Fifth Annual
Report
Canada's Crimes Against Humanity
and War Crimes
Program
2001-2002
Remedies and Legislative Framework
Overview of Operations, Mandates, and Structure
Activities in Fiscal Year 2001-2002
Formal Evaluation of Canada's War Crimes Program
Appendices
A. Backgrounder
to Canada's War Crimes Program
B. Selected
Legal Provisions
C. Highlights
of New Immigration Legislation
D. Glossary of
Terms
E. Designated
Regimes
F. WW II Cases
- Status Overview
G. WW II Cases
- Litigation Overview
H. WW II -
Concluded Cases
I. Results -
Modern Cases
J. Modern
Cases - Selected case Summaries
INTRODUCTION
The policy of the
Canadian Government is unequivocal that Canada is not and will not become
a safe haven for persons who have committed war crimes, crimes against
humanity or other reprehensible acts regardless of when or where they were
committed.
[W.Z.1. This is simply not true. Since its inception, Canada has always been a safe haven for people, who had perpetrated crimes and other reprehensible acts before arriving in Canada from the British Isles and continental Europe. During times of war, many born-in-Canada British subjects participated in criminal and reprehensible acts during the Boer and First and Second World Wars. These acts occurred both in foreign lands, as well as within Canada itself, where so-called enemy aliens - Ukrainians and "Austrians" during WWI and Japanese, Germans and Italians during WWII - were dispossessed and interned by the thousands. None of the people responsible for these crimes has ever been brought to justice.
And Canada was, and remains, a safe haven for Soviet spies and operatives deliberately sent with the post-WWII flux of refugees to infiltrate Canadian institutions.
In particular, Canada remains a safe haven for people of Jewish origin who have committed crimes and reprehensible acts in the former Soviet Union. For example, Joseph Riwash, who submitted 707 names of alleged war criminals to the Deschenes Commission, has written a book wherein he describes his history as a member of the Judenrat, the Jewish ghetto police, partisan fighter and NKVD operative. Nadejda Otsep openly describes her membership in a SMERSH battalion of the NKVD.
Finally, Canadian authorities do not seem interested in investigating members of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), who are present in Canada and have killed thousands of Palestinians and tortured and maimed tens of thousands more.]
Since the mid-1980's Canada has undertaken significant measures, both within and outside of its borders to break the cycle of impunity enjoyed by persons who have committed atrocities. [See W.Z.2.] These measures include a new statute and amendments to three others to support and strengthen enforcement strategies as well as the creation of specialized units in the three departments which, through a coordinated effort, deliver Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. Each unit is allocated dedicated resources for program development and delivery on an annual basis.
[W.Z.2. On the contrary, since the mid-1980's, Canadian policies have actually increased the cycle of impunity enjoyed by persons who have committed atrocities. Welcoming President Suharto of Indonesia to the Vancouver APEC Conference by pepper-spraying people protesting his war crimes does not break the cycle of impunity. Failure to prosecute Soviet-era war criminals present in Canada only encourages former Soviet-apparatchiks-turned-oligarchs to thumb their noses at basic human rights and democratic values in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and other FSU republics.
If the bureaucrats in Canada's War Crimes Unit were truly serious in wanting to "break the cycle of impunity", they would start by prosecuting those Canadians, who facilitate crimes against humanity against Palestinians by promoting the settlement of Israeli-occupied Palestine by Jewish zealots. Any Canadian citizens who have settled in the Palestinian territories for the express purpose of claiming this land for Israel must be extradited back to Canada and charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity or other reprehensible acts.]
The issue of apprehending and dealing appropriately with persons who have allegedly committed crimes against humanity or war crimes is an international one requiring international solutions and cooperation. Canada was actively involved in supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) and provided a prominent Canadian, Madame Justice Louise Arbour, as a Chief Prosecutor for the ICTY. It was another Canadian, Philippe Kirsch, current ambassador to Sweden, who served as chair of the pivotal Committee of the Whole at the Rome Conference, where the International Criminal Court was created.
[W.Z.3. In our opinion, Louise Arbour is a political activist, more interested in promoting the New World Order than in the pursuit of justice. Her appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada was a mistake that further erodes the confidence of Canadians in their justice system. We have no information on Philippe Kirsch.]
Canada has ratified both the International Criminal Court Statute (ICC) and the protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts and was the first country to introduce comprehensive legislation incorporating the provisions of the ICC statute into domestic law with the proclamation of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act on October 23, 2000. While there have not yet been any prosecutions under this new statute, there are 72 cases under active investigation and an infrastructure has been developed to implement this new component of Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. The ICC statute was ratified on April 1, 2002 and entered into force on July 1, 2002.
Canada has also been an active supporter of the Sierra Leone Special Court and has been involved in the development of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (SLTRC). On May 27, 2002, Professor William A. Schabas, a prominent Canadian international law expert, was appointed as one of the three international Commissioners of the SLTRC.
With respect to World War II atrocities, all allegations of persons in Canada who may have committed war crimes during World War II (1673 cases) have been or are being investigated and eighteen cases have been identified for enforcement action to date. Of these, eleven have been concluded while seven remain in the litigation process. It must be acknowledged that all World War II cases represent significant challenges due to the age and declining health of suspects and witnesses. Despite this, World War II cases continue to be actively investigated. In its 2002 Annual Report, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre spoke favourably of Canada's efforts and encouraged other states to follow the example of Canada and the United States which use denaturalization and deportation proceedings rather than prosecution to bring these perpetrators to justice.
[W.Z.4. It is deeply disturbing that the bureaucrats, who are the authors of this report, would refer to the pronouncements of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and their patron, Simon Wiesenthal, as justification for the WWII component of Canada's War Crimes program.
As charter members of the Holocaust Industry, Mr. Wiesenthal and the Centre named in his honour have been at the forefront in subverting the justice systems of the United States and Canada.
In a Jan. 17, 1993, letter to Jeffrey Dworkin, managing editor of CBC national radio news archived at
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/pakistan/83/demjanjuk/crtc006.html
I complained bitterly about a Ukrainophobic newscast as follows:
The interview of Mr. Ephriam Zuroff concerning the case of
John Demjanjuk is especially galling. Surely, Mr. Lavie in Israel
and the CBC here in Canada are aware that Mr. Zuroff is connected
with the Office of Special Investigations (OSI), Yad Vashem and
the Wiesenthal Centres. These organizations were in the forefront
in slandering thousands of innocent Canadians of being war
criminals as well as providing disinformation and unduly
influencing the Deschenes Commission. All the people involved and
especially Mr. Zuroff must be fully aware of the criminal
activities of the OSI in the denaturalization, deportation and
eventual false conviction of Mr. Demjanjuk for war crimes.
This reference to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre confirms that the bureaucrats in Canada's War Crimes program are working on behalf of the Holocaust Industry rather than in the interests of Canadians.
