denier". His trial is to start November 8, 1999, and he may face up to five years in prison if found guilty! Paul Rassinier Barred from entering Germany for trying to give testimony for the defense in political trials. Background and contribution: Born in 1906, Rassinier, a school teacher, is seen as the Father of modern European Revisionism. A French resistance fighter and friend of the Jews, he was imprisoned by the Germans for his illegal activities in Buchenwald and Camp Dora where he worked in the underground rocket factories. He was elected after the war as a member of the French National Assembly for the Socialist Party. Rassinier nonetheless wrote groundbreaking Revisionist books. Dr. Robert Faurisson At least 10 times physically assaulted by Holocaust Enforcers; on several occasions nearly killed. Jaws broken. Teeth knocked out. Hospitalized for weeks. Persecuted mercilessly in endless legal battles. Background and contribution: Known as the "Dean of the world-wide Revisionist movement" and principal teacher of Ernst ZØndel, Dr. Faurisson first discovered the technical and architectural drawings of the Auschwitz morgues, the crematories and other installations. He was also the first to insist that only a U.S. gas chamber expert could unravel the technical impossibility of the Auschwitz homicidal gassing story - as falsely told to the public for over half a century. ZØndel mentor, advisor and trial witness in the 1984 preliminary hearings and in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Slated as expert witness for the 1991 Munich trial of Ernst ZØndel. (The prosecution dropped the Anne Frank Diary part of the charge in mid-trial after they learned that Dr. Faurisson was going to testify to that point.) Thies Christophersen Forced to flee from country to country. Hounded to death after numerous acid attacks, arson, and attempts on his life and property. Background and contribution: As a German agrarian expert, Christophersen was stationed at Auschwitz in the critical period 1943-44. As a German expert, he had access to the entire camp. He took valuable photographs at the time. He was the first Revisionist eyewitness to come forward stating categorically that there were no gas chambers for killing humans in Auschwitz. He wrote the famous booklet, "Die Auschwitz-LØge", (The Auschwitz Lie) translated into many languages. ZØndel witness in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Judge Wilhelm StÄglich Was tried and convicted in post-war German courts. Had his doctorate stripped from him and his pension cut for speaking out. Background and contribution: Judge StÄglich, stationed during WWII in the Auschwitz area with an anti-aircraft unit, published a groundbreaking book "Der Auschwitz Mythos" (The Auschwitz Myth) - seized, forbidden and destroyed by West German court order. Joseph Burg (Ginzburg) Persecuted and beaten by Holocaust Enforcers of Jewish Defense League type thugs. Denied burial in the Munich Jewish cemetery. (Ernst ZØndel and Otto Ernst Remer gave the eulogies.) Background and contribution: Author of many books ("Schuld und Schicksal", "Zionazi", "Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank", "Auschwitz in alle Ewigkeit" etc.) as well as many pamphlets and two documentary interviews with Ernst ZØndel. Chief Jewish advisor, mentor and ZØndel witness in the 1988 Great Holocaust Trial. Professor Arthur Butz Vilified and persecuted for almost three decades. Background and contribution: An American electrical engineer and university professor, Butz wrote the "Bible" of modern Revisionism titled "The Hoax of the 20th Century". This book, which deals with most details of Holocaust lore from "shrunken heads" to "Jewish soap" and "gassing" claims, more than any other influenced Ernst Zundel in his Revisionist research. Haviv Schieber Driven to attempted suicide Background and contribution: A Polish Jew and former mayor of Ber Sheeba in Israel, Schieber taught Ernst ZØndel much about Israeli reality. He was an Israeli Revisionist, wanting to revise Israel's attitudes, institutions and borders. He fled Israel to find safety in the USA, was denied political asylum at first, and tried to take his life by slashing his wrists at Washington, D.C. airport on the day of his deportation. He was finally allowed refuge from Israeli persecution in the US in the early 1970s. Francois Duprat Killed for distributing the French language version of "Did Six Million Really Die?" Background and contribution: A French writer, historian and educator, Duprat had introduced the booklet "Did Six Million Really Die?" in France by publishing the first French translation. He also published "The Mystery of the Gas Chamber." He was only 38 years old when his car was blown up by a bomb and he was assassinated on March 18, 1978. His wife, who was with him in the car, lost the use of her legs in this terrorist act. Two Jewish groups took credit for the assassination - the "Jewish Remembrance Commando" and another group who identified itself as ". . . Jewish Revolutionary Group." The assassins were never found. Ditlieb Felderer Charged, tried, convicted and jailed in Sweden. Vilified in the press. Forced to live in exile. Background and contribution: Felderer, at one time a prominent Jehovah's Witness, is known as an early researcher into the physical evidence in every major concentration camp in then Communist Eastern Europe. Felderer took over 30,000 photographs of every conceivable detail in the camps. He discovered that there was a swimming pool for the inmates in Auschwitz, modern hospital facilities, including a gynecological section, as well as an orchestra, live theatre, well-stocked library, and sculpting classes. He discovered the musical score of the "Auschwitz Waltz" in the secret archives accessible only with special permission. He found that an intimate role was played by Jehovah Witnesses in the camps, who cooperated with the SS-Administration, and he exposed the lie of the 60,000 Jehovah's Witnesses killed. (On his initiative and insistence, the inflated number was reduced to 203) [Trial Transcript Vol. 18, 4226 to 4229; 4645]. For his Revisionist work, Felderer was excommunicated - that is, drummed out of the Jehovah Witnesses' sect. He has been persecuted by the Holocaust Enforcers ever since. Felderer is known for his weird sense of humor and outlandish, offensive cartoons. He believes that deliberate Holocaust liars and history falsifiers should not have their sensibilities spared. This idiosyncrasy of Felderers is being exploited by Holocaust propagandists in counter-attacks against him. ZØndel advisor and witness in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Professor Austin App Persecuted for his courageous and tireless truth campaign for two generations on behalf of German-Americans. Background and contribution: A German-American community leader and author of many booklets and tracts - among them "The Six Million Swindle," "Action on a War Crime," "The Bombing Atrocity of Dresden," "Ravaging the women of Conquered Europe," and many others - Professor App was an early guide of Ernst ZØndel. Ernst ZØndel Three documented assassination attempts by fire and pipe bombs. Endless legal harassment leading to repeated jailings and bankrupting of his graphic arts business. Background and contribution: Nicknamed the "Revisionist Dynamo" or the "Revisionist Renaissance Man" for his untiring Revisionist Truth Campaign and his comprehensive grasp of complex political issues, ZØndel - more than any other Revisionist on earth - caused the Holocaust Hoax to become a mainstream topic of discussion. Extensive chronological biography on the Zundelsite. Jim Keegstra Lost his job and his reputation was destroyed. Prevented an arson attempt against him. Was convicted to a $3,000 fine after 10 years of costly litigation. Was financially ruined by his ordeal. Background and contribution: A Canadian school teacher of Dutch background, Keegstra taught both sides of the Holocaust and other questions of history. He was charged under Canada's infamous "Hate Laws", and was tried and convicted. He appealed - and was re-tried and re-convicted. Three times, his case went to the Supreme Court. He ultimately lost. ZØndel witness in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. Frank Walus Attacked seven times by Jewish assailants; nearly killed in an acid attack. Lost his US citizenship and his home to pay for his defense. Background and contribution: A Polish German-American auto worker, Walus was targeted and accused falsely by Simon Wiesenthal to be a "Nazi War Criminal." Vilified by the US media in a vicious campaign as the "Butcher of Kielce", Walus fought bravely against his tormentors of the Office of Special Investigations, also known as the US "Nazi Hunters". He ultimately won his case against them in a costly appeals process but died after several massive heart attacks - a bitter, financially ruined man. He refused to be buried on US soil because he felt the country had betrayed and failed him. ZØndel witness in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. Emil Lachout Mercilessly hounded by Austrian authorities and the Austrian lapdog media for over a decade. Forced to undergo a humiliating psychiatric assessment. Background and contribution: An Austrian school teacher, former military police man and Boy Scout leader, Lachout's name is associated with the famous MØller-Lachout document. He ultimately won his case in the European Court of Human Rights. Austria must pay him compensation but hasn't done yet - so far. Never a man to do things by halves, Lachout is demanding an apology from the Austrian State. ZØndel witness in the 1988 Great Holocaust Trial. Henri Roques Had his doctorate revoked. Background and contribution: Henri Rocques is a French author and researcher who exposed the Myth of Pope Pius XII's complicity in the Holocaust. His doctoral thesis made world-wide headlines in 1986 when, for the first time in the nearly eight-century history of French universities, a duly awarded doctorate was quickly revoked on French government's orders, after an outry by the Leftist-Jewish media in France. In a tightly argued dissertation, Rocques came to the stunning conclusion that the allegations of mass gassings of Jews made by SS officer Kurt Gerstein were groundless, and that the supposed Roman-Catholic coverup of this "slaughter" are false. He further concluded that postwar academics deliberately falsified key parts of the already tortured Gerstein testimony. His dissertation was eventually published by the Institute for Historical Review in book form under the title "The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein." Tjiudar Rudolph Imprisoned in Germany for lengthy stints for "doubting the Holocaust", even though he was in his mid-eighties at the time. Background and contribution: A former German Security Service member, fluent in five languages including Yiddish and Polish, Rudolph was involved with organizing Red Cross inspection tours of Auschwitz and other camps during