Charles Scott and the Church of Jesus Christ in Israel

CHILLIWACK ANTI-RACISM v. CHARLES SCOTT T.D. 6/96

Decision rendered on April 30, 1996

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

R.S.C., 1985, c.H-6 (as amended)

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

CHILLIWACK ANTI-RACISM PROJECT SOCIETY

Complainant

and

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Commission

and

PASTOR CHARLES SCOTT AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN ISRAEL

Respondents

DECISION OF TRIBUNALTRIBUNAL: Anne L. Mactavish, Chairperson

Julie Pitzel

Lyman Robinson

APPEARANCES: Eddie Taylor

Counsel for the Canadian Human

Rights Commission

Maureen Chapman

Jan Pavlic

Representatives of the Complainant

No one appearing for the Respondents

DATES AND LOCATION OF HEARING: February 29, 1996 and March 1, 1996 Vancouver, British Columbia

INDEX

I INTRODUCTION 1

II THE COMPLAINTS 1

III THE RESPONDENTS 3

IV THE ISSUES 4

V WERE THE MESSAGES COMMUNICATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY MEANS OF THE FACILITIES OF A TELECOMMUNICATION UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT? 5 VI IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH, ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THAT THE NAMED RESPONDENTS, PASTOR CHARLES SCOTT AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN ISRAEL DID COMMUNICATE OR CAUSE TO BE COMMUNICATED REPEATEDLY THE MESSAGES GIVING RISE TO THIS COMPLAINT? 6

VII WERE THE MESSAGES COMMUNICATED LIKELY TO EXPOSE A PERSON OR PERSONS TO HATRED OR CONTEMPT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THAT PERSON OR THOSE PERSONS ARE IDENTIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF A PROHIBITED GROUND OF DISCRIMINATION? 9

VIII ORDER 19

I INTRODUCTION

This inquiry was held in Vancouver, British Columbia on February 29 and March 1, 1996. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal rendered an oral decision finding the complaints to have been substantiated, and ordering the respondents to cease the discriminatory practise. What follows are the reasons for that decision.

II THE COMPLAINTS

These two complaints are brought by the Chilliwack Anti-Racism Project Society (the "Society") under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the "CHRA").

The Society is a corporation established with the stated purpose of developing informed and collective action against prejudice and discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity within the community. The Society was represented at these proceedings by Ms. Maureen Chapman and Ms. Jan Pavlic, both directors of the Society.

Section 13 of the CHRA provides:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter."

Subsection 3(1) of the CHRA sets out the prescribed grounds of discrimination which include, inter alia, race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion. The two complaints, both dated March 15, 1995, are identical in form and in substance, save that one names Pastor Charles Scott as respondent and the other identifies the Church of Christ in Israel as respondent.

The complaints state:

We, the Chilliwack Anti-racism Project Society, have reasonable grounds to believe that Pastor Charles Scott [or the Church of Christ in Israel, as the case may be] discriminates against non-white and Jewish persons on the grounds of colour, national or ethnic origin, race, and religion, by causing to be communicated telephonic messages which expose them to hatred and contempt, contrary to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

On March 1, 1995, telephone number (614) 795-5835 provided a message claiming that this country was built by white people and that minorities, non-white crime, and racial treason are ruining this nation. The speaker introduced himself as Pastor Charles Scott. The message claims that the Church of Christ in Israel is laying the groundwork for a revolution which will return power to the white race. The message goes on to relay the organizations desire to wipe out Zionism and "every kike who supports it throughout the free world."

Although the March 1st message has been changed, we believe that messages with similar themes and contents are still being relayed. We believe that messages of this nature expose people to hatred and contempt which is in violation of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Tapes and transcripts of four messages were filed as exhibits in support of the complaints. These relate to messages recorded on March 1, March 6, March 31, and April 18, 1995. Copies of the transcripts of the messages in issue are appended to this decision.

III THE RESPONDENTS

Neither the respondent Pastor Charles Scott nor the Church of Christ in Israel appeared at the hearing of these complaints.

Mr. Bernard Fournier, the Tribunal Officer, filed statutory declarations of Shauna Wallace providing proof of service upon Charles Scott personally, and on behalf of the respondent Church of Christ in Israel of true copies of the appointment of a Human Rights Tribunal, a letter from the Registrar of the Tribunal, Mr. Michael Glynn, outlining the pre-hearing process, the guide to the operations to the Human Rights Tribunal and the agenda for the pre-hearing conference. Service was effected on October 10, 1995. Mr. Fournier also filed a memorandum from Mr. Glynn dated October 10, 1995 recounting a telephone discussion Mr. Glynn had with Charles Scott on that date. According to Mr. Glynn's memorandum, Pastor Scott advised Mr. Glynn that he had been served that day with notification of the Tribunal proceedings.

Pastor Scott advised Mr. Glynn that he did not recognize or accept the role or jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this matter, and that he would not be participating in any of the Tribunal proceedings.

All further correspondence from the Tribunal Registry to the respondents was returned to the Tribunal Registry Office with the notation "moved - address unknown".

The respondents did not participate in the pre-hearing conference, and, as previously noted, did not appear at the hearing of these complaints. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the respondent Pastor Charles Scott had notice of these complaints, and elected not to participate in the Tribunal process. For reasons that will be set out further on in this decision, the Tribunal is also satisfied that Charles Scott is directly involved in the operations of the respondent Church of Christ in Israel, and that notice to Pastor Scott was effective notice to the Church.

At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") brought a motion to add Leanne Decou, the wife of Pastor Charles Scott, as a respondent. For reasons given at the time, this motion was denied.

IV THE ISSUES

As was noted in Payzant et al. v. McAleer and Canadian Liberty Net (T.D. 4/94, Aff'd F.C.T.D. Feb. 6, 1996 per Joyal J.), in proceedings under section 13 of the CHRA there are three issues that must be considered in the determination of whether or not a complaint has been substantiated: 1. For the legislation to apply and for this Tribunal to have jurisdiction, it must be established that the communication took place "in whole or in part by means of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament". 2. There must be sufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the named Respondents ... did "communicate or cause to be communicated repeatedly" the message giving rise to this complaint.

3. It must be established that the subject matter of the message "is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that the person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination." (at p.5)

V WERE THE MESSAGES COMMUNICATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY MEANS OF THE FACILITIES OF A TELECOMMUNICATION UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT?

Mr. Gordon Mackie, the Manager of Security for the British Columbia Telephone Company ("BC Tell") testified that telephone number (604) 795-5835 was a number within the BC Tel system. BC Tel is engaged in telecommunications and is linked to a trans-Canada network of telecommunications systems through fiber optic, microwave and satellite technology. These enable BC Tel to offer long distance service to the rest of Canada and throughout the world.

Having considered the law as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in CNICP Communications v. Alberta Government Telephone (AGT) and Canadian Radio-Television Commission, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225, the Tribunal is satisfied that BC Tel has the necessary multilateral commercial links as part of the Canadian national telecommunication system so as to bring it within federal jurisdiction. This is consistent with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal in Khaki et al. v. Canadian Liberty Net and Derrick J. Peterson, (T.D. 17/93 at p.45, and by both the Tribunal and the Federal Court in Payzant, supra).

VI IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH, ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THAT THE NAMED RESPONDENTS, PASTOR CHARLES CAUSE TO BE SCOTT AND THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN ISRAEL DID COMMUNICATE OR COMMUNICATED REPEATEDLY THE MESSAGES GIVING RISE TO THIS COMPLAINT?

Ron Yamauchi and Angela Sandrin, both former employees of the Commission testified that the messages which form the subject matter of these complaints were accessed by dialing telephone number (604) 795-5835. The March 1, 1995 message opens with:

"Hello, and welcome to the Church of Christ in Israel. This is Pastor Charles Scott. ... Please address all inquiries, donations or comments to Pastor Charles Scott, P.O. Box 265, Yarrow, British Columbia V0X 2A0."

Several of the messages conclude by directing the listener to P.O. Box 265, Yarrow, British Columbia V0X 2A0 for comments, inquiries or donations. The other messages contained various references to Pastor Scott and the Church of Christ in Israel, as well as to the Aryan Nations organization and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. The April 18th message also identifies the speaker as Pastor Charles Scott.Mr. Mackie produced BC Tel's telephone records with respect to telephone number (604) 795-5835, which revealed that that number, and its associated number ((604)-795-5880) were recorded as belonging to L. Decou, at 46488 Hurndall Crescent, Chilliwack, British Columbia. The billing address for the account was P.O. Box 4144, Yarrow, British Columbia.

Freda Derksen, an employee of Canada Post employed in the Post Office in Yarrow testified with respect to the ownership of certain post office boxes. Mrs. Derksen produced the records for Box 265 (the post office box referred to in the messages). Canada Post records reveal that this box was registered to one Carrie Wheeler. Mrs. Derksen testified that she recalled receiving instructions that Ms. Wheeler would be allowing mail for Pastor Charles Scott to be received in her post office box. Sometime later, according to Mrs. Derksen, when Ms. Wheeler realized what Pastor Scott stood for and "the implications" of allowing Pastor Scott to use her box, she withdrew her permission. Mrs. Derksen was unable to pin-point when these events took place. Mrs. Derksen also testified as to the ownership of a second post office box - that being Post Office Box 144 in Yarrow. This box was opened on April 6, 1995 in the name of Charles Scott. Canada Post records reveal that Charles Scott's business/occupation is recorded as Pastor, Church of Christ in Israel. The records also reveal that other entities would receive mail at that box, these entities being the Church of Christ in Israel, the Mission for Justice, the Aryan Nations, and Leanne Scott. Mrs. Derksen testified that while the box number was identified in Canada Post's records as 144, when Canada Post converted to super boxes, the Super Box number for Yarrow was number 4. This resulted in Box 144 becoming Box 4144. Box 4144, Yarrow is the billing address for the telephone line in question.

Mrs. Derksen testified that she recalled sorting mail into Box 144 for each of the entities referred to in the previous paragraph.

Mrs. Derksen further testified that she knows Pastor Charles Scott by sight, and that she had frequently seen him at the Yarrow Post Office collecting the mail from Post Office Box 144. According to Mrs. Derksen, the mail box was abandoned in the fall of 1995.

The evidence before the Tribunal clearly ties the respondent Pastor Charles Scott to the telephone line in question. The billing address for the telephone line is the post office box opened by Pastor Charles Scott on his own behalf, and on behalf of the respondent Church of Christ in Israel and others. In addition, the testimony of Mrs. Derksen ties Pastor Charles Scott to the post office box referred to in the messages (Box 265). Finally, the narrator in certain of the messages identifies himself as Pastor Charles Scott. To the Tribunal's ear, the speaker in each of the four messages which form the subject matter of this complaint was the same. There was no evidence before this Tribunal as to the legal status of the respondent Church of Christ in Israel. whether it is a legal entity or a mere business style, the Tribunal is satisfied, based upon the circumstantial evidence before it, that it is an entity closely related to the respondent Pastor Charles Scott, and is one vehicle used by him for the expression and promotion of his views.

On all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent Pastor Charles Scott, both personally and through the auspices of the respondent Church of Christ in Israel did "communicate telephonically or caused to be so communicated repeatedly" the messages which are the basis of these complaints.

VII WERE THE MESSAGES COMMUNICATED LIKELY TO EXPOSE A PERSON OR PERSONS TO HATRED OR CONTEMPT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THAT PERSON OR THOSE PERSONS ARE IDENTIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF A PROHIBITED GROUND OF DISCRIMINATION?

In Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Taylor (July 20, 1979, (Can. Trib.) [unreported] the Tribunal considered the word "expose" in the context of section 13 of the CHRA. The Tribunal stated:

"Expose" is an unusual word to find in legislation designed to control hate propaganda. More frequently ... the reference is to matter which is abusive or offensive, or to statements which serve to excite or to promote hatred; "Incite" means to stir up, "promote" means to support actively. "Expose" is a more passive word which seems to indicate an active effort or intent on the part of the communicator or a violent reaction on the part of the recipient are not envisaged. To expose to hatred also indicates a more subtle and indirect type of communication than vulgar abuse or overly offensive language. "Expose" means to leave a person or thing unprotected, to leave without shelter or defence, to lay open (to danger, ridicule, scienter, etc.). In other words, if one is creating the right conditions for hatred to flourish, leaving the identifiable group open or vulnerable to ill feelings or hostility, if one is putting them at risk of being hated, in a situation where hatred or contempt are inevitable, one then falls within the compass of section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. (at p. 29)

The Supreme Court of Canada has had occasion to consider section 13 of the CHRA in the light of the protection afforded by subsection (2)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada (H.R.C.) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, the Court concluded that while subsection 13(1) of the CHRA infringed the freedom of expression protections afforded by subsection 2(b) of the Charter, nevertheless subsection 13(1) represents a reasonable limitation on the right of freedom of expression within the meaning of section 1 of the Charter. In coming to that conclusion, the court stated: In my view, there is no conflict between providing a meaningful interpretation of s. 13(1) and protecting the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so long as the interpretation of the words "hatred" and "contempt" is fully informed by an awareness that Parliament's objective is to protect the equality and dignity of all individuals by reducing the incidence of harm-causing expression. Such a perspective was employed by the Human Rights Tribunal in Nealy v. Johnston (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6450, the most recent decision regarding s. 13(1), where it was noted, at p. D/6469, that:

In defining "hatred" the Tribunal [in Taylor] applied the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary (1971 ed.) which reads: active dislike, detestation, enmity, ill-will, malevolence.

The Tribunal drew on the same source for their definition of "contempt". It was characterised as the condition of being condemned or despised; dishonour or disgrace.

As there is no definition of "hatred" or "contempt" within the (Canadian Human Rights Act) it is necessary to rely on what might be described as common understandings of the meaning of these terms. Clearly these are terms which have a potentially emotive content and how they are related to particular factual contexts by different individuals will vary. There is nevertheless an important core of meaning in both, which the dictionary definitions capture. With "hatred" the focus is a set of emotions and feelings which involve extreme ill will towards another person or group of persons.

To say that one "hates" another means in effect that one finds no redeeming qualities in the latter. It is a term, however, which does not necessarily involve the mental process of "looking down" on another or others.

It is quite possible to "hate" someone who one feels is superior to one in intelligence, wealth or power. None of the synonyms used in the dictionary definition for "hatred" give any clues to the motivation for the ill will. "Contempt" is by contrast a terms which suggests a mental process of "looking down" upon or treating as inferior the object of one's feelings.

This is captured by the dictionary definition relied on in Taylor ... in the use of the terms "despised", "dishonour" or "disgrace". Although the Rerson can be "hated" (i.e. actively disliked) and treated with "contempt" (i.e. looked down upon), the terms are not fully coextensive, because "hatred" is in some instances the product of envy of superior qualities, which "contempt" by definition cannot be. [Emphasis added.] The approach taken in Mealy gives full force and recognition to the purpose for the Canadian Human Rights Act while remaining consistent with the Charter. ...

In sum, the language employed in s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act extends only to that expression giving rise to the evil sought to be eradicated and provides a standard of conduct sufficiently precise to prevent the unacceptable chilling of expressive activity. Moreover, as long as the Human Rights Tribunal continues to be well aware of the purpose of s. 13(1) and pays heed to the ardent and extreme nature of feeling described in the phrase "hatred or contempt", there is little danger that subjective opinion as to offensiveness will supplant the proper meaning of the section. (at.pp. 927-928) An intent to discriminate is not a precondition to a finding of discrimination under human rights legislation (Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at pp.549-40; Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561, at p.586). Rather, courts and tribunals will be concerned with the effect of the actions in question.

In Taylor (supra), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the fact that a finding of intent was not a prerequisite to the conclusion that there had been a violation of the CHRA. The Supreme Court concluded that the important parliamentary objective behind subsection 13(1) of the CHRA could only be achieved by ignoring intent, and that, therefore, the minimal impairment requirement of the proportionality test espoused by the Court in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 was not transgress ed.

Two directors of the complainant Society, Ms. Maureen Chapman and Ms. Jan Pavlic, gave evidence with respect to their views of the messages in question. Ms. Chapman has been actively involved in efforts to combat racism for some time. She testified that shortly after the respondent Pastor Charles Scott and his followers moved to Chilliwack, the city became interested in addressing concerns of racism in the community. Meetings were called which Ms. Chapman attended as a representative of the Sto:lo Nation. The result of these meetings was the formation of the complainant Society and the lodging of these complaints.

Ms. Chapman testified that she listened to the March 1st message, and was shocked by the arrogance of the message. She explained that as a member of a First Nation, she was deeply offended by the statements that Canada was built by white people, and that "mud people" or non-whites should be returned to their countries of origin. As Ms. Chapman pointed out, the land of her ancestors is the land Pastor Scott's ancestors immigrated to. Ms. Chapman describes having a similar reaction to the other messages. As to the effects that messages such as this have on the community, in Ms. Chapman's view, it increases the burden on those seeking to reduce the racism prevalent in society.

Jan Pavlic has also been involved in citizen activism for many years, and was also invited to attend the meeting called by the Mayor of Chilliwack. Ms. Pavlic testified that she had listened to three of the messages, (not including the March 6th message), and described her reaction to the messages as one of repulsion, outrage and anger. Ms. Pavlic described the fear that Pastor Charles Scott and his followers had generated in the community, and explained that while a number of individuals had been involved in the founding of the complainant Society, as a result of fears for their personal safety, many members were reluctant to participate in these proceedings, with only Ms. Chapman and Ms. Pavlic willing to come forward and testify.

In analyzing the messages to determine whether they constitute "matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt ..." the Tribunal is assisted by the evidence and report of Dr. Gary D. Prideaux, a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Alberta. Dr. Prideaux was qualified as an expert in the fields of linguistics and discourse analysis. Dr. Prideaux explained that "discourse analysis" draws upon a variety of disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology to study language use.

Dr. Prideaux conducted an analysis of the four messages, and prepared a report which was entered as an exhibit in these proceedings (Exhibit HR5 - Tab 6). The methodology employed by Dr. Prideaux was to examine the messages in terms of:

(a) lexical choices, that is the choice of words used in the messages;

(b) overt associations, which refers to the collocation of certain words with other terms intended to disparage; and

(c) implicit associations, that is the inferences that may be drawn from the wording of the messages. For the purposes of this decision, and with the benefit of the evidence of Ms. Chapman and Ms. Pavlic, as well as that of Dr. Prideaux, the Tribunal will examine selected portions of the messages. The March 1st message contains the following passages: We believe that this country was built by white people, and that minorities, non-white crime, and racial treason are ruining this nation.

This segment of the message clearly suggests that minorities and crimes perpetuated by people of colour are responsible for the destruction of Canada, a sentiment which would expose minorities and non-whites to resentment or hatred on the basis of their colour, religion or national or ethnic origin. This phrase is repeated in the message recorded on March 6, 1995.

In our struggle for white victory, we have travelled throughout the country staging demonstrations and rallies, speaking to interested people, defying the traitorous Jew - controlled federal bureaucracy ...

We are lying (sic) the ground work for a revolution which will return power to the white race. We support the free enterprise system, but wish to smash Jew capitalism because of its abuse and exploitation of the true working class. These extracts are examples of what Dr. Prideaux describes as overt associations. That is, the word "Jew" is collocated with negative terms which both identify Jews as a group, and at the same time place them in a context which focuses contempt and hatred upon them. These statements were repeated in the March 6, 1995 message.

We oppose recognition of the bandit state of Israel by race traitors within our government. We wish to wipe out Zionism and every kike who supports it throughout the free world.

Similarly, in this quotation the disparaging and negative term "bandit" is attributed to the State of Israel, which is predominately populated by Jews. The term "kike" is also utilized in this quotation. "Kike" is a reference to Jews which is usually taken as a disparaging or offensive term. This is an example of what Dr. Prideaux describes as the overt use of a term of contempt. Again, this statement was repeated in the March 6 message. We demand a crime-free, white-ruled society without the daily fear of rape, robbery, and murder. All immigration from non-white nations must be stopped. Mud people should be repatriated to the lands of their ancestors.

The Tribunal finds that the reference to "mud people" is a disparaging term for people of colour. This section of the message clearly suggests that it is immigration from non-white nations that is responsible for crime in Canadian society. Are you free today? Do you really think that you are free, my fellow Canadians, when over 40% of your money that you earn is stolen by fraud, by income tax, to support a central bureaucracy gone mad? ... When you will be jailed for exercising your Charter of Rights without some corrupt, degenerate Jew judge's permission.

Here the negative and derogatory terms "corrupt" and "degenerate" are used to modify the words "Jew judge" thereby exposing Jews to hatred and contempt by suggesting that they are both corrupt and degenerate.

The message recorded on March 6, 1995 contains the following statements:

We are laying the ground work for a revolution which will return power to the white race. We support the free enterprise system, but wish to smash Jew capitalism because of its exploitation of the true working class. Massive unemployment, the highest in our nation's history, combined with the government in Ottawa, Ontario that has no concern whatsoever for the welfare for the white race, are reasons enough for a National Socialist state." The suggestion that the government in Ottawa should be replaced with a National Socialist state, following immediately upon an earlier reference to the "traitorous Jew - controlled federal bureaucracy" evinces the extreme anti-Semitism associated with Nazi Germany, and its tragic consequences for the Jewish people. The suggestion here is that it is the Jewish controlled federal government that is responsible for Canada's woes and that this government should, therefore, be replaced by a National Socialist state. The message recorded on March 31, 1995 contains numerous biblical references, what Dr. Prideaux describes as "pseudo-scholarship", a technique used by individuals and groups such as the respondents to give credibility to their views. The message contains the following statements:

Are we to hate the Jews since they are God's enemies? and Who are the terrors? Is it not the devil and his children the Jews?

In identifying the Jews as God's enemies and the children of the devil, the message suggests that Jewish people are evil, thus exposing them to hatred and contempt.

The April 18, 1995 message contains the following statements: How has our nation slipped into Bath or confusion, you wonder? Well, that is very clear: at the hands of that old serpent, Lucifer. ... You ask who or what is this old serpent on earth? Well, for this answer we look to John 8:44 where Jesus said, addressing the Jews, "Hear from your father the devil and the lust of your father ye will do." Here again, the suggestion is that Jews are the children of Lucifer or the devil, and that it is the Jews that are responsible for the confusion in our nation.

Our government has led us astray. It is important to understand how the children of Lucifer have gained this control over our country and the minds of our people. It is very simple: economics, usury, banking and guilt. Slowly but steadfast the children of Satan have dominated our financial markets and imposed the Talmudic usury system on our people. Having previously identified the "children of Lucifer" as the Jews, this statement goes on to suggest that the Jews have gained control over the country, and are now leading us astray. Jewish people are further alluded to in this statement by the reference to "Talmudic usury system". The children of Satan have brainwashed our people into Bath, confusion, and now seek to have all of us commit spiritual suicide through adultery to Bible law.

The suggestion here is that the children of Satan (ie: the Jews) are driving "us" (ie: white Canadians) to spiritual suicide, a sentiment which would undoubtedly expose Jews to hatred and contempt.

The foregoing references are cited by way of example. Each message contains other statements which, in the Tribunal's view, would also tend to expose Jews, people of colour, or immigrants to hatred and contempt. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds that the complaints against Pastor Charles Scott and the Church of Christ in Israel have been substantiated.

VIII ORDER

As stated on March 1, 1996:

This Tribunal orders that the respondent Pastor Charles Scott, the respondent Church of Christ in Israel, and any other individuals or organizations who are members of or act in the name of or in concert with Pastor Charles Scott or the Church of Christ in Israel to cease the discriminatory practise of communicating telephonically or causing to be communicated telephonically by means of the facilities of a telecommunications undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, matters of the type of complained of in this case, namely those set out in Exhibit HR5 at Tabs 1 through 4, which are incorporated by reference into this order, that is matters which are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, including colour, race, national or ethnic origin and religion, and to refrain from any such action in the future, anywhere within Canada.

DATED this 1st day of April, 1996.

Anne L. Mactavish

Julie Pitzel

Lyman Robinson

APPENDIX A

This is a transcript of the message played on the Church of Christ Newsreel (604-795-5835) recorded at 1 pm on March 1, 1995:

Person of interest: