This book is a condensation of the Second Holocaust Trial that played in Canada in 1988. It is a popularized version of trial proceedings and court documents, written for easy mainstream reading, highlighting a crucial, highly complicated legal battle for freedom of speech and assembly.
Although the book was published before the highest court of Canada threw out the False News Law as unconstitutional, the reader gets the flavor of this battle that hasn't ended yet because the forces that opposed Ernst Zündel from the start are gearing up to move in stronger "Hate Law" statutes to prevent him from having his say.
World-wide, his supporters are watching this battle. Below is the author's introduction to this important volume pertaining to the trial in 1988:
Identifiable groups, as it turned out, do not include such allegedly "secure" groups as whites, Christians, Anglo-Saxons and Germans. The result, which was foreseen by heads wiser than those prevailing in Ottawa, has been the creation of two classes of Canadian citizens, with widely differing rights. This development resembles what was brought about by "Affirmative Action" or racial quota rulings by American courts.
Actually, Zündel was never prosecuted under the "group hatred"
act, though other Canadians have been. Those interested in putting him
out of business resorted instead to an obscure and anachronistic section
of the Criminal Code, which states, "Everyone who willfully publishes
a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is
likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an
indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for two years."
The "false news" which Zündel was charged with publishing
was a 28-page revisionist booklet called "Did Six Million Really Die?"
by an Englishman, Richard Verrall, under the pen name of Richard E. Harwood.
It first appeared in Britain in 1974 and subsequently enjoyed a large underground
circulation and numerous translations. Zündel's Canadian edition added
four pages of introductory and concluding remarks by himself.
The Harwood pamphlet is an early and hastily written revisionist work containing
a number of fairly obvious mistakes. To Sabina Citron, an activist with
the "Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association," bringing a
private complaint against it as "false news," it seemed like
the surest means of prevailing against Zündel. Bringing charges under
the "group hatred" act requires the consent of the provincial
attorney general, which was not forthcoming, quite possibly because Harwood
contains nothing "hateful".
The origin of the "false news" law is an old English crime called
De Scandalis Magnatum, which first appeared in the statute books
in 1275 and wasn't abolished by English law makers until 1888. In the thirteenth
century the great nobles felt they were being slandered by peasants who
went around reciting scurrilous ballads and rhymes. Although this was the
only outlet the common man had to protest his fate, the nobility viewed
it as intolerable. When Canada's existing Criminal Code was enacted in
1892, the crime of "false news" somehow slipped into the law
books.
Prosecution under this holdover from feudal times have been extremely rare.
In 1907, a merchant in Alberta of American origin was indicted for claiming
in an advertisement that Canada was unfriendly to his former countrymen.
That was obviously a wicked lie, the jury reasoned, and convicted him.
In 1951 and 1970, prosecution under Section 177 (then Section 166) resulted
in acquittals.
Citron brought her private complaint against Zündel on November 18,
1983. The province of Ontario, under constant prodding by Jewish groups,
later took over the case.
What followed, in early 1985, was widely called the Great Holocaust Trial.
Though Zündel was convicted and sentenced to 15 months in prison,
he proclaimed a victory of sorts, which the Canadian media grudgingly conceded.
His 22 defense witnesses, including half a dozen leading revisionists,
succeeded in bringing scholarly criticism of the Holocaust to a daily audience
of millions. Canada's reporters and their editors and publishers, bound
by traditional standards of fairness and legal restrictions on coverage
of a trial in progress, described the revisionist testimony each day with
relative even-handedness. When the trial finally ended, Canadian Jews erupted
with volleys of scathing abuse for the nation's news media. They had, it
was said, given "a parade of kooks from around the world" a serious
hearing they did not deserve.
The full implications of this orchestrated denunciation, which quickly blossomed into media-haranguing conferences and "workshops," did not become obvious until January 1987, when a five-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal (The Supreme Court of Ontario), citing errors of law committed during the first Zündel trial, overturned his conviction. After the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the panel's decision, a retrial was ordered by Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott. At this point, most of Canada's major Jewish organizations began reminding the media of their alleged sins in the 1985 trial. They demanded that the "kooks" and "hate mongers" not be given a second hearing. Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants would not be able to bear the "trauma" of seeing more headlines that questioned some of their testimony and travails.
The second Zündel trial, in early 1988, received substantially less publicity than the first. Jewish "sensitivities" were permitted to count for more than the right of other citizens to be informed. The censors prevailed.
Editors, challenged by angry letters and phone calls to explain their
negligence, fell back on the stock argument that the Zündel case was
"news only the first time around." The record clearly shows otherwise.
The revisionist testimony in the second trial, much of it by new witnesses,
was even more unsettling than that offered in the first. Further, the editors'
own past comments regarding the extraordinary pressure to which they had
been subjected could not be retracted.
Those who believe in selective freedom of speech had it both ways. Zündel
was prosecuted at their instigation, yet the general press was nearly silent,
and only the "Canadian Jewish News," covered the story in detail.
Only Jews were able to avoid being kept in the dark. So much for the concern
for "traumatized Jewish survivors."
Reconvicted and resentenced, Zündel proclaimed another victory. Though
censorship kept many Canadians from hearing about the often stunning testimony
on his behalf, the transcript of the trial remained as a permanent public
record.
After the trial, Fred Leuchter made two simple observations which suggest
that Zündel had reason to celebrate. A major argument against Zündel's
prosecution had been the question of how anyone could presume to know that
he published the Harwood pamphlet "knowing" it to be false. Is
it possible for anyone, judge or jury, to look inside a man's mind? The
forensic investigation of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Maidenek, made with a
five-person team utilizing the appropriate physical, chemical and biological
knowledge, was undertaken entirely at Zündel's instigation and expense.
Had Zündel actually doubted his own claim that the gas chamber story
is mistaken, would he have dreamed of hiring America's foremost authority
on gas chambers - a man firmly convinced of the standard Holocaust story
when he began - to test the reality of the gassings? Leuchter marveled
at Zündel's sincerity and self-assurance in hiring him, and at the
bad faith of a judge and jury who, to the end, refused to concede Zündel's
motives.
Leuchter's second point was his reply to a revisionist who had asked him:
"Can't the other side hire its 'own' engineer to study the alleged
gassing sites and make an opposite set of declarations under oath?"
Leuchter's reply was instantaneous: "Any engineer who would do such
a thing would be committing professional suicide."
The laws of physics and chemistry are not suspended for Germans, not even
Nazi Germans. This point has been made before by revisionists, among whom
engineers are prominent, in refuting such fables as Elie Wiesel's "geysers
of blood" appearing over Jewish mass graves. It was made by Leuchter
with regard to the gas chambers. Nature is of a piece, and the gassing
stories simply don't fit.
Canada today is a nation at a crossroads. Powerful elites have decreed
that a lengthening list of books, magazines and pamphlets dealing with
a widening range of political, religious and historical topics must be
made inaccessible to ordinary citizens. This censorship comes at a time
when the nation faces unprecedented decisions concerning its political,
economic and cultural future.
One decision confronting Canadians is whether or not the Holocaust should
pay a central role in their public life. As in the United States, Holocaust
study, ceremony and worship are on a phenomenal upswing, with semi-official
liturgies actively promoted by government agencies and private corporations
alike. In his book, "Propaganda," the French social philosopher
Jacques Ellud warned of the contaminating impact which action can have
on knowledge and belief:
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to adhere in the direction indicated by propaganda, for actions demand more actions.
Thoughtful revisionists have asked: Can a governor or mayor or chief
executive officer who has wept in public about "the gassings"
on nine occasions ever go back on his belief?
Ellul would be doubtful. Activity, he said, carried to a certain point,
makes belief superfluous.
Canada today is a land where most expressions of Holocaust revisionism
have been banned. The censors are unwilling to meet the dissidents in appropriate
forums on anything like even ground. Rather than addressing the problems
raised by the Leuchters and the Lagaces, the Faurissons and Irvings, they
have forced revisionism into a costly legal battle for survival.
Toronto publisher Ernst Zündel has been and remains the focus of this
extraordinary Canadian fight, which may be a harbinger for the United States.
One thing is certain. However the lawyers and judges may decide the Zündel
case and the case of revisionism, the engineers, technicians and allied
historians will feel free to withhold support, and to convene a "court"
of their own.