the war. He wrote numerous Revisionist articles. He accompanied Fred Leuchter as translator to Auschwitz and Maidanek in 1988. He was charged and convicted for publishing a newsletter disputing the "Six Million" story. ZØndel witness in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Udo Walendy Convicted and imprisoned in Germany for 15 months, even though already in his seventies and in poor health with a serious heart condition. Background and contribution: A prolific German researcher, writer and publisher of numerous books and a series of popular booklets called "Historische Tatsachen"- ("Historical Truths") including the German version of "Did Six Million Really Die?" and the German language version of the Leuchter Report #1 - Walendy was dragged before the courts numerous times. His home and offices were frequently raided by the police. Business files, books, printing plates and computers were confiscated. ZØndel advisor and witness in the 1985 and 1988 Great Holocaust Trials. Fred Leuchter Arrested and jailed in Germany. Financially ruined. Background and contribution: An American execution expert, Leuchter designed and maintained gas chambers for several US penal institutions. He was sent by Ernst ZØndel to investigate Auschwitz, Majdanek, Dachau, Hartheim and other alleged "Nazi Death Camps" and "gassing facilities." Author of the devastating series of Leuchter Reports. (I, II, III, IV) and many articles and videotaped presentations that resulted from these investigations, Leuchter was blacklisted in the US and hounded by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the world's lapdog media. He was arrested and jailed in Germany for giving an anti-Holocaust lecture for GØnther Deckert, a well-known political party leader. Allowed out on bail, Leuchter returned to the US. and chose not to go back to Germany to stand trial. Nonetheless, he lost his livelihood as a result. Sensational ZØndel witness in the Great Holocaust Trial in 1988. Leuchter, although present in the courtroom in Munich, was not allowed to testify about his research findings in Auschwitz for Ernst ZØndel in the German (Munich) Trial in 1991. David Irving Convicted, jailed, fined, deported and barred from numerous countries - and hounded world-wide by Holocaust Enforcers. Background and contribution: A prolific British author of approximately 36 books and recognized authority on Hitler and World War II, Irving pretty much believed and accepted the standard Holocaust version - until he read the Leuchter Report. He agreed to testify as the last witness for the defense in the 1988 ZØndel Trial. His appearance was a sensation! In the following years, he went on widely publicized and acclaimed Canada- and America-wide lecture tours. He traveled as a speaker through several European countries, with headlines and controversy dogging his every step. He drew packed houses and infuriated the Holocaust Lobby, which reacted with vicious smear campaigns and managed to have Irving arrested and convicted in Munich, Germany, for "defaming the dead." This conviction caused Irving to be ultimately banned from Canada, Australia, Italy, New Zealand and South Africa. He was deported in handcuffs from Niagara Falls, Ontario, after a farcical Immigration hearing, during which he was held and treated in jail like some common criminal - for weeks! He has been hounded by the Holocaust Enforcers ever since. A combative man, Irving has lately gone on counter-attacks and is suing the British Board of Jewish Deputies and American Jewish Holocaust Promoter, Deborah Lipstadt and her publishers. ZØndel witness in the 1988 Great Holocaust Trial. Ivan Lagace Became the target of several Royal Canadian Mounted Police raids. Resigned from his job as crematory director after receiving endless threats by anonymous callers and from thugs claiming to be the Jewish Defense League. Background and contribution: A crematory expert from Calgary, Alberta, who had been responsible for the disposing of 10,000 bodies in his career, Lagace finally sorted out - publicly and in open court - all the fanciful lies about the Germans supposedly "cremating multiple corpses in single corpse retorts" in Auschwitz, Birkenau and elsewhere. Lagace's testimony put an end to the wild claims by so-called "death camp survivors" about ". . . cremating bodies in five minutes" etc. His testimony - together with Fred Leuchter's findings as well as the lab results presented by Dr. James Roth of Alpha Laboratories from the soil and rock samples Leuchter had brought from Auschwitz to the USA - spelled the death knell of fanciful "survivor" claims. Lagace was raided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in his crematory office where he was making notes and keeping photographs taken for future court cases hidden in a container for human ashes. ZØndel witness in the Great Holocaust Trial of 1988. Gerd Honsik Convicted, fined and driven into exile. Background and contribution: Honsik, an Austrian writer and poet, wrote several devastating books - one exposing Simon Wiesenthal, one titled "Freispruch fØr Hitler" and a third "33 Witnesses against the Gas Chamber Lie." He was convicted in Austria and Germany to fines in excess of DM 50,000 and forced to go into exile in Spain where he now lives, Gerd Honsik writes a monthly Revisionist newsletter in tabloid format titled "Halt!" ("Stop!") - meaning "Stop the hatred and lies!" Walter LØftl President of Austrian Chamber of Engineers relieved from his elected post after questioning Gas Chambers story on enginering grounds Background and contribution: LØftl was elected to represent 4000 austrian Architects and Construction engineers and was for years a court approved expert witness in cases involving engineering matters. Simon Wiesenthal and his friends in the media agitated, till the highly respected head of his own engineering firm was dismissed from his post. He had circulated privately what has since been published as the LØftl Report in which he questions the Gassing story on technical grounds. Imre Finta Victimized by the media and financially totally ruined by civil law suits mismanaged by his first lawyers. Criminally charged and prosecuted as a "war criminal" in Canada. Background and contribution: A retired Hungarian police captain, Finta was accused by Sabina Citron and others for allegedly persecuting Jews in Hungary during the war. After lengthy legal battles, he was ultimately acquitted by unanimous jury verdict when Ernst ZØndel's attorneys, Doug Christie and Barbara Kulaszka, took over his defense and won his victory in court. The jurors obviously did not believe the many Israeli and Jewish eye-witnesses! Otto Ernst Remer Tried and convicted to more than one year imprisonment, even though he was over 80 years old and in ill health. Background and contribution: A German war hero who successfully thwarted the military putsch by German traitors against Hitler in Berlin on 20 July 1944, Remer seized the political opportunity brought about by the revelations of the Leuchter Report. He made the findings known to millions of people by privately publishing "Die Remer Depesche", a mass circulation tabloid style newspaper. The German vassal regime came down hard on the old soldier. He was tried and convicted to prison. He went into exile in Spain, wheelchair-bound, where he died. His widow now has to fight for her pension. She refuses to return his ashes to Germany until such time when her husband's remains can be returned under honorable circumstances. Jerome Brentar His reputation tarnished and his company boycotted, Brentar lost his livelihood for saving a man from the noose. Background and contribution: This Croation-American trained social worker and Christian activist has helped every falsely accused "war criminal" - from Frank Walus to Dr. Arthur Rudolf to Mr. Bartesch. He was of immense help to John Demjanjuk. Due to the tireless work of this saintly man, Walus and Demjanjuk won their cases in the end. Brentar spent almost $500,000 of his own funds to help pay for the lawyers' fees, translators, flights, hotel accommodations, meals, and witness fees. He lost his once thriving Travel Agency because of the vicious publicity engendered, and now lives at the edge of poverty in forced retirement on his social security pension. ZØndel researcher, advisor and witness in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. John Demjanjuk Extradited, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death by hanging. Spent many years in prison. Background and contribution: Demjanjuk was a Ukrainian autoworker and former camp guard whose grotesque case saw him extradited to Israel from the USA for trial. Convicted to death by hanging, but ultimately released by the Israeli Supreme Court, who obviously did not believe what must have been the perjured or false testimony of Israeli eye-witnesses, Demjanjuk was saved from the noose because Jerry Brentar worked day and night to search and find exonerating documents, eye witnesses and handwriting experts to save Demjanjuk's life. America has returned his passport and must pay him his pension for all the years of his imprisonment. Hopefully, part of that money will go Jerry Brentar to recover his outlays. Germar Rudolf Accused, tried and convicted in Germany. Career and doctorate dissertation ruined. Driven into exile. Background and contribution: This brilliant, German-trained chemist re-examined Auschwitz, Birkenau and other installations and buildings, testing rocks, soil and other physical samples for traces of Zyklon B. Following the pioneering work of Fred Leuchter, he put the final nail into the coffin of the Auschwitz story. Even though he did scientific work and was utterly apolitical, Rudolf's home and office were raided, computers seized etc. He was charged and tried in Germany for not believing in the standard Auschwitz story. As a scientist, he found the "gassing" claims to be scientifically untenable and, therefore, absurd. A modern day Galileo, Rudolf was found guilty and convicted because he refused to renounce scientific facts and his own scientific tests and findings. He was facing jail when he went into exile with his young wife and two babies. He now edits and publishes devastating refutations of the Allied Propaganda claims in a German-language journal. The Holocaust Enforcers are dogging his steps, and he faces endless hassles and trials, should the "German" vassal authorities ever get a hold of him. ZØndel expert witness in chemistry in the Munich trial in 1991 - disallowed by the judge at the request of the prosecution. Attorney JØrgen Rieger Attacked and beaten. Car blown up. Professional reputation and career ruined. Background and contribution: Long-time ZØndel attorney in Germany, Rieger has been a defender of German patriots since his law school days. He has drawn the ire of the Holocaust Enforcers by winning the 1981 ZØndel case in Stuttgart against the false claim that ZØndel had published "hate literature", and winning several cases against the German vassal regime who had