Son of Communist-era Political Prisoner: “Canada’s Political Censorship Worse Than I Experienced Under Communism”
By Joshua Blakeney
“[In a country] you’ve got to always read the criminal code before you read the constitution”
Dr. Tomislav Sunic paraphrasing his father’s motto
“Not all truthful statements should be free from restriction”
Justice Marshal Rothstein, Supreme Court of Canada
In June of this year I interviewed Dr. Tomislav Sunic for an episode of my radio show, The Real Deal. I first came to know of Dr. Sunic—who holds a doctorate in Political Science from the University of California Santa Barbara—via his own radio show, The Sunic Journal. It was through his show that I became acquainted with the who’s who of the European and North American New Right; scholars like Kevin MacDonald, Greg Johnson, Jonathan Bowden and Alain de Benoist.
Dr. Sunic was born in Communist Yugoslavia, where political discourse was heavily regulated to inoculate those in power in that country from scrutiny. The rampant state-repression had ramifications for his family, as he recounts in an op-ed in the Occidental Observer:
In 1984 my father, Mirko Sunic, a former Catholic lawyer and my sister, Mirna Sunic, a professor, were sentenced to 4 years and 10 months of prison respectively, pursuant to Article 133 of the Criminal Code of communist Yugoslavia — a law that criminalized “hostile propaganda.” The charges had been filed by the state communist attorney Ante Nobilo. Subsequently, Mirko Sunic was adopted by Amnesty International and 15 US Congressmen as a prisoner of conscience. At the same time, I was granted political asylum while living in the United States.
Sunic, upon arriving at the centre of the putative “free world”, the United States, was surprised to discover that much of the political correctness that existed in Communist Yugoslavia also existed—albeit more subtly—in the capitalist West. This communistic regulation of thought in the West partially stems from the fact that countries like the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia fought on the same side as the Communists in World War II in order to thwart the most strident bulwarks of anti-Communism in Europe and Asia, namely Germany, Italy and Japan. All those Allied nations, be they Communist or non-Communist, had a vested interest in making a certain set of assumptions about Jews, Fascists, Germans, Soviets, etc, sacrosanct, lest their citizens and subjects countenance the possibility that their parents and grandparents died in vain in a needless war.
Sunic observed that just as one could lose one’s job and even be criminalized, if labelled “fascistic” or “anti-Semitic” in the Communist East, the same was true in the “democratic” West.
Sunic—who speaks French, German and English impeccably—has dedicated much intellectual labour to drawing attention to the absurd thought-crime legislation which has been enacted in Western nations under the guise of combatting “hate speech” and historical revisionism.
In France, for example, one can be criminalized merely for questioning the verdicts of the Nuremberg trials. The French State’s attempt to regulate History appears particularly foolish when one considers that Article 19 of the Nuremberg Charter stated unabashedly that:
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.
In the interview I asked Dr. Sunic to comment on Canada’s anti-free-speech laws. Reflecting upon what his father would say if he was alive today, Dr. Sunic opined:
if he [Mirko Sunic] was alive now, and vivid in his mind, he would certainly be very, very critical of the present jurisprudence in, especially in Germany and to some extent in the United States of America and especially in Canada. . .He certainly wouldn’t be very happy observing what’s going on in Canadian or Australian, let alone the German jurisprudence and especially the criminal code. [9:20]
Sunic emphasized the chilling effect thought-crime legislation has had on political discourse in Canada:
I’m quite familiar with what is going on with some dissidents, some “heretics”, in Canada. I’m quite familiar with the Ernst Zundel case. . .Quite frankly I’ll tell you, I don’t feel very comfortable in Canada at all. I’ve had quite a few speeches [there] over the last ten years. I’ve been visiting people. I’ve had a whole series of speeches in Canada and I don’t feel as comfortable—again relatively speaking within a larger context—I don’t feel as comfortable giving speeches and lectures in Canada as I certainly do in the United States of America where we still have this fragile First Amendment which, quote unquote still extends some rights and some privileges to your freedom of speech. [12:55]
He spoke of the “appalling” repression and censorship which arises in the second largest country on earth:
Of course there are parallels between the Canadian penal code and the ex-Communist penal Code in Soviet Russia or for that matter Communist Yugoslavia. . . you’ve got repression and not just repression and you’ve got self-censorship which is appalling. . .academics and teachers, professors be it at the graduate level or undergraduate level they are just scared. They are deadly scared for their careers. They have to pay their rent. [14:30]
The former University of California lecturer added:
This is very scary stuff. . .the privilege of living in the Communist Yugoslavia and the Communist Soviet Union was very simple; you could, even a person without a university degree, could tell right away that this was a brutal system, that it punished people savagely . . .and this was a privilege. Why? Because everybody could detect this system; it was physical, it was palpable, it was tangible for everybody, even for a Joe Six-Pack in Communist Yugoslavia. . .now the problem with the Canadian legislation and specifically the criminal code or for that matter the criminal code in Germany is that it is far better veiled in this Micky Mouse, excuse my language, in this Micky Mouse language full of euphemism, full of coverage with human rights, tolerance, diversity and you really have to be a master of the languages first and a master of the psychology of the people who wrote those paragraphs in order to detect the omnipresence of this surveillance state. [18:40]
When commenting upon what motivated the Canadian State to enact such Orwellian laws, Sunic noted:
There’s absolutely no question on the empirical basis. . .certainly the Jewish Lobby or for that matter the Jewish lawyers and the Jewish legislators have certainly a very strong clout over the legislation in Canada. [15:52]
As I stated in the radio show, if Jews constituted a powerless, negligible group in Canada, banning criticism of Jews would be less significant. But because the organized Jewish community forms a significant locus of power in this country, the de facto prohibition upon criticizing Jews is extremely troublesome. As was the case under Communist dictatorships, we appear to have state-enforced philo-Semitism which fails to allow for a consideration of the morality of the actions of Jews in determinations of how they ought to be adjudged.
The heart of the matter is the problematic State Ideology of Jewish Exceptionalism. If certain Jews contribute positively to society they should be congratulated but if the leadership of the organized Jewish community, for example, promote wars and draconian police-state policies they should receive condemnation. The problem with Canada’s thought-crime legislation is that it precludes the latter in order to conform with the aforementioned State Ideology.
If intellectuals criticize Jews, regardless of whether or not their criticisms are well-founded, the Canadian State has mandated their criminalization. Nearly every parliamentarian in Canada appears to believe that if someone expresses the emotion of hate towards the Jewish ethnic group that they should ipso facto be criminalized irrespective of whether or not their discontent is merited.
It is also noteworthy that throughout the West anti-free speech laws have, almost without exception, only been invoked to prosecute White, Christian men. Names like Ernst Zündel, Fredrick Töben, David Irving, Arthur Topham (see below) and Germar Rudolf come to mind. This pattern could be observable because this is what the laws were implicitly designed for in the first place; to quash dissent against the vengeful death sentence that has been imposed upon Western Civilization.
In his On Liberty John Stuart Mill notes how Chinese rulers of the time had managed to foster a uniformity of belief within their jurisdiction. He contrasts Europe favourably with China noting that the unique achievement of European Civilization—which Canada was founded to be an extension of—was to a large extent due to the unique cultural tolerance for conflicting viewpoints which had stimulated progress by enabling flaws in European societies to be openly identified and then eliminated. He condemned those who sought to impose restrictions upon freedom of speech:
unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents. . .will tend to become another China.
It would not be a stretch to contend therefore, that if Mill was correct in identifying a tolerance for adversarial viewpoints as a cornerstone of Western Civilization, that the enactment of “Hate Speech” laws and attendant anti-historical-revisionism laws was an act of ethnocide against European people and civilization. Indeed it is hard to consider Canada as a member of Western Civilization any longer when one factors in the decisions of the Zionized Canadian regime which are completely antithetical to its main tenets.
This negation of the West’s founding principles could explain why the promoters of the Zionist “war on terror” incessantly invoke the alleged “anti-Westernism” of the Muslims who they blame for their false-flag terrorist attacks. It is a form of projection; they are the ones who are in practice dismantling Western Civilization. All those officials and litterati who collaborate with the hostile elite group which illegitimately controls discourse in Canada are in effect agents of ethnocide against the culture of Canada’s founders and their descendants.
All must hope therefore, that just as mainstream Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International addressed the plight of dissidents like Dr. Sunic’s father, that they will investigate the state-repression of intellectuals Canada. The upcoming trial of elderly blogger Arthur Topham—who was descended upon by a swat-team and dragged off to jail for merely writing critical comments about Zionists—would be a perfect opportunity for international Human Rights observers to take a stance against the Canadian State’s criminalization of dissidents. Fortunately the Ontario Civil Liberties Association distinguished themselves recently when they published a condemnation of the violation of Topham’s civil rights.
Joshua Blakeney Interviews Dr. Tomislav Sunic