The reference to 1673 WWII cases is interesting, at best, and misleading, at worst. In my Critique of the Deschenes Commission Report, archived at
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/mozuz/wllzzk/deschene005.html
two of my 23 recommendations read as follows:
16. (ChI-8, findings 54-82) Of the 939 total cases considered, 32 are still in abeyance pending external checks and of the 29 relegated to the confidential Part II of the Report, the Commission recommends closing of nine of the cases. Of the remaining 20 cases, it is likely that the majority will be proven innocent before going to trial and that conviction of the remaining fraction of 1% of the original total will prove extremely difficult for a variety of legal and technical reasons.
One wonders if this 1673 number includes the Deschenes Commission list of 939 denunciations by Jewish organizations and individuals, the vast majority of which Mr. Deschenes rejected as being without merit. Still, that leaves 734 new victims, who were denounced by somebody.
19. (ChI-8, p827) We must object in the strongest possible terms that "In 96 percent of the cases which the Commission has investigated it has not communicated with the suspects. The latter have not been made aware of the Commission's interest. There is no reason to alert now, especially, the 606 people, or their successors, whose files the Commission recommends should be closed." We strongly urge the Federal government to instruct the Commission to inform all the people whose names have been submitted to the Commission, in particular, those whose names have been submitted to hostile organizations and/or governments by the Commission and by Robert P. Kaplan.
We must insist that all 1673 of the accused victims (or their successors) be informed that they were investigated and their names are on Canada's War Crimes list. Failure to do so would simply confirm that Canadians are already living in a police state.]
With respect to modern cases, a total of 445 persons were refused visas at overseas missions due to war crimes allegations. Of those who were able to enter Canada, 46 were removed, an increase from the previous year. The number of cases in which the Minister intervened for exclusion at refugee determination hearings has increased significantly. It is anticipated that increased security measures authorized by the government in response to the events of September 11, 2001 will ultimately strengthen Canada's capacity to take enforcement action against modern war criminals.
[W.Z.4a. The fear-mongering associated with 9/11 has allowed the bureaucrats from Canada's War Crimes Program to incorporate completely unacceptable provisions into the post-9/11 legislation such as Bill C-18, Citizenship of Canada Act.]
Appendix A provides a comprehensive backgrounder on Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program.
REMEDIES AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
There are several
remedies available to deal with alleged war criminals and persons who have
committed crimes against humanity. The decision to use one or more of
these mechanisms is based on a number of factors. These factors include:
the different requirements of the courts in criminal and
immigration/refugee cases to substantiate and verify evidence; the
resources available to conduct the proceeding; and Canada's obligations
under international law. These remedies are:
The decision to utilize a particular remedy is carefully considered and is assessed in accordance with the Government's position that Canada not be a safe haven for war criminals.
Extradition to a foreign government or surrender to an international tribunal occurs upon request and is considered in accordance with Canadian law. The provisions contained in Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act govern criminal prosecutions in Canada. This relatively new statute strengthens the legislative foundation for criminal prosecutions in Canada.
The following Canadian statutes authorize enforcement action against alleged war criminals or persons who have committed crimes against humanity:
The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:
The Extradition Act:
The Immigration Act:
The Citizenship Act:
[W.Z.7. As of Oct. 31, 2002, this Act is in the process of being replaced by the new Citizenship of Canada Act about which we have a great number of reservations.]For the texts of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act refer to Appendix B.
For highlights of Canada's new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act refer to Appendix C.
The full text of these statutes can be found on the Department of Justice web site at: http://www.canadajustice.gc.ca/
OVERVIEW OF OPERATIONS, MANDATES AND STRUCTURE
Interdepartmental Operations Group
The Interdepartmental Operations Group (IOG) is the vehicle through which Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Department of Justice and the RCMP investigate all allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes undertaken by the Government of Canada. This coordination takes place on several levels, ranging from discussing and developing policy objectives common to all three departments to ensuring proper cooperation at the day-to-day working level.
The IOG ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. One of its purposes is to ensure that Canada complies with its international obligations. This includes the investigation, prosecution and extradition or surrender of war criminals, as well as cooperation with the international tribunals. In order to meet this objective, the RCMP and the Department of Justice investigate allegations involving reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution or revocation of citizenship while CIC pursues the application of remedies under the Immigration Act, in cooperation with the Department of Justice in all instances when these matters proceed to court.
A major activity of the IOG has been the review of all Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes files, determining the appropriate course of action, and channeling the files to the appropriate departmental authority for action. During 2001-2002, 272 new modern era files were reviewed to bring to 1216 the total number reviewed since the creation of the IOG. Most of these cases were referred from CIC. It was determined from this review that 72 files required further investigation for possible prosecution or administrative action in Canada. There are regular reviews to examine new files that have been opened by CIC or that have come to the attention of the RCMP or the Department of Justice Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section.
With the proclamation of Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the IOG has done much work in developing the infrastructure to develop cases for prosecution under this new legislation. This includes policy development to establish criteria to ensure that only the most promising cases will become the subject of an investigation and the establishment of criteria to ensure that cases under investigation are appropriately prioritized. Further details on this activity will be found in the section entitled "Developments Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act."
The IOG meets on a monthly basis. Decisions are made by consensus and the chair rotates annually. The current chair is the RCMP.
[W.Z.8. The IOG appears to be composed of faceless high-level bureaucrats from CIC, DOJ and RCMP, who take their orders from the Holocaust Industry rather than from elected Parliamentarians. They control the process and make policy in the whole war crimes area. Presumably, they also dictate the contents and approve the wording of the new post-9/11 legislation referred to above.
That the Holocaust Industry controls the IOG is indicated by the fact that no prosecutions of Jewish war criminals - either from the WWII era or from the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict - have ever been initiated. Liberal MPs (Don Boudria, David Kilgour) and Alliance MPs (Diane Ablonczy, Peter Goldring) stated specifically that revocation of citizenship must be subject to a far higher standard than "on a balance of probabilities". And yet this is not reflected in the wording of Bill C-18.
Even more frightening are the provisions in Bill C-18 to allow a judge to utilize secret evidence but to withhold that evidence from the defense.]
The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section of Canada's Department of Justice is located in Ottawa and consists of eleven lawyers, six historians/analysts, two paralegals, a historical support group, legal assistants and support staff. The Section also hires contract analysts and related experts on an ad hoc basis as required.
The Section's primary purpose is to participate in the investigation of allegations that individuals, presently in Canada, have engaged in the commission of the crimes enumerated in the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, regardless of where or when those offences were committed. These complex and multi-faceted investigations are conducted in conjunction with officers from the RCMP War Crimes/Immigration and Passport Section. Initial archival checks and basic research activities are carried out by in-house historians and analysts who possess background knowledge of the area where the crimes allegedly occurred. RCMP officers assigned to the file, working with Justice counsel, prepare an initial witness list, and conduct interviews with individuals identified as possible witnesses in the allegation documents or by the complainant. A more extensive witness list is then produced, and interviews are conducted by RCMP officers working in conjunction with Justice counsel. These interviews can take place anywhere in the world. Throughout the investigation process, in-house historians and analysts provide ongoing and ad hoc advice as required. As the investigation nears completion, they begin the search for and initiate contacts with outside experts or analysts to provide expert evidence at trial.
Once an investigation is completed, counsel and RCMP officers jointly evaluate the evidence obtained during the investigations. If sufficient evidence is found which substantiates the allegations, counsel prepare reports recommending either that the file should proceed to enforcement action under the Immigration Act and/or the Citizenship Act or that the Attorney General consider laying an indictment under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or the Criminal Code. It is anticipated that Justice counsel from the Criminal Law Portfolio will prosecute any indictments laid under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
In addition to participating in the investigation of modern crimes against humanity and war crimes, the Section continues to actively investigate cases pertaining to Second World War atrocities. Successfully concluding these cases is becoming increasingly difficult given the age and declining health of suspects and witnesses. As these files are closed more resources within the Section are being transferred to the modern war crime investigation efforts. Details of the Second World War Program can be found in the Backgrounder in Appendix A.
The Department of Justice, through its regional offices, also provides extensive assistance to Citizenship and Immigration Canada by representing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in all cases before the Federal Court and CIC Legal Services provides legal advice to the department when interpretations of the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act are required.
The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section, with its partners at Citizenship and Immigration and the RCMP, actively promotes the work of addressing the issue of impunity for crimes against humanity and war crimes. In addition to hosting regular international conferences on issues related to the investigation and prosecution of these offences, members of the Section publish papers in law journals and give presentations in law schools and conferences at home and abroad, disseminating information about the Rome Statute, domestic legislation and Canada's efforts at ensuring that our country does not become a safe haven for these criminals.
The International Assistance Group (IAG) has primary responsibility for matters under the Extradition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It is through this Group that communications with other countries and International Criminal Tribunals flow; matters which include the extradition or surrender of persons in Canada to foreign countries or to the Tribunals, and Canada's response to requests for assistance from these bodies in the conduct of their investigations. This process ensures the smooth flow of information and assistance between Canada and partner organizations around the world.
[W.Z.9. It would be useful to know the names of the 25 or so people comprising the DOJ war crimes section and to evaluate their performances individually. For the WWII cases, the reality differs markedly from the positive description outlined above. To our knowledge, in not one single case were they able to prove that their victim had committed any atrocities or criminal acts. Indeed, in the cases of Wasyl Odynsky and Helmut Oberlander, Judge Andrew MacKay ruled that they had been dragooned to work for the Germans and that they were neither Nazis nor war criminals.
On the other hand, the DOJ unit did succeed in providing a forum for the Holocaust Industry to publicize the Holocaust and present a distorted picture of the realities of WWII. In the Wasyl Odynsky case before Judge Andrew MacKay, for example, they attempted to submit obviously forged documents. They hired Ukrainian-born Ukrainophobe Isaac Rudnicki, alias Yitzhak Arad, as an expert witness for the prosecution to slander and demonize Ukrainians rather than provide any evidence concerning Mr. Odynsky. (During WWII, Mr. Rudnicki joined the Red Partisans, whose main goal was to suppress any Ukrainian aspirations for independence. After the war, he immigrated to Palestine to help establish the Israeli state by massacring the Palestinian population. Upon retirement from the Israeli army he became director of Yad Vashem and was an expert witness for the prosecution in the John Demjanjuk show trial in 1987.)
Retired professor Robert Keyserlingk worked for the Foreign Service in Germany in the early 1950's. Thus, he was intimately familiar with the immigration procedures from Germany to Canada and the sociological mindset at that time. On the Peter Warren Show of June 23, 2002, the transcripts of which are archived at
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/mozuz/odynsky/warren2002june23.html
Dr. Keyserlingk points out that the authorities were more concerned about Communist infiltrators than so-called "collaborators". He accuses the bureaucrats in Canada's War Crimes program of fraudulently equating alleged immigration infractions with war crimes. The claim that they are prosecuting war criminals is simply false.
It is bitterly ironic that these bureaucrats have built successful careers (using taxpayer money) on the backs of old illiterate men, who have to spend their life savings and mortgage their homes to try to defend themselves.
The last two paragraphs describing the activities of the bureaucrats running Canada's War Crimes program suggest that they are very active in promoting themselves and legitimizing their work to both national and international audiences. They seem to be more interested in public relations than in justice and the legality and morality of their operations.]
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) takes a three-pronged approach in dealing with modern-day war criminals: preventing suspected war criminals from reaching Canada by refusing their immigrant, refugee or visitor visa applications from abroad; excluding them from the refugee determination process in Canada; and removing war criminals who have already entered Canada through the immigration inquiry process. Most applicants overseas are identified through the visitor visa screening process. The majority of modern war criminals in Canada are not permanent residents but have come to Canada as refugee claimants. Many in this group have been able to bypass the overseas screening process by travelling to Canada with fraudulent or improperly obtained travel documents, often posing as persons from countries whose citizens do not require a visa to visit Canada.
Posts abroad have special security vetting procedures to ensure that potential war crimes cases are identified and subjected to checks that are more thorough before a visa can be issued. These posts have specific profiles, for example, military service, and use questionnaires designed to identify potential war criminals. When concerns are identified that cannot be resolved, the case is referred to the Modern War Crimes Section in Ottawa where an analyst will conduct a complete analysis with input from the Research and Intelligence sections as required.
There are several ways in which the presence of a war criminal in Canada is brought to the attention of immigration officials. Information may come to light when the person is examined at a port of entry to determine admissibility or when providing information in support of a refugee claim. Since September 11, 2001, all Personal Information Forms for Refugee Status (PIFs) are screened by the regional war crimes units for possible war crimes activity. Where there is indication of war crimes activity further investigations are conducted and, where warranted, a Minister's Intention to Intervene in the applicant's refugee determination hearing is filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). In instances where information about war crimes activity first comes to light at the refugee hearing, the IRB may continue the hearing and decide to exclude the person from refugee protection or, alternatively, adjourn the hearing and request the intervention of the Minister (CIC Hearings Officer) to argue the case for exclusion. As well, immigrant/refugee communities have identified persons in Canada who have allegedly committed atrocities in their homeland.
Lastly, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), when conducting background checks on applicants for permanent residence or for citizenship, will refer names of individuals who may be implicated in war crimes or crimes against humanity to CIC. CIC then conducts further inquiries using its specialized Resource Centre data bases and specific intelligence information which resides with its Modern War Crimes Intelligence Coordination Unit to establish whether refusal or enforcement action under the war crimes or designated regimes provisions of the Immigration Act is warranted.
The Resource Centre, established as part of the CIC Modern War Crimes Section, was designed primarily to provide research support to regional field officers, immigration analysts and other enforcement partners in identifying visa applicants and individuals in Canada who may have been involved in war crimes. Currently, the Resource Centre consists of three Research Officers and one Research Assistant who respond to requests for information, such as obtaining background material on events and organizations as well as verification of information.
The open-source materials, newspapers, journals and historical texts stored in the Centre, concentrate on human rights violations that have occurred in current and recent history including legal, military, refugee, historical, and geographic information. Although the Centre does possess hard copy documentation, the vast majority of the information it has access to is in electronic format via the internet, including gateways to several media monitoring databases. The Resource Centre is continually identifying new sources of information and expanding its databases accordingly.
The Resource Centre also serves as a central repository of current information such as news reports or bulletins gathered from media sources and international human rights organizations. The Resource Centre creates the Modern War Crimes News Update, a document that is compiled, edited and distributed electronically to regional offices, 67 Canadian missions abroad, and several foreign governments twice weekly. The need for current and historical war crimes information is growing exponentially. During the past year, the Resource Centre responded to 1693 inquiries, a significant increase from the 1182 inquiries in the previous year. Distribution of the Modern War Crimes News Update has expanded to over 250 readers.
The Modern War Crimes Intelligence Co-ordination Unit is another result of the government's review of war crimes operations in 1997 and presently consists of a Director, a Senior Intelligence Adviser, and five analysts, with some additional staff hired on contract. As the Modern War Crimes Section was formed, it became apparent that the connection between intelligence information and war crimes investigations needed to be strengthened. Information and intelligence relevant to war crimes, previously held randomly throughout other departments, is now co-ordinated by the Intelligence Unit to assist in examining war crimes allegations.
Functioning as a "central clearing house" for intelligence within the government, the Intelligence Co-ordination Unit is in contact with all other departments that might have intelligence information concerning governments, countries, places or perpetrators of war crimes that would enhance Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. Given that most war crimes cases are dealt with under the Immigration Act, it was decided to place co-ordination of modern war crimes intelligence within CIC.
The Modern War Crimes Intelligence Unit has established and developed links with intelligence agencies in Canada and abroad and with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; in particular, the Unit has benefited considerably from support provided by the Department of National Defence. It has also produced a number of working aids on countries that are of concern to the Canadian government from a war crimes perspective and has produced several screening tools to assist visa officers.
The Intelligence Unit has played a pivotal role in developing Canada's capacity to detect and identify war criminals by equipping immigration officers with better knowledge, tools, and expertise.
The MWCS Data Management Unit is responsible for the development, maintenance, and inputting of the Modern War Crimes System (MWCS). This database contains information on persons, events, and organizations as they pertain to war crimes or crimes against humanity and is available to immigration officers in Canada and abroad. The information in the system is cross-referenced; for example, the name of a particular individual could be associated with a particular atrocity which in turn could be linked to a specific organization. All of the information in this system is based on open-source documentation and can therefore be used as evidence in immigration proceedings in Canada or to support the refusal of a visa abroad. Open source information could originate from a book, essay, NGO publication, the media, a variety of internet web sites, or any other source that is unclassified.
The MWCS provides the capability to search for information related to persons, events, organizations, or other information relating to war crimes. It also contains a reference feature that contains legal opinions, screening tools prepared by the Intelligence Co-ordination Unit, and other information to assist immigration officers in making informed decisions. There is no other known computer system that is dedicated solely to the detection of war criminals. A gold medal was awarded to CIC in 2001 at the Public Service Distinction Awards for excellence and leadership in information technology for its development of the MWCS.
[W.Z.10. It would be interesting to know the full details of this award and its recipients.]
The MWCS Data Management Unit consists of a project coordinator, two analysts, and an assistant.
The RCMP have ten regular member positions assigned to World War II and Modern War Crimes investigations within the RCMP War Crimes / Immigration and Passport Section located in Ottawa. Support for the Section is provided by RCMP personnel working in provincial and territorial jurisdictions, at Canadian missions abroad and at the Headquarters Forensic Laboratory. Other regional and municipal police forces in Canada, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating throughout the world also extend assistance when called upon. The RCMP responds to allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity reported by the general public as well as by Canadian and foreign government agencies and also supports the citizenship revocation and deportation proceedings initiated by the Departments of Justice and Citizenship and Immigration. [These are all WWII cases.]
Since 1996, the RCMP has concluded 86 files of suspects alleged to have committed war crimes / crimes against humanity during the Second World War. For the most part, files are concluded because the suspects have died, are in poor health or too old (born before 1906) or were too young to have participated in the war. Other files have been concluded because the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated or due to an absence of evidence linking a suspect to a specific crime. The majority of the most recent allegations received fall within the last two categories.
The RCMP's role in relation to WW II allegations is to work with the Department of Justice Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section to investigate allegations and assess the validity of the complaint. This process requires that investigators, relying on information obtained by Department of Justice historians through archival research, confirm the presence of suspects in Canada and develop initial witness lists. Working with counsel, RCMP officers arrange and conduct witness interview trips mainly in central and eastern European countries, with the assistance of foreign governments and police officials obtained under Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of Justice and parallel Departments and Ministries in these States. The results of these investigations are reviewed by Department of Justice counsel and RCMP investigators to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to bring criminal charges against the subject of the investigation. If not, a further analysis of the evidence is conducted and, if warranted, revocation and deportation proceedings are initiated.
[W.Z.11. These Memoranda of Understanding are extremely dangerous. It is a technique utilized by the Holocaust Industry to wheedle their way into the legal infrastructure of the targeted nation. With Ukraine, such a Memorandum of Understanding was probably signed in 1996 under the auspices of Serhij Holowaty. Why any country would allow foreign investigators to search their archives and gather evidence which could be used to blackmail its leaders and citizens is beyond me. In my opinion, it is no accident that since 1997 Ukraine's democratic development has been retrogressing. No Communist war criminals are being prosecuted and members of the UPA who fought for Ukraine's independence are still regarded as criminals.]
With respect to modern war crimes, a number of investigations have been initiated relating to suspects alleged to have committed crimes against humanity during the conflicts which took place in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The publicity generated as a result of media coverage which appeared in Canadian newspapers throughout the 1990's, the work being done by both International Criminal Tribunals and the coming into force of the Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act in October 2000 have contributed to crimes against humanity allegations having been made against individuals recently arrived in Canada. Countries that have previously or are currently involved in some type of civilian and/or military conflict are the source of suspects coming to Canada. Consequently, the RCMP War Crimes Section has received crimes against humanity allegations regarding citizens of Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Burundi, Chile, China, Columbia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Sudan. [But not Israel or Palestine?] In essence, anyone assigned to internal security and/or intelligence work in countries known to violate the most basic of human rights are potential investigative targets if they elect to come to Canada.
War crimes and crimes against humanity allegations come from a variety of sources, most notably from victims, witnesses, foreign governments, ethnic communities, NGOs, open source information such as the Internet and by the suspects themselves through self- identification when seeking refugee status or permanent residence in Canada.
There are evidentiary challenges in pursuing these allegations. While much information can be derived from consulting archival material with respect to WW II investigations, the same cannot be said for war crimes and crimes against humanity more recently committed. Some of the suspects currently under investigation have never been part of a formalized, structured military army as we know it in Canada and may have operated in specific locations for very limited periods of time. In summary, there is often little documentary evidence of these atrocities. In the absence of pertinent documentary records, more emphasis must be placed on finding witnesses capable of identifying the perpetrators and explaining what had transpired. To facilitate this process, the RCMP has entered into special cooperation agreements with police departments and public offices in some of the countries where these witnesses are located. There is an ongoing effort to conclude agreements with all countries where witnesses may be located, either for current or future investigations. At present, there is a project underway among European Union States to create "points of contact" in each participating country for all crimes against humanity or war crimes investigations.
