I sent a message in response to Lech's message which did not seem to have
reached its destination. Therefore, I am sending it again.
I was quite taken aback by the tone of Lech Lesiak's e-mail, titled "Law of
unintended consequences." He states: "Canada has laws allowing the
prosecution and deportation of war criminals. These laws were put in
largely to garner political favor with Canada's Jews who are the most ardent
supporters of such legislation."
Why would one assume that the law was passed to cater to Canada's Jews?
Could it not be that most people might agree that it is no more than
just to deport war criminals. Undoubtedly, the Jewish
Canadian population would urge that this be done, and hopefully the Polish
Canadian population would do so too. Should war criminals really remain in
Canada? The implication of the letter seems to be that legislators were
catering to unreasonable, pesky Jewish pressure rather than that justice
might finally be done.
Lech then continues: "Now the shoe is on the other foot." He and then
suggests that Canadians of Jewish background were involved in war crimes against
Ukrainians. That may or may not be the case. My issue is not
whether Jews were or were not involved in war crimes. That is for the
courts to determine. My question is, what is meant by "the shoe is on the
other foot." This statement seems to imply that the Jews have been
trying to get away with something and now, unexpectantly were finally
The law is a just law that should be applied to anyone who was a war
criminal. The implication that the law was passed because of
unreasonable, excessively influential Jews who are now getting their
come-uppance is divisive and brings to mind unfortunate