December 9, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

This is Part IV of a five-part series on what was said at the preliminary Human Rights Tribunal hearings pertaining to the Zundelsite.

Here, Doug Christie argues for a judge's decision on whether or not the Human Rights Commission ought to even hear the Zundelsite complaint, or whether the real purpose is, to put it in the bluntest terms, state-sanctioned robbery.

The excerpts are self-explanatory:

"Let's find out if we have jurisdiction first. I would think that's a preliminary question that everyone should be interested in on the balance of convenience in hearing, unless - unless the real objective, the oblique motive, is to cost Mr. Zundel as much money as possible, because they've got all the money they need.

That's the only motive I can see for forcing you to hear this case now.

(...)

"It's just another extension of this campaign by various Jewish groups to silence Mr. Zundel, which, having exhausted every other forum and years of Mr. Zundel's time, and thousands of Mr. Zundel's dollars, now wishes to do it again here and call themselves the representative of a legitimate interest group.

My only submission is this, there can be no reason to believe that all these groups, with a history of personal animosity, will add one iota of impartial or beneficial assistance to the Tribunal in balancing the competing interests of the groups and ethnic groups at stake.

It is my submission it would be contrary to fundamental justice to introduce these considerations, and not productive of anything in the nature of a fair hearing.

They want intervention as full parties, they want to call witnesses, they want to cross-examine witnesses. If they have the power to do that, there is no control over the proceedings that we can foresee as being reasonable.

Cross-examination could last as long as they like. Making submissions likewise.

(...)

You know, it's not a matter of infinite amounts of money. . . I don't represent the Toronto Mayor's Committee which has the funds of the City of Toronto, or the Government of Canada.

I represent a human being who has to consider how to survive with the rights of free speech in a society that's hostile.

(...)

(The Zundelsite matter) is properly already before a court who has jurisdiction to decide, can decide, and nothing should proceed to put my client in jeopardy and cost him time and money on complaints that are frivolous and vexatious, are beyond the jurisdiction in matters that are not telephonic, are dealing with web sites and information outside of Canada, and are brought by a Commission who is tainted by reasonable apprehension of bias.

None of this can be just dismissed. It shouldn't be treated that way. And my client shouldn't be treated as if these arguments had no merit. And that would be the result if we go on and start the hearings.

(...)

I will be alone here, as usual, representing Mr. Zundel. I will be faced with very competent counsel, one or two, or maybe three. Quite often that's the case. Then I have to face a couple of more and a couple of more with different interests.

Does the Tribunal really need more advantage to one side? Is it really helpful to the Tribunal? I leave it up to you to say.

From the point of view of fairness, it doesn't feel very fair, it doesn't look very fair from Mr. Zundel's point of view. When you see an array of all your old enemies come to try to get you one more time, it just doesn't look very fair.

And I'm not suggesting they haven't got a right to their views, they're welcome to do this, but we're here faced with more than just criticism and an open debate, we're here faced with extremely high costs, with the need to answer a multiplicity of allegations, the extent of which are quite enormous.

And what we've got is more people jumping on the other side. It just doesn't look right to us, Mr. Chairman."

(...)

(N)otwithstanding all your arguments, and in order to protect the security of the Toronto Mayor's Committee or Ms. Sabina Citron, we order Mr. Zundel - what? Not to have direct communication, not to post anything?

Well, then, does that change the web site? Does that stop the web site? Do you have jurisdiction to order Ms. Rimland, who is right over there? She'll hear you, but she can go back to the United States and carry right on."

Will they succeed? Will we succeed? We'll see, and time will tell.

So far, it looks as though the struggle for the Zundelsite will move to the United States where Ingrid Rimland does not have the albatross of decades' worth of systematic defamation, and where some 60 million German-descendents will be apprised. you may be sure of that, of what is going on.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"When there are incentives to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable."

(Sobran's, September 1995, p. 4)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the Dec. 1997 ZGrams