confiscated ZØndel's postal bank account, unfreezing DM 30,000 in the process. He also managed to regain for ZØndel his confiscated German passport - after a six-year legal battle. Rieger was attacked and beaten unconscious in broad daylight after leaving a Hamburg courthouse and had to be airlifted, near death, by helicopter to the trauma unit of the hospital of Hamburg University, where he lay unconscious for days. The assailants escaped after their assassination attempt. German police later caught one Turkish "guest worker" who was tried - and let go! The other culprits were never found. Attorney Doug Christie Targeted professionally on numerous occasions with spurious charges of "unprofessional conduct" lodged with law societies in Canada. Background and contribution: Undoubtedly the finest constitutional and civil rights lawyer of his generation in Canada, Christie is known for his exceptional defenses of Ernst ZØndel, Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, Imre Finta and many other persecuted dissidents in Canada - and even the octogenarian, aristocratic Lady Birdwood in England. Under constant threat by busybodies in various law societies, usually the target of Jewish Holocaust Lobbyist complaints, Christie has frequently been intimidated during the ZØndel trials by judges who threatened him with contempt of court when he called their arbitrary decisions into question. He is hated by all enemies of freedom, by many groveling politicians and the intellectual prostitutes in the Canadian media establishment. Christie has headed the ZØndel legal defense team for over 15 years. Attorney Kirk Lyons Viciously character-assassinated by the media and "Jewish defense" organizations after defending the rights of US patriots. Background and contribution: An American civil rights lawyer of note, skill and courage and defender of many patriots, especially the "Dead of Waco," Lyons has represented people like Fred Leuchter in controversial cases, and has lately been targeted by the conservative "Spotlight" for "special media treatment" because he won a large suit against a law firm which had mismanaged a case involving one of his clients, the former Populist Party of the USA and Don Wassal. Character assassins are still trying to falsely link Lyons to the Oklahoma City bombing via a client of his, Andy Strasmeir, son of a famous German political operative and advisor to Helmut Kohl. Lyons has also defended patriots in the famous "Fort Smith Sedition Trial" and has since been vilified by the ADL. Bradley Smith Viciously character-assassinated and kicked off his web server. Background and contribution: A Libertarian, former bookstore owner, bullfighter, writer and broadcaster, Smith runs the wildly successful "Campus Project", placing ads in college and university student papers and asking for an open debate on the Holocaust. He is the owner of the popular CODOH website, known to be one of the top mainstream Revisionist websites on the Net, running head-to-head with Greg Raven's new Institute for Historical Review website now under construction. The Holocaust Lobby is relentless in its attacks against Bradley Smith, who speaks fluent Spanish and has moved to Mexico to cut costs. ZØndel defense witness in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. Michael Hoffman II Viciously character-assassinated. Background and contribution: Hoffman is a former Associated Press reporter and author of the first book on Ernst ZØndel's 1985 Trial, a biography that has undergone many printings. He is an indefatigable Revisionist researcher. He publishes a monthly newsletter titled Revisionist History, and is the author and publisher of numerous books and booklets. A noted, talented speaker and producer of Revisionist videos, Hoffman is also one of Revisionists' most skilled and passionate writers. He has drawn the Holocaust Lobby's ire for his grass roots street level activism and manly courage. Ingrid Weckert Tried, convicted and fined. Background and contribution: One of the best-known German historical researchers and writers, Weckert is best known for her book on the events leading up to Kristallnacht - a book called "Feuerzeichen" (Flashpoint). She has been subjected to police raids, during one of which Ernst ZØndel was arrested in her apartment in Munich. A former tourist guide for travel agencies, she reads and speaks Hebrew. She knew Menachim Begin and other Jewish leaders personally and frequently visited Israel. In 1998, she was tried, convicted and fined DM 3,500 for writing a Revisionist article. She now lives at the edge of poverty from a small pension. Erhard Kemper Legally harassed. Endlessly hounded. Background and contribution: Kemper is a German agrarian engineer and gifted, politically astute freelance writer who has been arrested, tried and convicted for his revisionist writings in Germany dozens of times. He is unbroken in spirit, in spite of the constant legal harassment and failing health as a result of his persecution. He has been completely impoverished and his health has been ruined, but he bravely soldiers on. GØnther Deckert Currently imprisoned in Bruchsal, Germany. Faces up to eight years incarceration. Background and contribution: A German educator, party leader, writer, public speaker and publicist, Deckert won fame for being tried and convicted after he simultaneously translated an English-language lecture by Fred Leuchter in Germany into German. He was at first acquitted by a German judge who found him to be an upright and decent patriot, then recharged and convicted by a different judge after an artificially created international media uproar. Now German prosecutors keep piling court case after court case on Deckert while he is in jail. He bravely keeps fighting on. Hans Schmidt Arrested, tried and jailed in Germany, even though he was a US citizen. Background and contribution: German-American author and publisher of a German- as well as an English-language newsletter (GANPAC Brief and USA-Berichte), Schmidt was arrested in 1995 for having written about a "Jew- and Freemason infested" oligarchy and media ruling today's Germany. He spent 5 months in prison for four words. Released on bail and in ill health, Schmidt returned to the USA where he wrote a book about his experience in Germany, titled "Jailed in Democratic Germany." He has been a thorn in the side of the German vassal authorities for many years. David Cole Became a victim of the JDL. Was physically beaten. Had his life threatened on the Internet by the Jewish Defense League. Background and contribution: This young Jewish Revisionist filmmaker came to the defense of Ernst ZØndel when ZØndel needed defending. Subsequently, ZØndel and Cole made a film in Auschwitz, with David Cole pointing out all the things wrong with that theme park of hate against Germans. Later yet, Cole came to Canada to lecture to large audiences on his Revisionist findings in Auschwitz, together with David Irving. He also appeared with ZØndel in Munich, Germany, spreading Revisionism right under the watchful eyes of the German political police. In a vicious letter posted on the Internet, the Jewish Defense League threatened Cole's life. Emotionally fragile and torn between his conscience and family loyalties as well as filial devotion, he could not withstand the pressure and recanted with an abject apology to his tribesmen and tormentors. Every serious Revisionist understands that this act of recantation was coerced and may have bought David his very survival. JØrgen Graf Charged, tried and convicted in Switzerland. Fired for the second time from his teaching post. Background and contribution: A Swiss school teacher and language genius, Graf speaks almost one dozen languages fluently and understands many more, some of them the most exotic ones such as Russian, Japanese, Thai as well as Malay and Filipino dialects. Author of several books, among them "Der Holocaust auf dem PrØfstand" (The Holocaust on Trial), he went recently to Russia where he researched Russian archives for months. The Swiss government charged, tried and convicted Graf in 1998 to 15 months in jail under the new anti-Revisionist law adopted by the Swiss in 1994. His German-born, 80-year-old publisher was likewise convicted to 1 year in prison. Siegfried Verbeke Currently on trial in Holland under immense police pressure in Belgium. Endured numerous police raids and business boycotts. Background and contribution: The most dynamic Revisionist in Belgium and maybe all of Europe, Verbeke published numerous books, booklets, magazines and tracts for European Revisionists. Verbeke is now himself on trial, together with Dr. Faurisson - accused of cutting into the financial profits of the Anne Frank Foundation because of their books and texts critical of the Anne Frank Diary. Both are currently appealing a Dutch verdict. Verbeke seems undeterred by numerous police raids. Europe-wide, he carries on with a vigorous mass circulation, grassroots-based Revisionist Truth-in-History campaign in several European languages. Carlos Porter Charged, tried in absentia, and convicted in Germany. Background and contribution: An American ex-patriate, skilled linguist and translator living in Belgium and author of numerous books - "Not Guilty at Nuremberg", "Made in Russia: The Holocaust" subtitled "The German Defenses Case" - Porter was charged by the Germans in 1997. He refused to attend the trial, was tried in absentia and convicted. He responded with a defiant, blistering Emile Zola-like excoriating written counterattack to the judge in his case, and presently is waiting to be arrested and taken to Germany to serve his sentence there. Malcolm Ross Fired from his teaching post for politically incorrect writings. Background and contribution: A Canadian school teacher and author, Ross was for years a thorn in the eyes of the Holocaust Lobby because of his writings. It took years to fire him under some flimsy excuse because he never taught his version of history in class. Charged and re-charged, he repeatedly won in appeal courts. After years of litigation, the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling found Malcolm Ross guilty in the end, and he was sentenced to a fine. Today, he is the unemployed father of two children. Ingrid Rimland Vilified by the ADL as an "Extremist." Had her new trilogy "Lebensraum!" seized by the hundreds and banned in Canada as "hate material." Background and contribution: A relative newcomer to Revisionism, Ingrid Rimland is best known for her novels dealing with World War II that bring to life and explain the underlying reasons of the Third Reich's struggle against Communism. Canada Customs confiscated and banned the titles, even though there was not enough time to have these massive, well-researched books read, much less professionally content-evaluated. Rimland has had global mainstream media coverage as the defender of the controversy-dogged Zundelsite - which seems to be the reason her name as been smeared as an "Extremist" in a 1997 ADL smear publication. Pedro Varela Grotesquely