Several years ago, when I did extensive research at various libraries around the country, I was always told by librarians that I could cite copyrighted text up to 300 words apiece without infringing on copyright - as long as I referenced the source.
Now I find out that it is actually possible legally to quote and distribute entire texts - as long as, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
'. . . this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes."
That means, of course, my ZGram readership - since you have expressed a prior interest in the Zundel case by being and remaining on my list.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure and satisfaction that I bring you the entire editorial, hot from the Ottawa Citizen, May 14, 1998 issue with the big fat heading, "Justice Deniers".
Hah!
Read it carefully - for it is not the "Holocaust Deniers" who are now being chastised here - it is the ones who disgustingly make it their business and livelihood ***to deny others their right to free speech***.
I should also say that, in Canada, the Ottawa Citizen is the equivalent of the Washington Post - widely read by all and sundry. This is a highly significant editorial - maybe even the lead editorial; I did not get to see the entire paper - reflecting the dissatisfaction and disillusionment Canadians are feeling and expressing more and more with the subversion of all principles of justice when it comes to the rights of Ernst Zundel.
Not for nothing, according to a recent poll, do Canadians place the man as 44th in line in this century when it comes to influence in Canada as measured by name recognition!
Naturally, the writer of this editorial distances himself up-front from any sympathy with Zundel, heaven forbid! He's got a mortgage, chances are - and chances are his kids need braces. Those are the times in which we live. The rest of the column, however, is straight from the hip - and rare in its candor and fairness in lapdog media circles.
Here goes:
"It's difficult not to like anything that aggravates Ernst Zundel, and aggravation presumably is what the infamous Holocaust Denier felt when Justice Richards made his recent decision that Mr. Zundel's hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should proceed despite concerns about bias. Still, that decision has worrisome implications that cannot be ignored.
"The Zundel Tribunal was erected by the Canadian Human Rights Commission after it received complaints that a California website allegedly controlled by Mr. Zundel violated the Canadian Human Rights Code. The Code applies to the Internet because the federal Government has constitutional authority over telecommunications, including phone lines.
"The question of whether Zundel's sort of speech should be prosecuted - we feel it should not - is difficult enough, but in this inquiry, the tribunal is venturing into uncharted virtual territory. Which country's laws apply to the Internet? Does the physical location of a website's home computer matter? If a Canadian communicates on the Internet from a foreign country, is he communicating in Canada? These thorny questions and others have been before the tribunal since its work began last fall.
"A spanner was thrown into the works in March when the federal court decided that Canadian Human Rights Tribunals did not satisfy a person's right to a fair hearing.
"The problem is that tribunals are appointed and paid for by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is actively involved in bringing complaints forward. This creates, in the court's terms, a "reasonable apprehension of bias" in the tribunals. The inquiry on which the decision was based involving a pay equity case against Bell Canada, was ordered to stop before it began work. This decision is now under appeal.
"In light of the Bell Canada decision, Mr. Zundel brought a motion in federal court to have the inquiry against him halted. Justice Richard refused, arguing that the delay and expense involved in halting proceedings that are already well under way would be greater than in halting inquiries that have not yet begun. Therefore, he concluded, it is not in the "public interest" to stop hearings that have already begun.
"This is troubling. As the Supreme Court has said, "it is impossible to have a fair hearing or to have procedural fairness if a reasonable apprehension of bias has been established." The Bell Canada decision established the apprehension of bias. It follows that it is not possible for Mr. Zundel, or anyone else, to have a fair hearing before a Canadian Human Rights Commission as these Tribunals are now constituted.
"With all due respect for Judge Richard, whether Mr. Zundel's objections on these grounds were raised at the start of the hearing or part-way through are irrelevant. And so is the "public interest" in avoiding delays, when it stands against the absolute right to a fair hearing.
"Even if the appropriate test were one of balancing public interest, surely the public interest in ensuring that every hearing is fair trumps any worry about delay.
"This unfortunate decision may cast a pall of bias over anything the tribunal decides. Given that it may have something to say about important new questions about the law and the Internet, that pall may have lasting effect.
"If the Zundel inquiry had been halted, it would only have been until the Bell Canada appeal is heard or legislation is changed to make Canadian Human Rights Tribunals entirely independent. Delay and some expense are all it would have cost to fully protect the right to a fair hearing and the integrity of what the tribunal will say. Surely that's a small price to pay."
There are five points I want to make.
First of all, the question of apprehension of bias ***was*** raised by Defense Attorney Doug Christie when he asked for a stay of proceedings up front until a real court had looked at jurisdiction - for why in God's name would the Tribunal think that Mr. Zundel could control a website to which he did not have the password and which was not located in Canada? Why would they think he was responsible for documents copyrighted from Day One in someone else's name? Why in the name of common sense did the Tribunal think it could proceed with the disgusting inquiry in view of a solidly technical challenge that made it clear at kindergarten level that just as a book was not a tree, the Internet was not a telephone?
Second, I point out this kind of editorial pertaining to Ernst Zundel was unheard of in Canada prior to my posting this disgrace of Canada called "Human Rights Commission" - smack on the Internet! It was okay - in fact, ***expected*** of every media whore - to vilify the man as long as he could not talk back because he had no access to the media. Now he no longer needs the media. Now mainstream media is waking up to this - that they, too, have been pawns and minions for not-so-secret vested interests and have been disgracefully treated as such by being forced to swallow and spit back. Who wants to live on pre-chewed food? I believe that the writer who penned the article above has had it with the canned approach - and said so, indirectly!
Third, now it is happening what we had always hoped would happen: The argument no longer is, as one observer archly put it, '. . . how many Jews fit in the ashtray of a Volkswagen.' The argument no longer is 'The Holocaust'. The argument has now become: 'What HIDES BEHIND the 'Holocaust'?'"
Fourth, judged by what was said and was admitted yesterday in cross-examination is sheer revisionist gold - now in the records, and soon on the Internet, too. In a world that quivers with dislike and derision at claims such as ". . . the Jews are a light unto the nations" in view of all the power they usurped and now abuse, to hear this Schweitzer guy have the temerity to actually insist that ". . . anti-Semitism is ongoing deicide"?
Man, have they shot themselves in the Unspeakable!
The Jews as a group are not yet seen as gods in a nation that calls itself Christian. They are not yet "national treasures" protected by repressive legislation - even though some might like to enjoy that protected status - and work hard to gain it, too!
And, finally, I never thought the day would come when I would feel sorry for the Tribunal, but these folks are now caught in a vice. They have no choice but soil themselves with a verdict we all know is already a foregone conclusion. They, too, are human beings. They, too, have professional pride. They cannot possibly NOT be affected by what is coming down the pipe - thanks to the flood of evidence of Zionist abuse, now that the gates are open, thanks to the Schweitzer testimony and cross-examination. For the rest of their lives - how will these people feel when they face themselves in the mirror, in light of what they now KNOW - and what generations of scholars will study and judge in light of the importance of the Net?
Stay tuned. The Zundel witnesses have not yet started testifying.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"There is no threat from abroad that compares with the danger that the federal government represents to our property, our families, our schools, our parishes, and the peaceful practice of our faith. It is not only a danger to us, but to everyone around the world who desires to live in peace."
(Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.)