The intent is to permit better cooperation and coordination in these investigations. Steps are being taken to include Canada in this process.
While individuals alleged to have committed a crime against humanity in relation to more recent conflicts may not result in prosecution, the information acquired by the RCMP relative to these individuals has often been used during immigration hearings resulting in exclusion from refugee protection and removal from Canada.
In addition to the investigations it conducts, the RCMP War Crimes Section provides assistance to foreign police authorities as well as to the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It does this by locating witnesses in Canada, conducting interviews on their behalf and making arrangements to have RCMP members attend when their investigators come to Canada to interview witnesses.
ACTIVITIES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002
On October 12, 2001 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced a five part security strategy as part of the Government's Anti-Terrorism Plan. These initiatives are:
It is anticipated that the last four initiatives will assist in providing additional support to Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. As part of this initiative all Personal Information Forms (PIFs) completed by refugee claimants are referred to the War Crimes Units for screening and further investigation if required. This initiative has resulted in an increase in the numbers of persons detected in Canada who may have been involved in atrocities which is reflected in the higher number of Minister's interventions at refugee hearings.
[W.Z.12. On this website, our overall critique of the denaturalization and deportation process (d&d) was initially written during the time of the last federal election campaign in November 2000.
Of particular importance in the Bogutin, Vitols, Podins, Dueck, Katriuk and Oberlander cases are the harsh comments of the judges criticizing the prosecution for failing to meet the burden of proof and attempting to mislead the court.]
The following provides an update of the status of the ongoing World War II cases and actions undertaken on these cases during the fiscal year:
Helmut Oberlander: In an Order dated February 28, 2000, the Federal Court -- Trial Division, per MacKay J., found that Mr. Oberlander obtained his Canadian citizenship by false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. Though the Court did not find that it had been established that Mr. Oberlander had personally committed any war crimes, it did hold that Mr. Oberlander had been untruthful with Canadian immigration and citizenship officials by concealing his membership in a Third Reich mass killing squad the Einsatz gruppen "D". On July 12, 2001 the Governor in Council revoked Mr. Oberlander's Canadian citizenship. Mr. Oberlander's counsel filed an application for judicial review of the Governor in Council decision on August 21, 2001. The Judicial Review is ongoing. In addition, Mr. Oberlander has been summoned to appear before an Immigration Adjudicator and this inquiry is underway.
[W.Z.13. Despite Andrew MacKay's subjective ruling, the overwhelming evidence is that Mr. Oberlander, along with thousands of other immigrants at that time, was never asked about his WWII activities.
Andrew Mackay's judgment is archived on this website. Also archived is the very critical opinion of Judge Roger Salhany of this judgment, as well as comments of Mr. Oberlander's lawyer, Eric Hafemann.]
Wasyl Odynsky: In an order dated March 2, 2001, Justice W. Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court -- Trial Division found that Mr. Odynsky "obtained citizenship by false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances within the meaning of paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act." Mr. Odynsky was found to have concealed his service as a guard at the SS forced labour camps of Trawniki and Poniatowa.
[W.Z.14. The odds are that Mr. Odynsky did not conceal anything; he was never asked. However, note how cleverly the bureaucrats writing this report equate this alleged immigration infraction to evidence of war criminality.
A summary of Andrew MacKay's judgment is archived on this website at
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/mozuz/odynsky/odynsky.html
The Odynsky Files contain over 250 articles since Mar. 02, 2001.]
Vladimir Katriuk: In the Vladimir Katriuk case, Justice Marc Nadon of the Federal Court released his decision on January 29, 1999. The Court found that Mr. Katriuk was a member of Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft Battalion 118, took part in the operations in which his company was involved and, as a result, was certainly engaged in fighting enemy partisans. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Katriuk's appeal with costs thereby affirming that there is no right of appeal from a Federal Court ruling under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. On May 11, 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Mr. Katriuk's Application for Leave to Appeal.
[W.Z.15. The Katriuk case is archived on the Lily website at
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/pakistan/83/
We have written a very extensive Critique of Marc Nadon's verdict, as well as a Summary of the case in November 1999.
Once again Canada's War Crimes bureaucrats imply that fighting Communist partisans and protecting Polish villagers in Belarus from "Red" partisan attacks is somehow equivalent to war criminality. Neither do they mention that Mr. Katriuk deserted from the German battalion to the French resistance, fought with the Western Allies against the Germans, was wounded, recovered in an American hospital, fought again and was presented with a medal and supporting certificate by the French for his bravery.]
Jacob Fast: Mr. Jacob Fast was served with a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship on September 30, 1999. The matter proceeded to trial before the Federal Court, Trial Division. It is alleged that Mr. Fast was the head, or a member, of the Political Department of the Nazi sponsored Auxiliary Police in Zaporozhye, Ukraine, during the Second World War. It is alleged that he obtained entry into Canada by misrepresentation in 1947 without revealing his activities on behalf of the Germans or that he had become a German citizen. The trial has been concluded and the matter is under reserve.
[W.Z.16. We have no information on Mr. Fast except that he is 92 years old and very ill.]
Walter Obodzinsky: Mr. Walter Obodzinsky was served with a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship in August 1999. He requested that the matter be referred to the Federal Court -- Trial Division for adjudication pursuant to the Citizenship Act. A Statement of Claim was issued against and served on the defendant on February 1, 2000, alleging that he obtained his status in Canada by "false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances" concerning his membership in a Schuma police battalion in the towns of Turets and Mir in what is now Belarus, and, following that, his membership in an attack unit (Jadzug) under Nazi command in the town of Baranovichi, in Belarus. The Federal Court -- Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal have both dismissed Mr. Obodzinsky's request to stay the case on medical grounds. He requested leave to appeal this issue to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was dismissed. The trial is ongoing.
[W.Z.17. We have no information on Mr. Obodzinsky except that he is very ill.]
Michael Baumgartner: On August 31, 2001, Justice William P. McKeown found that Mr. Baumgartner had obtained his citizenship by false representation, fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. The Court found that Mr. Baumgartner was a voluntary member of the Waffen S.S. and served as a concentration camp guard at the Stutthof and Sachsenhaussen Concentration Camps.
[W.Z.18. We have no information on the case of Mr. Baumgartner.]
Michael Seifert: Michael Seifert was found guilty by an Italian Military Tribunal of war crimes, including murder and torture, committed while he was a guard at a German police transit camp in Northern Italy in November, 2000. His appeal of the conviction was dismissed by the Italian court on October 18, 2001. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration served a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship. Mr. Seifert has requested that the matter be referred to the Federal Court for a hearing. A statement of claim was issued in Vancouver on November 13, 2001. On May 1, 2002, Mr. Seifert was arrested in Vancouver pursuant to an arrest warrant which had been issued following an extradition request from the Italian authorities. (Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1999, c.18). He was detained and released. The citizenship revocation proceeding and the extradition matter are currently before the courts.
[W.Z.19. We have no information on the case of Mr. Seifert.]