charged with "genocide" - for selling books. Background and contribution: Spanish bookseller and well-known, long-time leader of the Spanish youth group "Cedade", Varela is currently before the Spanish courts for "genocide" for selling historical, Revisionist and National Socialist books. Jewish Lobbyists have asked for a 24 year prison term for Varela. Ahmed Rami Tried, convicted and imprisoned in Sweden. Background and contribution: Rami is a former Moroccan military officer living in exile in Sweden, where he used to run "Radio Islam", a radio program that was closed down due to Holocaust Lobby pressure. He was tried and convicted in Sweden for his Revisionist views and served a nine month prison term. Now he runs a much-visited, multilingual website famous the world over, which has come under repeated attack by French and Swedish Jewish sources. He won several court skirmishes, and for the moment seems to hold his own. Nick Griffin Charged, tried, convicted and fined in England. Background and contribution: Famous for his recent court case over pictures and words published in the magazine "The Rune", Griffin, a well-known British political activist, was charged, tried and convicted as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Tony Blair's election promises - to be "tougher on Revisionists and racists." Two US black separatist leaders spoke out as witnesses for Griffin, but he was convicted nonetheless to a steep fine of L3,000. (The expert witness for the defense was none other than Dr. Robert Faurisson who helped out once again when help was needed.) Griffin is reported to be unbowed. Jean Marie Le Pen Charged, convicted and under political sanctions in France. Background and contribution: The flamboyant French leader of the "Front National", the largest and most promising nationalist political party in Europe, "belittled" the Holocaust and called it "a mere detail, a footnote in the history of WWII" - apparently using the phrase on three different occasions! He was recently convicted in a French court under the Communist-inspired Gayssot Law. He was given a steep fine and forbidden to run in elections for the next two years. Le Pen is undeterred, even though politically victimized for years by the French political establishment and a disgustingly hypocritical, largely Jewish-dominated French media. Roger Garaudy Charged, tried and convicted in France. Background and contribution: A former French Communist leader, philosopher and recent convert to Revisionism and Islam, Garaudy was charged, tried and convicted for writing a semi-Revisionist book titled "The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics," in which he had quoted extensively from material by Dr. Faurisson (without attribution) and by Barbara Kulaszka's book "Did Six Million Really Die?" (with attribution). He was condemned to a $50,000 fine. His trial was a farce and his performance in court disappointing. However, as a result, he seems to have kicked loose an avalanche of Revisionist thought and activities in the Moslem world, much to the chagrin of Israel - a country that more and more considers Revisionism its Number One problem. Abbe Pierre Victim of fierce world-wide media vilification. Background and contribution: Considered a male "Mother Theresa" for his altruistic dedication to the poor of France, this famous pro-Marxist French cleric endorsed Roger Garaudy's Revisionist book - and was almost crucified by a vitriolic media reaction. The Holocaust Enforcers made a huge mistake picking on this man. He fired back salvo after salvo - much to everyone's surprise. He fought bravely for a man well into his eighties, but in the end fled into a monastery in Italy - from where he apologized under pressure from his church. Doug Collins Harassed and vilified by the BC Human Rights Commisson. Financially penalized. Background and contribution: Doug Collins was a British soldier in World War II. He was captured and escaped several times. He worked in an intelligence capacity with the British Control Commission in occupied Germany after the war. He emigrated to Canada in the 1950s and worked for several Canadian newspapers. He drew the ire of the Holocaust Enforcers after he testified for Ernst ZØndel in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. He declared that as a journalist, he saw nothing wrong with the booklet "Did Six Million Really Die?" and that he found no "hate" in that 30,000 word essay. An award-winning journalist and TV commentator and the author of several books, Collins was hauled before a quasi-court by Holocaust Enforcers when he wrote a column about "Swindler's List" and commented on the preponderance of Jews in Hollywood. He and his paper had to defend themselves before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, which, in the end, ruled in his favor, after his paper spent more than $200,000 and Collins spent $50,000 of his own money. Barely had he won the case when he was re-charged - for the same column, along with three others! Dr. Robert Countess Vilified by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the intervenor lawyers in the most recent Political Show Trial case of Ernst ZØndel. Background and contribution: The American Revisionist, former army chaplain, lecturer, writer and globe-trotting good-will ambassador, Dr. Robert Countess, was targeted for a special smear- and vilification campaign by Jewish intervenors at the ZØndel CHRT Inquisition in Toronto in June 1998. He was sneeringly denied expert witness status, even though he was completely familiar with all the major works discussed and had been in touch with most authors, even in person, dealing with the Holocaust topic - pro and con. Dr. Countess left the "People's Republic of Canada", as he called it, for the safety and constitutionally governed and protected USA, from where he vowed to carry on the struggle for freedom of speech with still greater vigor. IYP-L Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje Subject: IYP-L Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje From: zBigniew Koziol Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:04:05 -0500 Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej protestuje Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 3:11 PM Dziennik GAZETA w Toronto, dn. 21 stycznia 1999: "Zydzi sobie zalatwili..." Toronto - Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej oraz Kongres Ukrainski protestuja, gdyz pominieto je podczas obecnej wizyty premiera Kanady w Polsce i na Ukrainie. Szefowi kanadyjskiego rzadu bedzie towarzyszyc jedynie trzyosobowa delegacja Kongresu Kanadyjskich Zydow. W zwiazku z pominieciem reprezentacji KPK, organizacja ta wystosowala oficjalny protest do biura Chretiena domagajac sie rownoprawnego traktowania. Tygodnik ZWIAZKOWIEC w Toronto, dn. 21 stycznia 1999: "Niezrozumiala polityka premiera Kanady... Najpierw Oswiecim, pozniej Warszawa" W sobote 23 stycznia premier Kanady Jean Chretien przybedzie z oficjalna wizyta do Polski. Program pobytu przewiduje, najpierw odwiedzenie bylych obozow koncentracyjnych Oswiecim-Brzezinka, nastepnie w poniedzialek, 25 stycznia przybycie do Warszawy, gdzie odbedzie sie oficjalne powitanie premiera Chretiena. Program bobytu premiera Kanady przewiduje miedzy innymi rozmowy z premierem Jerzym Buzkiem oraz prezydentem RP Aleksandrem Kwasniewskim. Jak podaje "The Globe and Mail" oraz "The Canadian Jewish News", w skladzie rzadowej delegacji udajacej z oficjalna wizyta do Polski, znalezli sie takze przedstawiciele Kongresu Zydow Kanadyjskich. Na specjalne zaproszenie premiera Jean Chretiena do waskiej ekipy towarzyszacych mu gosci dolaczyli sie prezes CJC Moshe Ronen oraz jeden z dyrektorow tegoz Kongresu, Jack Silverstone. Obydwaj przybeda do Warszawy z ojcami, ktorzy sa bylymi wiezniami obozu zaglady w Oswiecimiu-Brzezince. Odwiedzenie najwiekszego cmentarza swiata, jest jednym z istotniejszych punktow programu wizyty premiera Chretiena. Poniewaz kanadyjska delegacja wylatuje do Polski w sobote, czyli w dniu Sabatu, zydowscy goscie - cytujemy za "The Canadian Jewish News" - powitaja Jean Chretiena juz w Warszawie. Kongres Polonii Kanadyjskiej zwrocil sie do szefa tzw. PMO (Prime Minister's Office), Petera Sparksa z prosba o uwzglednienie w skladzie delegacji takze kilku przedstawicieli KPK. Niestety - jak nas poinformowala sekretarz generalna Zarzadu Glownego KPK Alicja Gettlich - premier odmowil uwzgelednienia prosby Zarzadu Glownego KPK. Peter Sparks powiedzal, ze decyzja dotyczaca wizyty premiera Kanady w bylych obozach smierci z przedstawicielami tylko grupy zydowskiej zostala podjeta "ze wzgledow tylko premierowi znanych - jest to wizyta prywatna i premier moze na nia zaprosic kogo chce". Przedstawiciel premiera dodal, ze podczas swojej oficjalnej wizyty w Polsce, premier jako glowa panstwa, reprezentuje wszystkich Kanadyjczykow, i ze nie mial on zamiaru obrazac zadnej grupy etnicznej. O tej kompromitujacej decyzji poinformujemy Panstwa w kolejnym wydaniu "Zwiazkowca". Ponizszy komunikat ZG Kongresu Polonii Kanadyjskiej dotyczy wizyty kanadyjskiego premiera J. Chretien'a w Oswiecimiu 24 stycznia br. Premier zaprosil, aby go tam towarzyszyc, delegacje z Zydowskiego Kongresu w Kanadzie na koszt panstwa kanadyjskiego. Podobnego zaproszenia nie otrzymal KPK pomimo interwencji i protestow. Jest to kolejnym - i wybitnym - dowodem, ze judaizacja Oswiecimia jest faktem dokonanym na Zachodzie. Mozna przypuszczac, ze jesli zostanie usuniety krzyz papieski z terenu zwirowiska, za kilka lat zupelnie zaniknie - i tak juz slabiutka - swiadomosc, ze w Oswiecimiu rowniez zgineli Polacy. [1992] 1 S.C.R. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli 711 The Minister of Employment and Immigration Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. Joseph (Giuseppe) Chiarelli Respondent and Cross-Appellant and The Security Intelligence Review Committee Intervener Indexed as: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli File No.: 21920. 1991: October 28; 1992: March 26. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-DubÊ, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Immigration -- Deportation -- Permanent resident convicted of serious offence and ordered deported -- Appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with organized crime -- Summary provided of Committee's in camera proceedings -- Whether infringement of s. 7 right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice -- Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, ss. 4(2), 19(1)(d)(ii), 27(1)(d)(i), (ii), (3), (4), 32(2), 72(1)(a), (b), 82.1(1), (2)(a), (c), (3), (4), (5), (6)(a), (b), 83(1)(a), (2). Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice -- Deportation of permanent resident convicted of serious crime -- Appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with organized crime -- Summary provided of Committee's in camera proceedings -- Whether infringement of s. 7 right to liberty and right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7. Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Cruel and unusual punishment or treatment -- Deportation of permanent resident convicted of serious crime -- Whether infringement of s. 12 right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment or treatment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 12. Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Equality rights -- Deportation of permanent resident convicted of serious crime -- Appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds barred if Security Intelligence Review Committee finding involvement with organized crime -- Whether infringement of s. 15 right to equal benefit before and under the law -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15. Administrative law -- Natural justice -- Fair hearing -- Security Intelligence Review Committee considering whether permanent resident involved with organized crime -- Part of Committee hearing in camera -- Background material and summary of proceedings provided -- Finding of involvement with organized crime barring appeal to Immigration Appeal Board on compassionate grounds. This appeal called into question the constitutionality of the statutory scheme providing for the deportation of a permanent resident on conviction of a serious criminal offence. The main appeal concerned the removal of a ground of appeal from a deportation order and the procedure by which that removal is effected. The cross-appeal attacked the general statutory scheme. Respondent was identified in an immigration report made by an immigration officer in January 1986 pursuant to s. 27 of the Immigration Act, 1976, as a permanent resident convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed and therefore a person described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii). An adjudicator, after an inquiry attended by appellant and his counsel, found respondent to be a person described in that section and ordered him deported. The hearing of respondent's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board against the deportation order, brought pursuant to s. 72(1), was adjourned after the Solicitor General and the Minister of Employment and Immigration made a joint report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee pursuant to s. 82.1(2) indicating respondent to be a person reasonably likely to engage in organized crime. The Review Committee conducted the required investigation and held a hearing. Prior to the hearing respondent was provided with a document giving background information as to the hearing and summaries of information. A summary of the evidence taken in in camera proceedings of this hearing and provided to respondent indicated that evidence was led that respondent, together with certain named individuals, was a member of a criminal organization which engaged in extortion and drug related activities and that respondent personally took part in the extortion and drug related activities of the organization. The information made available to respondent and the criminal records of respondent and his associates were before the Committee when he appeared and was asked to respond. Counsel for respondent objected to the fairness and constitutionality of the proceeding. The Review Committee reported to the Governor in Council, pursuant to s. 82.1(6)(a), that respondent was a person there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in organized crime as described in s. 19(1)(d)(ii). The Governor in Council adopted the conclusion of the Review Committee and directed the appellant Minister to issue a certificate under s. 83(1) with respect to respondent's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board from the deportation order. This certificate was issued, with the result that respondent's appeal would have to be dismissed in so far as it was brought pursuant to s. 72(1)(b). The hearing of the appeal was adjourned when respondent gave notice that he intended to raise constitutional questions before the Board and three questions were referred to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination. The court found that: (1) ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not infringe ss. 7, 12 or 15 of the Charter; (2) ss. 82.1 and 83 did not infringe ss. 12 or 15 of the Charter but the question as to whether they contravened s. 7 was not a question that the Board could refer to the Court pursuant to s. 28(4) of the Federal Court Act; and (3) the Board would, in relying upon the certificate, violate respondent's rights under s. 7 and this violation was not justified under s. 1. The constitutional questions stated in this Court queried whether: (1) ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976 infringed s. 7 of the Charter, and if so, whether that infringement was justified under s. 1; (2) whether reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Act filed in respondent's case infringed s. 7 because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committed did not meet the requirements of s. 7. The respondent in the main appeal was granted leave to cross-appeal, and the constitutional questions stated there queried whether ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) of the Act infringed ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter in that they required the deportation of persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, and if so, whether that infringement was justified under s. 1. Held: The appeal should be allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed. With respect to the main appeal, assuming without deciding that s. 7 is applicable, ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, do not infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not result in an infringement of s. 7 having regard to the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. With respect to the cross-appeal, the requirement that persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more be deported, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, does not offend s. 15, or ss. 7 or 12 assuming without deciding that these sections applied. The Court must look to the principles and policies underlying immigration law in determining the scope of principles of fundamental justice as they apply here. The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in the country. The common law recognizes no such right and the Charter recognizes the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. While permanent residents are given the right to move to, take up residence in, and pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right "to enter, remain in and leave Canada" in s. 6(1). Parliament therefore has the right to adopt an immigration policy and to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to enter and remain in Canada. It has done so in the Immigration Act. A permanent resident has a right to remain in Canada only if he or she has not been convicted of a more serious offence -- one for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed. This condition represents a legitimate, non-arbitrary choice by Parliament of a situation in which it is not in the public interest to allow a non-citizen to remain in the country. All persons falling within the class of permanent residents described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii) have deliberately violated an essential condition under which they were permitted to remain in Canada. Fundamental justice is not breached by deportation: it is the only way to give practical effect to the termination of a permanent resident's right to remain in Canada. Compliance with fundamental justice does not require that other aggravating or mitigating circumstances be considered. The deportation authorized by ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) was not cruel and unusual. The standards of decency are not outraged by the deportation of a permanent resident who has deliberately violated an essential condition of his or her being permitted to remain in Canada by committing a serious criminal offence. Rather, those standards would be outraged if individuals granted conditional entry into Canada were permitted to violate those conditions deliberately and without consequence. A deportation scheme applicable to permanent residents, but not to citizens, does not infringe s. 15 of the Charter. Section 6 of the Charter specifically provides for differential treatment of citizens and permanent residents in this regard. While permanent residents are given various mobility rights in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada in s. 6(1). The effect of the certificate under s. 83 was to direct the Immigration Appeal Board to dismiss any appeal made on compassionate grounds pursuant to s. 72(1)(b) and so limit the appeal to questions of fact or law or mixed fact and law. Neither the substantive provisions nor the procedure followed by the Review Committee resulted in a s. 7 violation. The impugned legislation is consistent with s. 7 of the Charter. Section 7 does not mandate the provision of a compassionate appeal from a decision which comports with principles of fundamental justice. The right to appeal from the adjudicator's decision, first to the Board on questions of fact or law or mixed fact and law, and then to the Federal Court of Appeal with leave on questions of law, offers ample protection to an individual from an erroneous decision by the adjudicator and clearly satisfies the principles of fundamental justice. The absence of an appeal on wider grounds than those on which the initial decision was based does not violate s. 7. There has never been a universally available right of appeal from a deportation order on "all the circumstances of the case". The scope of principles of fundamental justice will vary with the context and the interests at stake. Similarly, the rules of natural justice and the concept of procedural fairness, which may inform principles of fundamental justice in a particular context, are not fixed standards. In assessing whether a procedure accords with fundamental justice, it may be necessary to balance competing interests of the state and the individual. Assuming that the proceedings before the Review Committee were subject to the principles of fundamental justice, those principles were observed, having regard to the information disclosed to respondent, the procedural opportunities available to him, and the competing interests at play in this area. In the context of hearings conducted by the Review Committee pursuant to a joint report, an individual has an interest in a fair procedure since the Committee's investigation may result in its recommending to the Governor in Council that a s. 83 certificate issue, removing an appeal on compassionate grounds. However, the state also has a considerable interest in effectively conducting national security and criminal intelligence investigations and in protecting police sources. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security Intelligence Review Committee Rules recognize the competing individual and state interests and attempt to find a reasonable balance between them. The Rules expressly direct that the Committee's discretion be exercised with regard to this balancing of interests. The various documents given respondent provided sufficient information to know the substance of the allegations against him, and to be able to respond. It was not necessary, in order to comply with fundamental justice in this context, that respondent also be given details of the criminal intelligence investigation techniques or police sources used to acquire that information. Cases Cited Referred to: Hoang v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1990), 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 35; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, [1973] 2 All E.R. 741; Prata v. Minister of Manpower & Immigration, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 376; Reference as to the effect of the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy upon Deportation Proceedings, [1933] S.C.R. 269; Hurd v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 594; R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; Syndicat des employÊs de production du QuÊbec et de l'Acadie v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball, [1977] 3 All E.R. 452; R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; Ross v. Kent Inst. (1987), 57 C.R. (3d) 79. Statutes and Regulations Cited Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 6(1), (2)(a), (b), 7, 12, 15(1). Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, S.C. 1984, c. 21, ss. 43, 44, 48(2), 48. to 51. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, ss. 331(1)(a). Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28(4). Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, ss. 4(2), 19(1)(d)(ii), 27(1)(d)(i), (ii), (3), (4), 32(2), 72(1)(a), (b) [am. S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 81], 82.1(1), (2)(a), (c), (3), (4), (5), (6)(a), (b) [am. S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84], 83(1)(a), (2) [am. S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84]. Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, s. 4(2). Security Intelligence Review Committee Rules, ss. 48(1), (2), (3), (4), 45 to 51. Authors Cited Canada. Department of Employment and Immigration. White Paper on Immigration. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1966. Concise Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Petit Robert 1. Par Paul Robert. Paris: Le Robert, 1990. APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 299, 67 D.L.R. (4th) 697, 107 N.R. 107, 1 C.R.R. (2d) 230, 10 Imm. L.R. (2d) 137, 42 Admin. L.R. 189. Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. With respect to the main appeal, assuming without deciding that s. 7 is applicable, ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, do not infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not result in an infringement of s. 7 having regard to the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. With respect to the cross-appeal, the requirement that persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more be deported, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender, does not offend s. 15, or ss. 7 or 12 assuming without deciding that these sections applied. David Sgayias, Q.C., and Gerry N. Sparrow, for the appellant. Irwin Koziebrocki and David Schermbrucker, for the respondent. Simon NoÌl and Sylvie Roussel, for the intervener. The judgment of the Court was delivered by //Sopinka J.// SOPINKA J. -- This appeal calls into question the constitutionality of the statutory scheme pursuant to which a permanent resident can be deported from Canada if, upon the report of an immigration officer and following an inquiry, he is found to have been convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed. The scheme is attacked on the grounds that it violates ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A further attack, based on s. 7 of the Charter, is brought against the interaction of that scheme with investigations conducted by the Security Intelligence Review Committee into the activities of persons reasonably believed to be involved in certain types of criminal or subversive activity. I. The Legislative Scheme This appeal requires the Court to consider the operation of a comprehensive legislative scheme which governs the deportation of permanent residents who have been convicted of certain criminal offences. I find it convenient to reproduce the relevant provisions at the outset. The provisions are those that were in force when these proceedings were commenced by the inquiry before the adjudicator. Since that time, several of the section numbers have been amended and there have been other minor amendments such as the consolidation of two subsections into one. However the substance of the provisions relevant to this appeal remains the same. (See Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2). Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, S.C. 1984, c. 21 4. . . . (2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident and a Convention refugee while lawfully in Canada have a right to remain in Canada except where (a)in the case of a permanent resident, it is established that that person is a person described in subsection 27(1); 19. (1) No person shall be granted admission if he is a member of any of the following classes: . . . (d) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will . . . (ii) engage in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of any offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by way of indictment; 27. (1) Where an immigration officer or peace officer has in his possession information indicating that a permanent resident is a person who . . . (d) has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of (i) more than six months has been imposed, or (ii) five years or more may be imposed, . . . he shall forward a written report to the Deputy Minister setting out the details of such information. (3) Subject to any order or direction of the Minister, the Deputy Minister shall, on receiving a report pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), and where he considers that an inquiry is warranted, forward a copy of that report and a direction that an inquiry be held to a senior immigration officer. (4) Where a senior immigration officer receives a copy of a report and a direction pursuant to subsection (3), he shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, cause an inquiry to be held concerning the person with respect to whom the report was made. 32. . . . (2) Where an adjudicator decides that a person who is the subject of an inquiry is a permanent resident described in subsection 27(1), he shall, subject to subsections 45(1) and 47(3) [convention refugee], make a deportation order against that person. 72. (1) Subject to subsection (3), where a removal order is made against a permanent resident . . . that person may appeal to the Board on either or both of the following grounds, namely, (a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law or fact, or mixed law and fact; and (b) on the ground that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the person should not be removed from Canada. 82.1 (1) In this section and section 83, "Review Committee" has the meaning assigned to that expression by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (2) Where the Minister and the Solicitor General are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that (a) a person who has made . . . an appeal pursuant to paragraph 72(1)(b) . . . . . . is a person described, (c) in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(1)(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(1)(e) or (g) or 27(1)(c), . . . they may make a report to the Review Committee and shall, within ten days after the report is made, cause a notice to be sent informing the person who made the appeal of the report and stating that following an investigation in relation thereto, the appeal may be dismissed. (3) Where a report is made to the Review Committee pursuant to subsection (2), the Review Committee shall investigate the grounds on which it is based and for that purpose subsections 39(2) and (3) and sections 43, 44 and 48 to 51 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the investigation as if the investigation were conducted in relation to a complaint made pursuant to section 42 of the Act, except that (a) a reference in any of those provisions, to "deputy head" shall be read as a reference to the Minister and the Solicitor General; and (b) paragraph 50(a) of that Act does not apply with respect to the person concerning whom the report is made. (4) The Review Committee shall, as soon as practicable after a report is made to it pursuant to subsection (2), send to the person who made the appeal referred to in that subsection a statement summarizing such information available to it as will enable the person to be as fully informed as possible of the circumstances giving rise to the report. (5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a report concerning any person is made to the Review Committee pursuant to subsection (2), the hearing of an appeal concerning the person ... pursuant to paragraph 72(1)(b) . . . shall be adjourned until the Review Committee has, pursuant to subsection (6), made a report to the Governor in Council with respect to that person and the Governor in Council has made a decision in relation thereto. (6) The Review Committee shall, (a) on completion of an investigation in relation to a report made to it pursuant to subsection (2), make a report to the Governor in Council containing its conclusion whether or not a certificate should be issued under subsection 83(1) and the grounds on which that conclusion is based; and (b) at the same time as or after a report is made pursuant to paragraph (a), provide the person who made the appeal referred to in subsection (2) with a report containing the conclusion referred to in that paragraph. 83. (1) Where, after considering a report made by the Review Committee referred to in paragraph 82.1(6)(a), the Governor in Council is satisfied that a person referred to in paragraph 82.1(2)(a) . . . is a person described (a) in the case of a permanent resident, in subparagraph 19(1)(d)(ii) or paragraph 19(1)(e) or (g) or 27(1)(c), . . . the Governor in Council may direct the Minister to issue a certificate to that effect. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Board shall dismiss any appeal made . . . pursuant to paragraph 72(1)(b) . . . if a certificate referred to in subsection (1), signed by the Minister, is filed with the Board. Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, S.C. 1984, c. 21 (now R.S.C., 1985, c. C-23) 48. . . . (2) In the course of an investigation of a complaint under this Part by the Review Committee, the complainant, deputy head concerned and the Director shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the Review Committee, to present evidence and to be heard personally or by counsel, but no one is entitled as of right to be present during, to have access to or to comment on representations made to the Review Committee by any other person. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. II. Facts and Proceedings The respondent, Joseph (Giuseppe) Chiarelli, was born in Italy in 1960. He received landed immigrant status upon his arrival in Canada in 1975. On November 1, 1984, the respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully uttering threats to cause injury, contrary to s. 331(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, as amended, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. He received a suspended sentence. On November 5, 1984, he pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, as amended, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. In January of 1986, Immigration Officer A. Zografos signed a report pursuant to s. 27 of the Immigration Act, 1976 ("the Act"), identifying the respondent as a permanent resident described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii), that is, a permanent resident who has been convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed. As a result of this report, an inquiry was directed pursuant to s. 27(3) of the Act. The respondent was notified of this inquiry and attended. At the conclusion of the inquiry on May 7, 1986, Adjudicator J. E. McNamara determined, relying on the Narcotic Control Act conviction, that the respondent was a person described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii). He therefore made a deportation order against the respondent pursuant to s. 32(2). The hearing of the respondent's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board against the deportation order, brought pursuant to s. 72(1) (now R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 70(1)), was adjourned after the Solicitor General and the Minister of Employment and Immigration made a joint report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (the "Review Committee") pursuant to s. 82.1(2) (now s. 81(2)). The report indicated that in the opinion of the ministers, the respondent was a person described in s. 19(1)(d)(ii), that is, a person who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in activity that is part of a pattern of organized criminal activity. Upon receipt of the joint report, the Review Committee conducted the required investigation and a hearing was held on September 2 and 3, 1987. Prior to this hearing the respondent was provided with a document entitled "Statement of Circumstances giving rise to the making of a Report by the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the Security Intelligence Review Committee", as well as two summaries of information. The first was a document entitled "Chronology of Information and Occurrences Relating to Giuseppe Chiarelli" and consisted of an extensive summary of surveillance of the respondent. The second document was entitled "Summary of Interpretation of Intercepted Private Communications relating to the murder of Domenic Racco". The first day of the hearing was held in camera and a summary of the evidence provided to the respondent. This summary indicated that evidence was led that the respondent, together with certain named individuals, was a member of a criminal organization which engaged in extortion and drug related activities, and further that the respondent personally took part in the extortion and drug related activities of the organization. At the second day of the hearing, the respondent attended with counsel. The "Statement of Circumstances", the "Chronology of Information" and the "Summary of Interpretation of Intercepted Private Communications" were placed before the Review Committee, as were the criminal records of the respondent and his alleged associates. The respondent was then invited to respond. Counsel for the respondent objected to the fairness and constitutionality of the proceeding. He submitted no evidence at the hearing and chose not to cross-examine the two RCMP witnesses who had testified on the first day. He did, however, later make written submissions to the Committee. After consideration of the matter, the Review Committee reported to the Governor in Council, pursuant to s. 82.1(6)(a) (now s. 81(7)), that the respondent was a person described in s. 19(1)(d)(ii). The Governor in Council adopted the conclusion of the Review Committee and directed the appellant Minister to issue a certificate under s. 83(1) (now s. 82(1)) with respect to the respondent's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board from the deportation order. This certificate was issued, with the result that the respondent's appeal would have to be dismissed in so far as it was brought pursuant to s. 72(1)(b) (now s. 70(1)(b)). The hearing of the appeal was scheduled to resume in February of 1988. The respondent, however, gave notice that he intended to raise constitutional questions before the Board and the hearing was adjourned. On February 1, 1989, the Board, with the agreement of the parties, referred three questions to the Federal Court of Appeal for determination pursuant to s. 28(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10: 1 (a)do paragraph 27(1)(d)(ii) and subsection 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now paragraph 27(1)(d)(ii) and subsection 32(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they require the deportation of persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender; (b)if the paragraph and subsection referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, are they justified by section 1 of the Charter? 2 (a)do sections 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now sections 81 and 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter as those provisions: (i) deprive individuals of the right to life, liberty and security of the person in violation of the principles of fundamental justice, and/or; (ii) subject individuals to cruel and unusual punishment? and/or; (iii) deny individuals equality before and under the law? (b)if the sections referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, are they justified by section 1 of the Charter? 3 (a)does reliance upon the Certificate authorized by section 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now section 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2) filed in Mr. Chiarelli's case result in an infringement of his rights pursuant to section 7 of the Charter, because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee did not meet the requirements of section 7? (b)if reliance upon the Certificate does infringe or deny the right guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter, is it justified by section 1 of the Charter? III. Judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1990] 2 F.C. 299 Pratte J.A. (dissenting on the answer to reference question 3(b)) Pratte J.A. held that the combination of ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) of the Act does not violate s. 12 of the Charter because they do not impose a punishment. Section 32(2) is the corollary of the limits imposed by s. 4 of the Act on the right of a permanent resident to come to and remain in Canada. Similarly he held that they do not violate s. 7 since there is no injustice in requiring the deportation of a person who has lost the right to remain in Canada. Finally there is no violation of s. 15. Section 6 of the Charter specifically provides for different treatment of citizens and permanent residents regarding the right to remain in Canada. Nor does a distinction between permanent residents who have been convicted of an offence described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and other permanent residents amount to discrimination within the meaning of s. 15. Pratte J.A. refused to answer the second question of the reference in so far as it related to s. 7 of the Charter as it had not been determined by the Immigration Appeal Board that the respondent had not been given a full opportunity to refute the allegations against him. He held that there was no violation of s. 12 or s. 15. With respect to the third question, he observed that the filing of the s. 83 certificate had the effect of depriving the Immigration Appeal Board of its power to allow the respondent's appeal on compassionate grounds. The resulting deportation necessarily implied an interference with the liberty of the person. In concluding that the respondent's rights under s. 7 of the Charter had been infringed, Pratte J.A. observed at p. 318 that "it is a requirement of fundamental justice that no decision be made determining the rights of a person without giving that person a meaningful opportunity to be heard". In order to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the respondent had to know the information before the Review Committee in order to be able to contradict it. The respondent had not been provided this opportunity and therefore the procedure followed by the Review Committee did not meet the requirements of fundamental justice. Pratte J.A. concluded, however, that this limitation could be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 48(2) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act ("CSIS Act") which denies a party the right to be informed of the evidence led by the other party imposes a reasonable limit in light of the need to protect the secrecy of police investigations of organized criminal activities. This was particularly the case in view of the fact that the Committee's investigation was not to determine the guilt of the respondent, but only whether he deserved to benefit from an appeal on purely compassionate grounds. Stone J.A. (Urie J.A. concurring) The majority agreed with Pratte J.A.'s reasons except that in their view, the violation of s. 7 could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Although the interest of the state in protecting confidential police sources and techniques is of sufficient importance to warrant overriding constitutionally protected rights and the withholding of information is rationally connected to that objective, the majority concluded that the procedure enacted by s. 82.1(3) (now s. 81(4)) failed the remaining requirements of the proportionality test. Rather than balancing the state's interest in protecting confidential sources and techniques with the individual's interest in fundamental justice, it was the majority's view that the provision opts for a "complete obliteration" of the individual's right in favour of the state's interest. The Federal Court of Appeal answered the questions put to it as follows: 1 Subparagraph 27(1)(d)(ii) and subsection 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976 do not infringe section 7, 12 or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2 Sections 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976 do not infringe section 12 or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question whether those sections contravene section 7 of the Charter is not a question that the Board may refer to the Court pursuant to subsection 28(4) of the Federal Court Act. 3 (a)The Board would, in relying upon the certificate issued pursuant to section 83 in respect of Mr. Chiarelli, violate Mr. Chiarelli's rights under section 7 of the Charter. (b)The violation of section 7 is not justified by section 1 of the Charter. IV.Issues The appellant was granted leave to appeal and the following constitutional questions were stated by Gonthier J.: 1 (a) Do sections 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now ss. 81 and 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (b) If the sections referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, are they justified by s. 1 of the Charter? 2 (a) Does reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now s. 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) filed in the respondent's case result in an infringement of his rights pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter, because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee did not meet the requirements of s. 7? (b) If reliance upon the certificate does infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, is it justified by s. 1 of the Charter? The respondent in the main appeal was granted leave to cross-appeal, and the following constitutional questions were stated by Gonthier J.: 1 (a) Do s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they require the deportation of persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender? (b) If the paragraph and subsection referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, are they justified by s. 1 of the Charter? The answers to these questions will dispose of the questions submitted to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 28(4) of the Federal Court Act with this exception. Question 2 at the Federal Court of Appeal corresponds to Question 1 in the main appeal but referred to s. 12 and s. 15 in addition to s. 7 of the Charter. Sections 12 and 15 were neither argued by the parties in this Court nor referred to in the constitutional questions. In the circumstances, I will not deal with them. V. Analysis The cross-appeal attacks the general scheme providing for deportation of permanent residents who have been convicted of certain criminal offences. The main appeal concerns the removal of a ground of appeal from a deportation order and the procedure by which that removal is effected. I will address the cross-appeal first. Throughout these reasons I will refer to Chiarelli as "the respondent" and the Minister as "the appellant", although their positions are actually reversed on the cross-appeal. 1 Do s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976 violate the Charter? Section 27(1) requires an immigration officer in possession of information that a permanent resident falls into one of its enumerated classes to forward a report setting out the details of that information to the Deputy Minister. The relevant class in this case is that set out in s. 27(1)(d)(ii), a person who has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed. An inquiry is then held by an adjudicator in cases where the Deputy Minister considers that one is warranted (s. 27(3)). Section 32(2) provides that where an adjudicator decides that a person who is the subject of an inquiry does fall within one of the classes in s. 27(1), the adjudicator shall, except in the case of a convention refugee, make a deportation order against that person. (a) Section 7 The essence of the respondent's position is that ss. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) are contrary to principles of fundamental justice because they are mandatory and require that deportation be ordered without regard to the circumstances of the offence or the offender. The appellant correctly points out that the threshold question is whether deportation per se engages s. 7, that is, whether it amounts to a deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person. The Federal Court of Appeal in Hoang v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1990), 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 35, held that deportation for serious offences is not to be conceptualized as a deprivation of liberty. I do not find it necessary to answer this question, however, since I am of the view that there is no breach of fundamental justice. The principles of fundamental justice are to be found in the basic tenets of our legal system. Lamer J. (as he then was) stated in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 513: Whether any given principle may be said to be a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 will rest upon an analysis of the nature, sources, rationale and essential role of that principle within the judicial process and in our legal system, as it evolves. He recognized, at p. 513, that "principles of fundamental justice" could not be defined in the abstract but would have to be interpreted in the context of alleged violations: . . . those words cannot be given any exhaustive content or simple enumerative definition, but will take on concrete meaning as the courts address alleged violations of s. 7. The importance of a contextual approach to the interpretation of s. 7 was emphasized by Cory J. in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, at p. 226: It is now clear that the Charter is to be interpreted in light of the context in which the claim arises. Context is relevant both with respect to the delineation of the meaning and scope of Charter rights, as well as to the determination of the balance to be struck between individual rights and the interests of society. He noted that under a contextual approach, constitutional standards developed in the criminal context could not automatically be applied to regulatory offences. Similarly in Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779, McLachlin J. adopted at p. 848 a contextual approach which "takes into account the nature of the decision to be made". She concluded that in defining the fundamental justice relevant to extradition, the Court must draw upon the principles and policies underlying extradition law and procedure. Thus in determining the scope of principles of fundamental justice as they apply to this case, the Court must look to the principles and policies underlying immigration law. The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in the country. At common law an alien has no right to enter or remain in the country: R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, [1973] 2 All E.R. 741; Prata v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 376. La Forest J. recently reiterated this principle in Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), supra, at p. 834: The Government has the right and duty to keep out and to expel aliens from this country if it considers it advisable to do so. This right, of course, exists independently of extradition. If an alien known to have a serious criminal record attempted to enter into Canada, he could be refused admission. And by the same token, he could be deported once he entered Canada. . . . If it were otherwise, Canada could become a haven for criminals and others whom we legitimately do not wish to have among us. The distinction between citizens and non-citizens is recognized in the Charter. While permanent residents are given the right to move to, take up residence in, and pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right "to enter, remain in and leave Canada" in s. 6(1). Thus Parliament has the right to adopt an immigration policy and to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to enter and remain in Canada. It has done so in the Immigration Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that no person other than a citizen, permanent resident, Convention refugee or Indian registered under the Indian Act has a right to come to or remain in Canada. The qualified nature of the rights of non-citizens to enter and remain in Canada is made clear by s. 4 of the Act. Section 4(2) provides that permanent residents have a right to remain in Canada except where they fall within one of the classes in s. 27(1). One of the conditions Parliament has imposed on a permanent resident's right to remain in Canada is that he or she not be convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be imposed. This condition represents a legitimate, non-arbitrary choice by Parliament of a situation in which it is not in the public interest to allow a non-citizen to remain in the country. The requirement that the offence be subject to a term of imprisonment of five years indicates Parliament's intention to limit this condition to more serious types of offences. It is true that the personal circumstances of individuals who breach this condition may vary widely. The offences which are referred to in s. 27(1)(d)(ii) also vary in gravity, as may the factual circumstances surrounding the commission of a particular offence. However there is one element common to all persons who fall within the class of permanent residents described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii). They have all deliberately violated an essential condition under which they were permitted to remain in Canada. In such a situation, there is no breach of fundamental justice in giving practical effect to the termination of their right to remain in Canada. In the case of a permanent resident, deportation is the only way in which to accomplish this. There is nothing inherently unjust about a mandatory order. The fact of a deliberate violation of the condition imposed by s. 27(1)(d)(ii) is sufficient to justify a deportation order. It is not necessary, in order to comply with fundamental justice, to look beyond this fact to other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. (b) Section 12 The respondent alleges a violation of s. 12 for essentially the same reasons that he claims s. 7 is infringed. He submits that the combination of s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and 32(2) constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because they require that deportation be ordered without regard to the circumstances of the offence or the offender. He submits that in the case at bar, the deportation order is grossly disproportionate to all the circumstances and further, that the legislation in general is grossly disproportionate, having regard to the many "relatively less serious offences" which are covered by s. 27(1)(d)(ii). I agree with Pratte J.A. that deportation is not imposed as a punishment. In Reference as to the effect of the Exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy Upon Deportation Proceedings, [1933] S.C.R. 269, Duff C.J. observed at p. 278 that deportation provisions were "not concerned with the penal consequences of the acts of individuals". See also Hurd v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2