Canada: Courtesy of the aforementioned Anti-Racist-Action (ARA), today
is "Kosher Barbecue" day in front of the Zundel-Haus. A bunch
of neo-Marxist hooligans have now shown up to do an all-day vigil, making
their displeasure known at government and taxpayers' expense.
Ernst told me yesterday that - as before on several such occasions
- he has wrapped the four-story Zundel-Haus with plastic so as to guard
it against paint bombs and other assorted missiles, including human excrement.
The media call it his "condom house", and it occurred to me last
night he ought to sell personalized postcards of the Zundel-Haus dressed
up like that to drive home a political point while raising extra money.
. . but Ernst is not into this kind of commercialism.
He told me last night that he had packed his house with comrades who
stayed overnight, just in case. When I asked how many, he answered: ".
. . in sufficient numbers."
In a fax that just now came through, it is reported that the ARA demo
is now in full swing. There are fewer hooligans, so far, than expected,
but they make up in virulence and vulgar cat calls what their numbers can't
accomplish. They are shouting "Burn the Nazis down!" etc., and
police are keeping a watchful eye on them. They brought along an effigy
of Ontario Premier Mike Harris that will be burned before the day is over.
I should add that there is a Marxist-promoted general strike all over
Ontario this week. Shades of pre-revolutionary Russia and France! The police
are stretched very thin. They have to protect 200 objects like government
buildings, all under siege by Marxist unionists.
I will not be reporting on the full impact of the ARA Zundel-Haus demonstrations
until early next week, for reasons I will explain then.
Also, according to a recent article in the Calgary Sun, Grant Bristow,
a former Canadian Security Intelligence Service mole who figured prominently
in the nefarious government attempts to deport Ernst to Germany, has been
seen re-appearing.
Bristow, as many will remember, is the fellow who masterminded the
sting operation of the Heritage Front at the behest of shady interests
who nest within the Canadian government - financing, guiding and even goading
a perfectly legal right-wing organization into legally questionable activities
so as to "expose white supremacists".
Bristow was the anonymous "Source" that was to be used as
the main "witness" in the Canadian government's attempt to stop
the inconvenient Zundel question, "Did Six Million Really Die?"
But when revelations about the machinations of this Canadian civilian spy
agency emerged in preliminary legal moves, the government backed off in
an amazing hurry and is apparently re-thinking their strategy of just how
to get rid of Ernst.
Now, it turns out, this Bristow fellow has been living under a stellar
alias, "Nathan Black", at his relatively posh home in St. Albert,
an Edmonton, Alberta suburb. Once the story of his spying hit the news,
he, his wife and their son fled the area temporarily. The paper reports
that he has been receiving ". . . a new identity and a $3,000 monthly
salary" for his spy activities, again courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers.
The whole Zundel deportation matter is now in an interesting legal
limbo. A friend commented that it feels like ". . . two U-boats having
gone underground," leaving a deceptively smooth surface and an almost
eery silence.
Australia: In a letter dated October 21, we were informed that, according
to a media adviser to the Minister for Immigration, Mr Philip Ruddock has
just about viewed all the material Revisionist David Irving sent him, and
a final decision will soon be made whether Irving will be allowed to visit
Australia.
Writes our correspondent: "Last week this media adviser informed
me it would be within two weeks. I am counting - a few days to go!"
Irving, as the world now knows, was barred from lecturing in Australia
because of his outspoken and published revisionist views. He had reapplied
for a visa.
A letter pertaining to this re-application, sent to the Revisionist
Adelaide Institute from Philip Ruddock, Minister of Immigration, is certainly
some food for thought. I have read it three times, and I still do not know
what to make of the curious slant.
Decide for yourself:
"Thank you for your letter of 22 May 1996 in which you
asked whether a visa will be granted to David Irving under a Coalition
Government.
Australia's visitor program aims to facilitate the entry of
genuine visitors while screening out persons whose presence could in some
way be harmful to the Australian community or who are likely to become
involved in activities disruptive to the Australian community or a group
within the Australian community.
All applications are considered against the legal requirements
of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations. If an applicant
fails to meet all the legal criteria, he or she will not be granted a visa
for Australia.
Mr Irving's last two applications for visitor visas were refused
as it was assessed that he did not meet the legal criteria for the grant
of the visa. The visas were refused on the basis that Mr Irving was not
of good character. Mr Irving's views on the "Holocaust" had no
bearing on the decision.
Mr Irving sought review of the previous Minister's decisions
in the federal Court. On 31 August 1995, Carr J dismissed Mr Irving's appeal
as there was sufficient evidence before the previous Minister justifying
his decisions. This decision recently was upheld by the Full Federal Court
following a further appeal by Mr Irving.
The Full Federal Court's judgment confirmed that the decision
in rejecting Mr Irving's applications rested on an assessment of his general
conduct as opposed to any evaluation of his views or writings. The issue
of a person's character was discussed by Lee J in his judgement when he
said: '...the words good character should be taken to be used in their
ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of
a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in
the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as
a fact whilst the latter is a review of a subjective public opinion....a
person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person
of bad character.'
Any further application lodged by Mr Irving will be assessed
on its merits against the legal criteria at the time."
France: Defence lawyer for Dr. Robert Faurisson, Eric Delcroix, 52,
was convicted in Paris on October 22, 1996 for his book "La police
de la pensee contre le revisionisme ("The Thought Police Against Revisionism").
The fine was 5,500 F.
Although, by French standards, the fine is not a heavy one, the consequences
of this sentencing will have serious repercussions for E. Delcroix's career.
In her decision, Mrs. Martine Ract-Madoux, who presided over the court,
did not even address some of the most important arguments of the defendant.
This conviction is all the more scandalous since E. Delcroix had rightly
invoked for his defence two long, recent articles published by leftist
and anti-revisionist historian Jacques Baynac stating that, unfortunately,
it has to be admitted now that finally there is no evidence that the Nazi
gas chambers ever existed.
The strange solution Baynac advocates is to try instead to find the
proof that the non-existence of those gas chambers is impossible! (See
Le Nouveau Quotidien, from Lausanne, Switzerland, September 2, p. 16, and
September 3, p. 14).
E. Delcroix's reaction, as reported by the media, was:
"It is more or less like a Legion d'honneur, and a real
one, since the fact of being a victim of a thought crime for expressing
your opinion looks undoubtedly like something eminently honorable. As for
myself, I feel proud; as for the justice of my country, I feel less proud."
Dr. Faurisson's next trial - the 10th one involving revisionist topics!
- will be in Paris on November 15, 1996. Stay tuned in the meantime - there
is more to come. You wouldn't want to miss any of it!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Adversity is the trial of principle. Without it a man hardly knows
whether he is honest or not."