For case summaries of the eleven WW II cases concluded refer to Appendix H.
With respect to prevention abroad, a total of 445 persons were refused admission to Canada due to war crimes allegations. This includes persons whose applications were refused directly on war crimes allegations, persons who were investigated for war crimes activities but refused on other grounds, and persons who withdrew their applications in the face of questions concerning their background. The total number of cases investigated in Canadian missions abroad was 1797. In the previous fiscal year the number of persons refused abroad was 644 and the total number of cases investigated was 2374. Ironically, the events of September 11, 2001 are a contributing factor in these decreasing numbers as overall travel to Canada diminished considerably in the last three months of 2001. The rate of refusal was 24% in this fiscal year and 26% in the previous one.
As a result of increased front-end security screening of all refugee claimants implemented shortly after September 11, 2001, a larger number of refugee claimants were investigated for war crimes activity, 1969 this fiscal year compared to 1585 in the previous year. This resulted in a much larger number of interventions before the CRDD, 350 this year compared to 227 the previous year. As this increase in interventions took place in the latter part of the fiscal year the majority of these hearings have not been concluded.
In this fiscal year, 46 persons were removed from Canada the majority of which were excluded from refugee determination as a result of Ministerial interventions at their refugee hearings. This represents an increase of 10% over the number of persons removed last year for war crimes violations.
Subsequent to last year's annual report there was much interest in the numbers of persons removed from Canada with a suggestion that the number of removals was not keeping pace with the number of removal orders issued. Consequently, it was decided to report annually on the numbers of removal orders issued, the numbers effected and the numbers of uneffected removal orders. The breakdown is as follows:
| Removal Orders Issued | 59 |
| Removal Orders Effected | 46 |
| Removal Orders Uneffected (cumulative) | 157 |
This is not inconsistent with the regular immigration program as there are several reasons, some of them legislative, why persons cannot be expeditiously removed from Canada. In most cases these impediments to removal are beyond the control of the Department. The breakdown of the 157 outstanding removal orders is as follows:
| Did not report for removal, warrant issued | 91 |
| Awaiting travel document from foreign government | 22 |
| Under judicial review by Federal Court | 6 |
| Under appeal to the Appeal Division of the IRB | 28 |
| Stayed because the person's presence is required in judicial proceedings | 10 |
Appendix I provides enforcement results on modern war criminals cases. It is worth noting that over the past five years of the program's operation, a total of 2011 persons complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity have been refused visas to come to Canada. Over the same period a total of 233 such persons have been removed from Canada.
[W.Z.20. One wonders how many people from Israel-Palestine were either refused entry visas to or were removed from Canada?]
Developments Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War
Crimes Act
Investigations which will lead to criminal prosecutions for crimes against humanity or war crimes are extremely difficult, complex, and lengthy. Bringing cases to the point of laying a charge in a crime against humanity which occurred outside of Canada cannot be compared to the process of conducting criminal investigations in Canada under the Criminal Code. Other jurisdictions which are attempting to bring war criminals to justice have confirmed similar experiences. At the Third International War Crimes Conference, held in Ottawa in April 2002, the following comments were made by the Dutch delegate concerning the prosecution of modern war criminals:
"The investigation and prosecution of war crimes has proved to be a highly complicated and tough task. There are various reasons for this: As a rule, these crimes were committed several years ago on foreign territory. Local investigation is often not feasible. The options for gathering evidence by requests for mutual assistance are limited. Sitting regimes are not always willing to give full co-operation. Moreover, governments may have an interest in providing biased information on members of their own party and members of the opposition. Atrocities are rarely recorded and if so, such documents are not open for inspection. Up to now, evidence of war crimes strongly relies on witness statements. These witnesses must be found and be willing to make incriminating statements. In several cases, such statements cannot be made freely. Witnesses may be intimidated or be threatened with reprisal. In many cases, witnesses will be more prepared to give anonymous evidence, for instance for use in reports prepared by non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty. However, Dutch criminal law puts strict rules on the use of anonymous witness evidence. In addition, European Court of Human Rights case law provides that a person's conviction may not be solely or substantially based on anonymous statements.
Furthermore, witnesses willing to make a statement may have an interest in incriminating rival groups. And even witnesses who act in good faith may be unable to give accurate statements. Having been a witness to, or a victim of atrocities deeply affects a person. This, together with the lapse of time, may have a severely disturbing impact on a person's recollection. It is also a well-known fact that contacts with fellow-victims during the course of time can make it more difficult to sharply distinguish between personal and communal experiences. Finally, language and culture may give rise to misunderstandings when communicating with suspects and witnesses. Investigating officers will have to tune in to local situations in order to understand the historical and cultural context of the committed war crimes.
All in all, these obstacles have caused that -- with the exception of War Crimes Tribunals, which can operate under special conditions -- few individual states have been successful in bringing war criminals to justice. Convictions of war criminals by foreign courts seem to have depended mainly on the chance factor that a large number of witnesses happened to be available in the country conducting the prosecution."
[W.Z.21. It is ironic that prosecuting modern war crimes cases is so difficult; whereas prosecuting WWII cases is so simple. The prosecution simply insists that their victim must have lied when they came to Canada over 50 years ago.]
While the Department of Justice is the lead Department in bringing perpetrators to justice under this relatively new authority, all three departments are involved both in program development and in decision-making on individual cases through the IOG. These activities progress concurrently with cases being investigated while required infrastructure is being developed. A number of significant program development activities have now been completed. These include the development and implementation of law and policy, the allocation of resources (done on an annual basis), the establishment of a mechanism to identify potential cases, and the establishment of criteria to determine which cases should be pursued and how they should be prioritized.
In order to evaluate cases for possible prosecution and to prioritize the investigations, the IOG has developed criteria under three categories. There are now 72 cases which have been identified for possible prosecution with investigations underway and prioritized under the following criteria:
A. Nature of allegation
B. Nature of investigation
C. Other considerations
While these investigations are underway further infrastructure is under development. This includes refinement of specialized investigative techniques and a process model specifically adapted to developing these cases for prosecution as recommended in the Program Evaluation (see pp. 18-21). Mechanisms are also under development that will facilitate the exchange of information with other jurisdictions, in particular the need to work cooperatively during concurrent investigations (see following section).
Additional challenges include bringing witnesses before the court. Occasionally a court may travel on commission to take evidence and at other times witnesses may have to travel to Canada. Experience in other jurisdictions point to the complexities related to bringing witnesses from other countries before a local court. These include the expense related to travel and lodging as well as legal issues relating to their temporary stay in Canada.
International Cooperation and Outreach
Activities
Part of the strategy involved in implementing Canada's "no safe haven policy" is to communicate with a broad spectrum of interested parties both domestically and internationally. The objective is to foster a broad understanding of Canada's policies regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity and the initiatives that have been taken under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program. Target audiences include a wide variety of partners and other stakeholders such as like-minded states, international organizations, NGOs, academics and educational institutions. During the year representatives of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program participated in the following:
[W.Z.22. In our opinion, it is crucial to obtain the full documentation of all 12 of the conferences, articles and lectures listed above, as well as those indicated below.
It is obvious that the Holocaust Industry is pressing full steam ahead to promote, direct and control their war crimes agenda in both the national and international arenas.]
In October 2001, Canada hosted a meeting of 55 representatives of the Australian, British, American and Canadian governments in Ottawa to discuss means of enhancing modern war crimes intelligence cooperation between the immigration services of the partner nations. The meeting brought together intelligence, operational, and legal experts to identify and address the modern war crimes intelligence challenges that the immigration services face and intelligence sharing issues specific to the immigration services of the four countries. Several senior visitors, including the U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes Issues also attended. The meeting was the first of its kind between the four countries, and resulted in both short and long term approaches to enhance cooperation.
In April of this year, Canada hosted the Third International War Crimes Conference which included participants from Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The theme of the conference was Combatting International Crimes Domestically and participants were asked to provide presentations on their domestic legislation and investigation activities regarding crimes against humanity and war crimes and to present a particular problem with the development or enforcement of their war crimes legislation and how that problem was overcome. One significant development of this conference was the discussion on cluster investigations. This involves the situation where two states are investigating separate individuals linked to the same atrocity. The sharing of information in such instances would increase the effectiveness of these investigations and it was agreed that agreements to facilitate the sharing of such information would be developed.
During the year a senior official from the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs spent three months with the Modern War Crimes Section of CIC. This provided an opportunity for both agencies to exchange practical information on best practices related to the identification and removal of modern war criminals.
In addition to participating in the International Conferences, members of the RCMP promoted the government`s mandate through visits and presentations to high schools, universities and a variety of interest groups. The unit is also identified on the RCMP web site, thereby providing worldwide access to anyone wishing to contact them.
FORMAL EVALUATION OF CANADA'S WAR CRIMES PROGRAM
[W.Z.23. This section refers to the Goss Gilroy report, which we have examined separately.
The gist of the evaluation is that Canada's War Crimes program is very successful and necessary for which funding must be maintained and expanded.
The bureaucrats are simply trying to protect and enhance their careers and expand their empire.]
On
September 28, 2001, the final report on the formal evaluation of
Canada's War Crimes Program was submitted. The purpose of the evaluation
was to assess the effectiveness of Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and
War Crimes Program and to review its internal and external outcomes by
answering specific evaluation questions relating to its relevance, design,
delivery, and program success levels. The conclusions of the evaluation,
broken down into four categories, are as follows:
Relevance of Canada's War Crimes Program
CONCLUSION
The formal
evaluation of Canada's War Crimes Program has confirmed that since the
government allocated significant resources in 1998 to the development of
an integrated war crimes program, the three departments through the IOG
have taken and continue to take effective measures to ensure that Canada
does not become a safe haven for persons who have committed war crimes or
other atrocities.
It must be acknowledged that notwithstanding the best efforts of Department of Justice officials to bring more WW II cases to justice, the age and declining health of suspects and witnesses represent significant challenges. Despite this, investigations into these allegations will continue as long as viable routes of investigation remain open. As these cases are finalized, resources currently used in these investigations will be redirected to modern cases.
[W.Z.24. Although the bureaucrats admit that it is increasingly difficult to prosecute WWII cases, they insist that these should be continued. (They refuse to admit that these prosecutions have been total abject failures.) Unfortunately, this is being done on the backs of people like Wasyl Odynsky and the ever-suffering Canadian taxpayer.
Rather than transferring these bureaucrats to the Modern War Crimes section, Canadians should insist that their employment be terminated.]
Much work has been done in developing the infrastructure and identifying the operational requirements and challenges to conduct investigations and develop evidence that will result in successful prosecutions under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. There are many cases that have been prioritized and are under active investigation. It is anticipated that the required elements to bring forward a successful prosecution will soon materialize.
In conclusion, Canada has the mechanisms in place to deal effectively with war criminals and persons who have committed crimes against humanity and will continue to apply these mechanisms in a vigilant manner. In concert with the international community, Canada will continue to play a significant role in breaking the cycle of impunity enjoyed by those who have committed crimes against humanity.
[W.Z.25. Breaking the cycle of impunity of the hardline Zionists and the so-called Israeli Defence Forces, who kill, maim, torture, terrorize and dispossess Palestinians, would, indeed, be a laudible goal.]
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUNDER
World War II
Cases
Following World War II, large immigration movements resulted in the admission to Canada of persons subsequently suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. In 1985, the government established the Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals which produced three lists of suspects containing 883 names. The principal recommendation of Mr. Justice Deschênes was that the RCMP and the Department of Justice be mandated to carry out investigations of these suspects.
[W.Z.26. The reader is encouraged to peruse our Critique of the Deschenes Commission Report, which more clearly describes the Deschenes Commission debacle.]
In March of 1987, the government responded to the Deschênes Commission Report by announcing that those alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity would be subject to criminal prosecution or revocation of citizenship and deportation. Recognizing that the research required to investigate and prepare such cases for prosecution is highly specialized and intensive, the Department of Justice created a Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section (Department of Justice War Crimes Section). The War Crimes and Special Investigations Unit of the RCMP, first established in 1985 to assist the Deschênes Commission, and now called the War Crimes / Immigration and Passport Section, has continued to conduct investigations of all suspected perpetrators.
[W.Z.27. The reference above to "revocation of citizenship and deportation" is misleading. When Justice Minister and Attorney General, Ray Hnatyshyn, tabled the Deschenes Commission Report in the House of Commons on March 12, 1987, all the newspaper articles blared that Canada had opted for a "made in Canada" solution and that there would be no denaturalizations and deportations as in the United States.
The relevant part of the news release issued by the government on March 12, 1987 reads as follows:
Mr. Hnatyshyn indicated that the government's guiding principle in continuing the investigation and prosecution of possible war crimes would be that: "The problem of war criminals should, wherever possible, be dealt with here in Canada and every case must be resolved in a manner consistent with Canadian standards of law and evidence."
It is obvious that the Conservative government of the day had no intention of utilizing denaturalization and deportation.]
In brief, Mr. Hnatyshyn said this "made in Canada" solution involves:
- the amendment of the Criminal Code to give Canadian courts jurisdiction to try war crimes or crimes against humanity in Canada, if the conduct in question would have amounted to a criminal offence in Canada;
- the conduct of necessary investigations within the existing framework of the Justice Department and the R.C.M.P. No additional organizational body would be created;
- the review on a case by case basis of recommendations that Eastern European evidence be sought with such evidence to be gathered in accordance with Canadian standards and only where there are specific, credible and serious allegations of war crimes;
- the tightening of the immigration screening process and interview procedures to ensure that Canadian citizenship and immigration to Canada are not available to those who have participated in war crimes. The Citizenship Act will be amended to make complicity in war crimes a bar to Canadian Citizenship;
- a reliance on the current law and practice with respect to extradition and deportation with a view of avoiding retroactive action.
Mr. Hnatyshyn concluded by saying that he believed that it is not appropriate to seek to delay a resolution of the war criminals problem nor to seek to export responsibility to other countries.
At the initial stages of the program, it was necessary to negotiate agreements with several countries in order to gain access to their archives and to obtain permission to contact and interview potential witnesses, either informally or through formal memoranda of understanding. Historians, RCMP investigators and counsel from the Department of Justice traveled overseas to search archives, identify potential witnesses and conduct interviews to further their investigations.
[W.Z.28. The authors fail to mention that the legislation to permit war crimes prosecutions, Bill C-71, passed first reading on June 23, 1987, second reading on June 30, 1987, was denied third reading on that date by Alex Kindy, but did pass third reading sometimes after August 25, 1987, when the House was virtually empty just before adjournment. Presumably, Senate approval was given on Sept. 16, 1987. A Memorandum of Understanding with the Soviet Union was signed on Dec. 30, 1987 in Moscow.
Bill C-71 is so badly flawed, that we have concluded that the bureaucrats who drafted it were acting in bad faith at the behest of the Holocaust Industry.
Our critique of Bill C-71 is contained in our letter to Mssrs. Mulroney, Turner and Broadbent dated Aug. 09, 1987.]
From 1987 to 1992, after extensive investigation, charges were laid under the Criminal Code in four cases. None resulted in convictions. The case of Imre Finta was appealed and argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, and, as a result, it became clear that it would be impractical to prosecute further cases under the (then) existing provisions of the Criminal Code.
[W.Z.29. During the Nurnberg War Crimes Trials "superior orders" were not allowed as a defense to the accused Germans. In Canada "superior orders" are allowed as a defense. It is our understanding that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Mr. Finta's acquittal to preclude the prosecution of thousands of Canadian war veterans on similar charges.]
During this period, revocation of citizenship and deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act were also initiated in the case of Jacob Luitjens. These proceedings resulted in the deportation of Luitjens to the Netherlands where he was immediately incarcerated for an earlier conviction of collaboration.
[W.Z.30. It is our understanding that the bureaucrat who "convinced" Mr. Luitjens not to resist being deported to the Netherlands was forced to resign for improper conduct. It is also my understanding that Mr. Luitjens was incarcerated for a very short time before being pardoned by the Dutch government and allowed to spend his twilight years with his family.]
In January of 1995, the government announced a change in its approach to dealing with war criminals, shifting from the criminal prosecution of these individuals to revocation of citizenship. This effectively meant that it was no longer incumbent on the government to prove that individuals were "war criminals" but instead had to prove that they entered Canada and/or obtained citizenship through misrepresentation, fraud, or the concealment of material facts. As part of this process, 1664 cases were examined by the Department of Justice's War Crimes Section in order to identify those cases which possess sufficient grounds to warrant the initiation of proceedings.
[W.Z.31. The bureaucrats openly admit that they are prosecuting immigration infractions rather than war criminality. Taken to its logical conclusion these bureaucrats should start investigating 6 million Canadians for immigration infractions and prosecuting them "on a balance of probabilities".]
All cases are evaluated for both criminal prosecution as well as revocation proceedings. It is the position of the government that in some cases where there are allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, revocation of citizenship and deportation is the appropriate remedy. The Federal Court of Canada has indicated that this process "in no way diminishes the respondent's right to be treated fairly in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice."
[W.Z.32. Rather than dispensing justice, the Demjanjuk and all the WWII cases have vividly demonstrated that denaturalization and deportation process is a blue print for injustice.]
The government pursues only those cases for which there is evidence of direct involvement or complicity in crimes against humanity. A person is considered complicit if, while aware of the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the person contributes directly or indirectly to their occurrence. Membership in an organization responsible for committing the atrocities can be sufficient to establish complicity if the organization in question is one with a single brutal purpose, e.g. a death squad.
[W.Z.33. So people such as Odynsky, Oberlander and Katriuk, who were dragooned to work for the Germans but did not personally commit any atrocities, are complicit in war crimes? Would the commanders, who sent Canadian airmen to incinerate German women and children in their beds, be less complicit? Or what about the Canadian soldiers, who cheered as their comrades used flame-throwers to fry German soldiers trapped in their tanks?
One could have a field day in establishing complicity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Are people who buy Israeli war bonds complicit? What about the U.S. Congressmen and Senators, who vote to send billions of dollars to Israel to facilitate the destruction of the Palestinians? Are the Evangelical Christians, who support Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity, complicit?]
Modern War
Crimes Cases
In the late 1980's, the issue of modern-day war crimes and crimes against humanity became more prominent. Political turmoil, internal ethnic strife, the settling of historical grievances, and religious extremism in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East caused considerable flows of refugee claimants. Within these movements were small numbers of individuals alleged to be involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity.
As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Canada is committed to providing protection to persons who fear persecution as described in the Convention. This protection prevents refugees from being returned to the country where they have been persecuted. In turn, the Convention maintains that those who have committed crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity, are not entitled to this protection. In January 1989, the Immigration Act was amended to allow for the exclusion from the refugee determination process of individuals who were believed, on reasonable grounds, to have been complicit in crimes against humanity. In addition to denying such individuals protection under the Convention, this exclusion has the effect of reducing the time required to effect their removal from Canada.
In February of 1993, a number of changes were made to the Immigration Act intended to bring the classes of criminal inadmissibility up to date with both Canadian and international developments that had occurred in the area. Among these amendments was a provision rendering inadmissible to Canada, senior officials of regimes who have been designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as being involved in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations or crimes against humanity. This provision was a response to a successful immigration application by the Iraqi ambassador to the United States. At that time, the existing grounds of inadmissibility could be used to refuse admission to persons who had been directly involved in crimes against humanity. However, persons in government who were physically removed from these human rights violations but who took part in decisions which led to the commission of these atrocities, were not inadmissible under the Immigration Act.
The Act was further amended to provide authority to deny access to a refugee hearing for persons described as war criminals or members of designated regimes if the Minister believes it would be contrary to the public interest to have a refugee claim by such a person heard. This situation occurs at an immigration inquiry where the person is brought before an adjudicator to determine his admissibility to enter or remain in Canada.
In May of 1997, amendments were made to the Post Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class regulations and the Deferred Removal Order Class regulations. These amendments prohibited persons who have been excluded under article 1F(a) of the Convention from accessing these additional humanitarian reviews prior to their removal.
As the issues pertaining to the entry of modern-day war criminals grew more numerous and complex, it was apparent that an improved system was required for identifying and screening these individuals. In April of 1996, three employees were assigned to a new Modern War Crimes Section within Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Due to the escalating number of cases and the need for supporting infrastructure, it was evident that this section required increased resources. At the same time, concerns were expressed over the increase in the numbers of persons in Canada whose files were not being processed in a timely manner. It was acknowledged that the initial identification of modern war criminal cases early in the immigration process would be the best strategy. Early detection, particularly through visa screening abroad, had proven to be considerably more effective and efficient than attempting to remove the person after arrival in Canada.
Renewed
Approach 1998
In the fall of 1997, the government conducted a review of its War Crimes Program. In a press release dated July 21, 1998, the following decisions were announced to improve effectiveness:
Resources over the three years were distributed among departments as follows: