Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
"Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel's Internet site is breaking Canadian hate laws and should be zapped from cyberspace, a human rights tribunal heard yesterday.
"On the first day of a landmark hearing that could have repercussions about freedom of speech on the World Wide Web, the three-member panel was told Zundel's site is spewing anti-Semitic propaganda on the information superhighway . . .
Zundel, who has long maintained the 'Zundelsite' is run by Ingrid Rimland of Carlsbad, Calif., said the tribunal is a threat to democracy, adding it 'has no jurisdiction' over the Internet." (Toronto Sun, Oct. 15, 1997)
and
"The case is one of the first attempts to apply human rights laws to the ungoverned Internet." (Toronto Star, Oct. 15, 1997)
Furthermore,
"Outside the hearing Mr. Christie said it is unusual for a government body to 'try to limit speech in another country, whether it's one of our citizens or not. It's an indication of how far we've gone toward a police state.' (Globe and Mail, October 15, 1997)
And, finally,
"The tribunal will also consider whether the Internet is a 'telephonic communication' and can be regulated by Parliament. . . the Internet has not come under legislative scrutiny before in Canada, a wrinkle that Mr. Pentney (Ed: general counsel for the human rights commission) dismisses as not being central to the case." (Globe and Mail, October 15, 1997)
Well, Mr. Pentney may think so and even say so, but it is crucially central
to the case. There are, additionally, very serious questions of constitutionality
and jurisdiction, two points that Zundel attorney Doug Christie raised in
May when I was in Toronto - able and willing to testify and be cross-examined
on the fact that I, as a United States citizen, have every right to run
the Zundelsite, and that Ernst Zundel, whom I am trying to support in his
quest to bring dignity and honor back to his maligned, defamed and Holocaust-browbeaten
people, has never had the password to the Zundelsite, to put it in the simplest
terms.
This was well summarized by Doug Christie in May, when he argued in the
preliminary hearings:
"I have factual evidence to show that the substance of this complaint that is before you comes from a website in California owned, operated, controlled, edited, authored by, copyrighted by, a person who is not Ernst Zundel . . . this entity is an American citizen. Therefore, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed against Ernst Zundel in those circumstances.
"I cannot introduce this evidence by merely asserting it, so what do I do?
"It should come as no surprise to my learned friends that I choose to call the very person who did author, control, originate, edit, publish and copyright this material, to tell the Tribunal, I am the one, and you have no jurisdiction over me in California."
Well, there I sat, and nobody wanted to hear me in May! And here we are
in October, and now it turns out, on Day Two, that this entity from Carlsbad,
California will probably be cross-examined after all.
And why?
Because with lightning speed, the issue has now moved far, far beyond Ernst
Zundel, just as we all predicted and as our opposition feared, and deals
with what Doug Christie summarized already back in May during the openings
of these censorship hearings, to wit:
". . . the real concern (is) about the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and maybe even this country, to presume to control the creation of messages by non-Canadians by seeking to get an Order to prohibit Canadians from somehow doing what Americans are free to do."
And
"How can a document created, designed, edited, prepared, published by an American citizen in Carlsbad, California, be attributed to or held to be the responsibility of a Canadian who has no access to that process whatsoever?
"Is it because it has the first part of his name in the title that she chose?
"In my submission it is really preposterous that we were obliged to be here. It is really wrong that we should have to continue to be here about this matter, unless and until a Court with competent jurisdiction, apprised of the facts, decides that it is within the jurisdiction of this country to regulate the opinions of Americans expressed about Canadians in their own country.
"Really, it's quite a preposterous proposition. It's a novel proposition. It's an attempt to extend jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the subterfuge of the initiation of a conversation by a complainant through a process of long distance calls, albeit free, that they initiate themselves, so that any communication is actually initiated by the complainant and not even Ingrid Rimland, but certainly not Ernst Zundel.
"It really is a very preposterous proposition indeed. It's as if one says the end justified the means. Mr. Zundel is a bad guy, let's do whatever is necessary to get him. To hell with rules of law, to hell with logic, to hell with the jurisdiction of the country being limited to somehow its territories, let's just get Mr. Zundel.
"Now, some people feel that way. My submission is the law and impartial Tribunals have a duty to avoid that type of mob mentality. . .
"If all law is politics, and in the Marxist ideology all politics and law are the same, but in our country so far law is impartial. Tribunals are impartial. They do not serve a political end, they serve the law itself."
Let us hope Mr. Christie is right. We shall see.
Meanwhile, Day Two has passed, and a courtroom observer reports that Mr.
Christie has been splendid on his feet, examining and probing the testimony
of a linguist hired to the tune of $800 per diem of good Canadian taxpayers'
money to be sicced on the California-based Zundelsite.
The Zundel legal team is now gathering points for review in a federal court.
That review, pertaining to both constitutionality and jurisdiction, is to
come as soon as Human Rights Commission lawyers stop dragging their feet,
deliberately delaying matters. Between now and then, there are still months
to go in the hearings.
Already, I am getting in reports from the public that can be summarized
as ". . . it's a whole new dynamic . . . " and ". . . take
away their Holocaust, and you take away their power."
A Canadian student put it like this:
"It is late at night (in Canada), but the ZGram for today chased away my sleep.
Being a passionate reader of History, I couldn't miss the parallel with Martin Luther. Four centuries ago, the "little" monk shook the very foundations of the Catholic Church with his 95 Articles.
The message, once upon the world, could not be erased by authorities. The more they tried, the more the message spread.
Gutenberg's "devilish" invention, the printing press - much like the Internet in our days - could multiply the message faster than any Inquisitorial power could destroy its copies.
History bequests Humanity such sea-changing technological breakthroughs only rarely - and then with large spans of time in between.
There is a great battle brewing in our times - the battle between censorship and mass communications technologies not yet controlled by the money elites. In our time, the Internet gives us the chance to repeat History once more, and defeat the Censorship Forces of the moneyed elites.
The battle has now transcended Mr. Zundel, just like the Reformation transcended Martin Luther.
These two have braved the repressive and seemingly absolute powers of their day. They lit a candle in a powder keg and vanquished the Darkness.
Did persecution of Galileo flatten the Earth by one inch?"
Ingrid