VICTORIA - A lawyer who forged his reputation by representing Canada's most reviled hatemongers will be revered by supporters for championing free speech and filling a vital role in the justice system, while his detractors say he was too closely aligned with the racist views of his clients.

Doug Christie died in hospital on Monday night at the age of 66.

His wife, Keltie Zubko, told The Canadian Press her husband, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2011, died of metastatic liver disease.

She said Christie was surrounded by his family.

"(We) were all with him and able to say all that was in our hearts to say before he let go of the pain and suffering to leave us with the immense gifts of his love for us and the lessons of his life," Zubko said in an email forwarded by one of his supporters.

Christie’s client list includes former Nazi prison guard Michael Seifert, Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel and self-proclaimed Nazi-sympathizer Paul Fromm.

Zundel, who maintains the Holocaust never occurred, was convicted in 1985 for "spreading false news'" about Jewish people and was sentenced to 15 months in jail.

Seifert was convicted of war crimes and was eventually extradited to Italy, where he was to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Fromm described Christie as an immensely brave man who was motivated by a deep love of freedom and a suspicion of government and authority.

"The Doug I knew was a sensitive and proud man. He was a deeply moral man. He did not seek notoriety," Fromm said in an email, noting the two were friends for more than 30 years.

"He felt the rejections and condemnations deeply. Yet, Doug felt a higher imperative — individual freedom and liberty. "

Fromm is a former member of the Western Guard white supremacist group and self-styled director of the right-wing Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Christie also represented aboriginal leader David Ahenakew, who was stripped of his Order of Canada for comments he made about Jews.

The legal saga over Ahenakew’s comments ended in 2009 when Saskatchewan justice officials decided not to appeal his acquittal on a hate crime charge.

Christie later argued that Ahenakew should get back the Order of Canada.

Christie also defended Alberta teacher Jim Keegstra, who was initially convicted of promoting hatred against Jewish people, but his conviction was later thrown out by the Alberta appeal court.

Chris Schafer, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said Christie served a necessary and important purpose in Canadian law and society.

"There seems to be ... a few number of people who are willing to stick their neck out and defend unpopular causes and people. He was one of them. Every society needs people like that," he said in an interview.

"Some of the people he defended are unsavoury types, but everyone deserves a defence."

Schafer, who heads a non-profit group composed of lawyers who defend cases involving constitutional freedoms, said Christie took on a very difficult task.

"(He) frankly probably paid a heavy emotional or psychological or maybe even health consequence for taking on these cases (for) often being identified as having or holding the same views of his client," he said, noting he did not know the man personally.

"Which I think really is an unfair characterization."

But lawyer Anita Bromberg, who represented the Jewish advocacy group B'Nai Brith in hearings related to Zundel in the mid-2000s, said she found herself an adversary to Christie in the courtroom.

"I can't agree with the tributes that say he was an amazing man who stood up for free speech. All too often what he stood up for was the right to spread hate and hate-related speech. To me he was on the wrong side of that coin," she said in an interview.

"Watching his career, I think he all too often shared (his clients') philosophies and sentiments."

Christie found himself in trouble with the B.C. Law Society in 2008 when he was accused of professional misconduct and slapped with a hefty fine.

In 2003, Christie had authorized three subpoenas that contained documents affixed with a forged court stamp. Although Christie was found not to be involved in the forged subpoenas, the law society said he did ask his untrained client to prepare the documents.

In its decision, the law society ordered Christie to pay two fines totalling $22,500 but noted it did not want to give him a fine he wasn't able to pay because it might force him out of practising law.

”The panel described Christie's work as a valuable contribution to our free society, often performed pro bono or for greatly reduced fees, and stated its desire that Christie be able to continue with that work,'' said a society bulletin.

Outside of his legal work, the man advocated for his political beliefs including founding and leading the Western Block Party. The Western separatist party espoused views that federalism doesn't work.

Christie ran under the banner during the 2006 federal election in the riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

On his website, Christie, who attended law school at the University of B.C. from 1967 to 1979, described himself as "Canada's most prolific defender of free speech."

Christie also acknowledged that because of the clients he represented, he was seen as a right-wing extremist, a Nazi, or an anti-Semite — smear words he said were inaccurate and unfair.

He said he was an individualist who recognized every other person’s right to be so assessed.

"It was principles of freedom that caused me to step off the beaten path," wrote Christie.

"It is the love of freedom that keeps me off the path of slaves."

— With files from Tamsyn Burgmann in Vancouver

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • University of Cincinnati

    The<a href="" target="_hplink"> University of Cincinnati</a> maintains a shockingly restrictive free speech zone comprising just 0.1% of the school's <a href="" target="_hplink">137-acre campus</a>. The policy, which was named FIRE's S<a href="" target="_hplink">peech Code of the Month</a> back in December of 2007, quarantines "demonstrations, pickets, and rallies" to a tiny portion of campus, requires students to request permission to use the zone a full ten working days in advance, and threatens students with criminal prosecution for violations, warning that "[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing." Because this public university isn't shy about enforcing its misguided and illiberal policy, it now faces a <a href="" target="_hplink">federal civil rights lawsuit</a>. Last month, a political student group seeking to collect signatures from students across campus in support of a ballot initiative filed a First Amendment challenge against the free speech zone after being told by administrators that they were not even "permitted to walk around." The administration added, "if we are informed that you are, Public Safety will be contacted." Threatening to call the cops on civic-minded students who want to talk to their peers about politics sure seems indefensible, and now the University of Cincinnati has to answer for its policy in federal court. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Bearcat2011</a>

  • Syracuse University

    Topping the list last year for threatening to <a href="" target="_hplink">expel a law student</a> for harassment due to his role in a satirical blog about life in law school, <a href="" target="_hplink">Syracuse University</a> makes the list again for an even worse case. This past year, Syracuse's School of Education effectively <a href="" target="_hplink">expelled an education student </a>who complained on his own Facebook page about a comment that he thought was racially insulting. Matt Werenczak was <a href="" target="_hplink">required to undergo</a> counseling and diversity training just to earn a chance of readmission. Just hours after FIRE took Matt's case public, Syracuse backed down but called its free speech violations "standard" and blamed them on the rules of its accreditor, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Photo Credit: <a href=",_Syracuse_University.JPG" target="_hplink">ZeWrestler</a>

  • Widener University

    In December 2010, tenured criminal law professor Lawrence J. Connell was <a href="" target="_hplink">banned from Widener's Delaware campus</a> and charged with numerous violations of the university's Faculty Member Discrimination and Harassment Code. His crimes? Aside from allegedly using the term "black folks" (a choice of words that even President Obama uses), his real "offense" seemed to be his use of the name of Dean Linda Ammons in hypothetical classroom crime scenarios (a <a href="" target="_hplink">common practice</a> in law schools). When a faculty panel recommended that this nonsense be dropped, Dean Ammons allegedly induced two law students to refile harassment charges against Connell, and added a new charge of "retaliation" for defending himself. Connell was <a href="" target="_hplink">cleared of all </a>charges of harassment and discrimination, but found responsible for retaliation because he had explained his situation to his students! Instead of restoring sanity here, Widener University President James T. Harris accepted Ammons' recommendation that Connell be suspended for one year without pay and be forced to undergo a psychiatric or psychological evaluation before returning to Widener. Connell sued, and the case was ultimately settled out of court. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Widener | Facebook </a>

  • Harvard University

    Last fall, <a href="" target="_hplink">Harvard</a> pressured all freshmen to s<a href="" target="_hplink">ign a morality pledge</a> promising that they would exercise "civility" and "kindness ... on a par with intellectual attainment" (a nice-sounding policy with terrible implications for academic freedom, which I explained <a href="" target="_hplink">here</a>). Under pressure, Harvard decided not to publish the names of those who signed it, but still posted the pledges in every residence hall. When it came time for the annual Harvard-Yale football game, Harvard's licensing office <a href="" target="_hplink">prohibited Yale's freshman</a> class from using the names of famous Harvard dropouts Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg on game-day T-shirts. Then in December, Harvard's Arts & Sciences faculty effectively <a href="" target="_hplink">fired a longtime professor </a>because he had published a controversial <a href="" target="_hplink">op-ed in India</a> about ways of combating Islamic terrorism. All of this is just the <a href="" target="_hplink">tip of the iceberg</a>. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Jacob Rus</a>

  • Yale University

    Talk about a chilling effect on speech, <a href="" target="_hplink">Yale </a>has made its community downright frigid. We criticized Yale last year for <a href="" target="_hplink">censoring a book</a> with cartoon images of Mohammed in an academic book about those very cartoons, and for quashing its <a href="" target="_hplink">Freshman Class Council's T-shirt</a> for the annual Harvard-Yale football match because the shirts quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald referring to Harvard students as "sissies." Yale has kept busy since then. It <a href="" target="_hplink">censored the freshman class again</a>, absurdly refusing to approve this year's tees unless Harvard approved them, too (see Harvard's entry). Under pressure from the federal government, Yale <a href="" target="_hplink">also suspended</a> a fraternity for five years after the pledges' <a href="" target="_hplink">satirical, juvenile,</a> and intentionally offensive outdoor chants about sex were deemed to be "imperiling the integrity and values of the University community." Yale raised eyebrows when it gave academic justifications for <a href="" target="_hplink">closing down</a> the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism not long after the center came under criticism for holding a conference ... about antisemitism. And after a committee recommended ending Yale's annual Sex Week, the university forced the organizers to <a href="" target="_hplink">change the content</a> of their festivities or else have no Sex Week at all. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Ragesoss</a>

  • St. Augustine's College

    <a href="" target="_hplink">St. Augustine's College</a> in Raleigh, North Carolina, earned its place on this list by <a href="" target="_hplink">banning</a> student Roman Caple from participating in its spring 2011 graduation ceremonies merely for advising his fellow students on Facebook <a href="" target="_hplink">to come prepared</a> for a contentious meeting about the school's recovery from a destructive tornado. For this civic-minded expression, which the college <a href="" target="_hplink">laughably twisted</a> into a "negative social media exchange," St. Augustine's deemed Caple to be "attempt[ing] to create chaos" and "fuel[ing] an already tense situation." It seems there were some thin skins among the St. Augustine's administration. Instead of commending Caple for encouraging his peers to provide documentation to support their arguments, St. Augustine's <a href="" target="_hplink">forbade him to walk </a>at graduation or participate in other official activities, forced him to receive his cap and gown from a security officer, and later <a href="" target="_hplink">extended his punishment</a> to exclusion from the following fall's Homecoming celebration. Caple, a first-generation college graduate whose family members had already made travel arrangements to attend his graduation, <a href="" target="_hplink">sued his alma mater</a> for the violation of its free speech promises, reaching a settlement agreement that was satisfactory to him. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Tiffany Davis</a>

  • Michigan State University

    <a href="" target="_hplink">Michigan State University</a> remains on our list this year in light of its ongoing prohibition on "spamming," which it <a href="" target="_hplink">defines </a>as emailing more than 10 people the same unsolicited email within 48 hours. MSU noted in January that "<a href="" target="_hplink">MSU IT resources have a finite capacity</a>" which apparently cannot handle 11 unexpected emails over two days. An earlier anti-"spam" policy was central to the school's<a href="" target="_hplink"> punishment </a>of student Kara Spencer for sending an email to about 8% of the faculty regarding an imminent decision to change the school's academic calendar. As a student government representative and member of the University Committee on Student Affairs (UCSA), Spencer deserved praise for alerting faculty members to the <a href="" target="_hplink">letter</a> that MSU students, faculty, and administrators had written in response to the proposed change. MSU didn't back down until <a href="" target="_hplink">13 civil liberties organizations</a> put public pressure on MSU. But then MSU made its <a href="" target="_hplink">anti-"spam" policy absurdly worse.</a> Photo Credit:<a href="" target="_hplink"> Jeffness</a>

  • Colorado College

    <a href="" target="_hplink">Colorado College</a> remains on our list for refusing to back down from finding two students guilty of "violence" for the "juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality" when they posted satirical flyers on campus. Back in 2008, two male students using the pseudonym "Coalition of Some Dudes" <a href="" target="_hplink">created a flyer</a>, "The Monthly Bag," that parodied "The Monthly Rag," a flyer produced by the Feminist and Gender Studies Interns. Classic case of meeting speech with more speech in the marketplace of ideas, right? Not at Colorado College, where the students were <a href="" target="_hplink">charged</a> due to the flyer's references to guy stuff such as chainsaws (in a piece on "chainsaw etiquette") and rifles (using a fact about the range of a sniper rifle). Any reasonable person reading the flyer would have seen that it was pure protected speech, humor, and commentary, but <a href="" target="_hplink">despite pressure from FIRE</a> and others, Colorado College to this day <a href="" target="_hplink">refuses to reverse</a> its finding against the two students. In addition, the college was a recipient of FIRE's <a href="" target="_hplink">"Speech Code of the Month" designation</a> in November 2011 due to a policy banning speech that "produces ridicule" or "embarrassment." If anything is an embarrassment at Colorado College, it's the <a href="" target="_hplink">school's attitude</a>, in both policy and practice, toward free speech. Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Timothy Hursley</a>

  • Johns Hopkins University

    For five years, <a href="" target="_hplink">Johns Hopkins University</a> has been forcing students to live by a neo-Victorian "civility" <a href="" target="_hplink">policy</a> prohibiting "rude, disrespectful behavior." Then-president William R. Brody <a href="" target="_hplink">announced</a> that uncivil, "tasteless," and insufficiently "serious" speech would not be tolerated, invoking the specter of "death and destruction" if people disrespect one another. Early in 2006, Hopkins had turned a blind eye to freedom of the press, <a href="" target="_hplink">investigating</a> campus conservative newspaper The Carrollton Record for "harassment" but choosing not to investigate when 600 copies of the paper were stolen in violation of the paper's rights. Just months later, Hopkins punished a student for posting "offensive" party <a href="" target="_hplink">invitations</a> on Facebook,<a href="" target="_hplink"> charging him </a>for "failing to respect the rights of others" and impairing the university's "reputation in the community." For punishment, Hopkins suspended the student for one year and required him to complete 300 hours of community service, read 12 books and write a paper on each, and attend an approved workshop on diversity and race relations--all for simply posting invitations on Facebook. After FIRE mounted a <a href="" target="_hplink">publicity campaign</a>, Hopkins eventually <a href="" target="_hplink">reduced</a> the sanctions but never reversed the charge. In fact, JHU moved even further away from free speech principles when it enacted the civility policy. And according to the 2011 book<a href="" target="_hplink"> <em>The Fall of the Faculty</em></a>, Hopkins even began interfering with faculty speech. Photo Credit:<a href=",_Johns_Hopkins_University,_Baltimore,_MD.jpg" target="_hplink"> Daderot</a>

  • Tufts University

    Sadly, <a href="" target="_hplink">Tufts University</a> has yet to undo the violation of its <a href="" target="_hplink">promise</a> that it is "committed to free and open discussion of ideas and opinions." During the 2006-2007 school year the campus conservative journal, The Primary Source, published two satirical pieces: a <a href="" target="_hplink">Christmas carol</a> mocking affirmative action policies and an <a href="" target="_hplink">"itinerary"</a> for Tufts' "Islamic Awareness Week" that printed facts about Islam and called the religion "intolerant." Rather than taking the opportunity to enter debate of such important issues, Tufts charged the paper for having "targeted" black students and Muslims for "embarrassment" and found the publication guilty of harassment. Tufts then <a href="" target="_hplink">refused</a> to allow The Primary Source to print anonymous articles in the future and <a href="" target="_hplink">announced</a> that funding for student groups should take into account the "behavior" of the organization. Under pressure from FIRE, Tufts eventually <a href="" target="_hplink">overturned</a> these punishments but has yet to drop the harassment findings, and in fact passed a new <a href="" target="_hplink">restrictive policy</a>. Tufts has had similar problems respecting free speech dating back at least to <a href="" target="_hplink">1989</a>. Now that Tufts has a new president, here's to hoping Tufts does not make the list next year! Photo Credit: <a href="" target="_hplink">Daderot</a>

  • Bucknell University

    <a href="" target="_hplink">Bucknell University</a> in Pennsylvania <a href="" target="_hplink">made news</a> (in the bad way) when it banned students from holding anti-affirmative action "bake sale" protests. Bucknell persists in saying that such protests are illegal even though they aren't. <a href="" target="_hplink">John Stossel held</a> one on national television, other colleges regularly permit them, and the <a href="" target="_hplink">American Association of University Women</a> and <a href="" target="_hplink">Feminist Majority Foundation</a> hold similar bake sales to protest the gender wage gap. Instead of restricting such voices, Bucknell should consider encouraging students to hold alternative bake sales like students at <a href="" target="_hplink">other colleges have done</a>. In fact, Bucknell repeatedly <a href="" target="_hplink">censored</a> a student group's protests and has yet to show a shred of remorse about it or an inclination to change. In 2009, three events by the Bucknell University Conservatives Club were censored in just under three months: two anti-affirmative action bake sales and a protest of President Obama's stimulus plan where the students distributed <a href="" target="_hplink">Obama</a> "stimulus dollars" <a href="" target="_hplink">that said</a> the plan "makes your money as worthless as monopoly money." Each of these fully <a href="" target="_hplink">documented instances of censorship </a>violated Bucknell's promise of free expression to students, who are told in the school's student handbook that they are entitled to "the robust and wide-open pursuit of ideas and freedom of speech." Photo Credit:<a href="" target="_hplink"> Tomwsulcer</a>

  • Brandeis University

    <a href="" target="_hplink">Brandeis University</a> declared professor Donald Hindley guilty of racial <a href="" target="_hplink">harassment and discrimination</a> after he used the word "wetbacks" while criticizing it in his Latin American Politics course. Brandeis even assigned an administrator to <a href="" target="_hplink">monitor</a> his classes, while never giving the veteran professor a formal hearing or even putting the allegations against him in writing. Brandeis' contempt for Hindley's rights severely alienated many among Brandeis' faculty and students, and earned Brandeis a place on FIRE's <a href="" target="_hplink">Red Alert</a> list of the very worst colleges for free speech. What has changed since then? Nothing substantial, it seems. The departure of President Jehuda Reinharz and Provost Marty Krauss brought hope that the new president, Frederick Lawrence, would make it clear to faculty that what happened to Hindley would never happen again. So far, though, the harassment finding remains and hangs over the heads of faculty members as a warning to watch what they teach. Brandeis represents the rare case where both students and faculty united to defend the free speech rights of a professor, but ultimately with no success. I hope that the new administration will put this incident behind it and finally expunge the harassment finding against Hindley or, at the very least, explain that no such incident would happen at Brandeis again. Photo Credit:<a href=",_Brandeis_University,_Waltham_MA.jpg" target="_hplink"> John Phelan</a>