CSIS LOGOThe Heritage Front Affair
A report to the Solicitor General of Canada

December 9th, 1995



X. THE SOURCE, BRISTOW AND THE LEGAL PROCESS




In this section, we examine allegations pertaining to the Source's and Grant Bristow's involvement in various legal processes. We also look specifically at information provided by a Source or otherwise obtained by CSIS, that might be considered to fall under the rubric solicitor-client privilege.

10.1 Zundel's Legal Plans

In early February 1992, the Source told a Toronto Investigator of a discussion with Zundel concerning a "Toronto Star" article on the "Anniversary of the Wannsee Conference". In the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, the Germans approved the "Final Solution". According to the Source, Zundel was interested in having Droege lay a private prosecution against the paper and reporter for spreading false news. Zundel had already had discussions with Doug Christie to find out about all the ramifications of such an action. Zundel felt that if he pursued the prosecution, he would be in violation of his "gag order".

This information was not passed to anyone outside CSIS.

10.2 A Discussion about David Irving

David Irving is a British writer who denies that the holocaust ever happened, and who has visited and lectured in Canada a number of times. During a November 1992 visit, the Government undertook deportation procedures. According to a CSIS assessment, Doug Christie advised that although Zundel had returned to Toronto to assist, Irving requested that he (Zundel) not appear directly connected to him. Apparently, Zundel agreed to this request as Doug Christie had advised that such a connection would not help if Irving challenged the Canadian Immigration position. The Source further learned that Christie had told Irving to hold a press conference to tell people that he had left Canada after receiving his departure notice by travelling from Vancouver to Seattle. In effect he had violated his departure notice and was challenging the Canadian government to act. Christie strongly denies giving such advice to his client.

The information was obtained prior to the Deportation hearing. Doug Christie was Irving's counsel, and Irving did, indeed, use the defence of his having left Canada and then returned. The information, however, does not appear to have been forwarded by CSIS to anyone. The information is not identified as having been forwarded to anyone outside CSIS.[1]

10.3 Doan Discusses Legal Strategy

On June 24, 1993, the Source learned that Droege had discussed with his lawyer, Harry Doan, how to avoid bail restrictions which forbade him to have any contact with Heritage Front members. The Committee learned that the lawyer Harry Doan had suggested that all the members of the HF resign their membership. This would allow Droege to have contact with his associates and not be in contravention of his bail release conditions.

Doan categorically denies having made such a suggestion, and added that he has never given any advice to clients on how to evade a court order. He said that his involvement with the group was limited to legal work.

Before the Committee, Wolfgang Droege noted, "Right now, you see, to get around my bail conditions, actually there is no actual membership. There is no membership, you see, right now what we are doing is we are only running a group of supporters".[2]

There is no evidence that this information was passed to anyone by CSIS.

10.4 Defence Creativity

The Review Committee learned that Fischer's lawyer, Harry Doan, will use the Defence that ... [possible infringement of solicitor/client privilege][3]. We have also learned that the information was not provided to anyone other than the Review Committee.

10.5 Solicitor-Client Communications

We discussed any possible infringement of solicitor-client privilege with the source handler. The Source considered that some conversations were not solicitor-client information, and brought them to the handler. He, in turn, decided if the information was threat-related and thus whether the information would be reported. He added that no solicitor-client information was ever reported to anyone else; not to the police, and not to the prosecution. In effect, the handler was a screening control similar to that used by CSIS for the screening of Court-approved intercepts.[4]

We saw no other references to conversations possibly covered by solicitor-client privilege.



Footnotes

1 The "Record Tracking" section is blank. Messages when forwarded to domestic departments, agencies, or police forces, are tracked.

2 pp. 119-120, Testimony before the Committee, November 16, 1994

3 (Deletion of text by SIRC).

4 SIRC Interview of Handler.



[Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [SIRC Report Exposed page]

[Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Chapter 6] [Chapter 7] [Chapter 8] [Chapter 9] [Chapter 10] [Chapter 11] [Chapter 12] [Chapter 13]





Comments? E-Mail: ezundel@cts.com

Now you have a choice. We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions.

If you approve of our outreach on behalf of truth in history and can afford to help us, please send your donations to:

The Zündel-Haus
206 Carlton Street
Toronto, ONT
Canada M5A 2L1

Tel: 416 - 922-9850

As a public service, we alert our readers to other major websites posting related materials in support of Historical Revisionism. A suggestion to surf other sites is not to be interpreted as an endorsement of documents placed on these sites. For relentless Holocaust promotion, on the other hand, contact Nizkor.
For another Jewish point of view, contact the Simon Wiesenthal Center (tm)

Go to Table of Contents Back to Homepage