Thank you for your fax about the possibility of laying false news charges against Sabina Citron and her bunch because of what she says on "Wannsee".
My opinion is that we, as academics, could show with excellent arguments that "Wannsee" had nothing to do with "a meeting by high ranking nazi government officials [making] a decision [...] to murder every Jewish man, woman and child in Europe." Even academics who are on the side of Sabina Citron know that and have said it (Jäckel and Co.) and, if "Wannsee" had been the place of such a decision, Hilberg and Co. would not state that there was in fact no decision made for the "murder" of the Jews. And there would not be any discussion between the partisans of the "intentionalist" argument and those of the "functionalist" one: the former would say: "We are right because, on January 20, 1942, at Wannsee, the 'intention' of murder was clearly present." In fact, at "Wannsee", there was an inter-ministerial meeting (with no high ranking nazi government officials except Heydrich) where Heydrich said that, from now on, "emigration is to be replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East." Mind you: those 14 words are those of the Staff Evidence Analysis (SEA) by J. Lester on September 29, 1949 (Doc. NG-2586). Heydrich's words were: "Die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten" (p. 3 of the document). At the famous "Stuttgart Kongress" (May 3-5, 1984) this version of "Wannsee" was implicitly accepted by the "historians" defending the "Holocaust".
But what may be clear for specialists might not be clear at all for members of a jury.
And remember that what you would have to demonstrate is that S. Citron is publishing something that she knows is false. Remember article 181 (formerly 177) of the Canadian Criminal Code: "Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false...". Remember also the following words: "and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest [...]". All this means that you would have to convince 11 or 12 simple people of Canada :
1. that "Wannsee" did not decide the murder of the European Jews (and, implicitly, that nothing else decided on a murder that did not take place);
2. that S. Citron wilfully published something that she knew was false about "Wannsee";
3. that, by so doing, she caused or was likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest of the Canadian people.
It would be easy, for Sabina Citron's lawyer, to show that the lady believed what everyone in Canada believed about the "murder" of the Jews and that she was entitled to be unaware that some academics had changed their mind about "Wannsee" in the 80's (especially), and, even if she had been spreading or publishing something that she knew to be false, what kind of public interest suffered from that? Of course, a few individuals in Canada and especially Ernst Zündel are suffering because of this lie but they are not the public at large. Remember that you would have to define this "public interest". The law requires that specification.
Imagine the consequences if your case were lost. It would come down in the media all over the world that "Wannsee" had been correctly described as the meeting where the Nazis took the decision to murder those poor Jews. In saying so the media would be wrong but, as you know, they would say it.
January 18, 1992