The is the second of three parts offering comments on the August 2, 1998 New York Times article about the Zundelsite titled "Canada tries to bar Pro-Nazi Views on Internet" and subtitled "Can one nation regulate a website based in another?"
For readers who are new on my ZGram list - and there is quite a handful - this article refers to the censorious power grab by the Holocaust Promotion Lobby in its attempt to use Canadian Human Rights legislation to silence a German-Canadian activist, Ernst Zundel, who has had it with incessant Holocaust propaganda and buckets of slime poured over his nation and people. It also mentioned my novel/trilogy called "Lebensraum!", contending that these three paperbacks (1550 pages total!) promote "hatred against Jews and violate Canada's anti-hate laws."
Here is the New York Times write-up, interspersed with my comments to offer balance and amplification. I should also say that, unlike many people who know the Zundel struggle intimately and were outraged at what was published in the New York Times, both Ernst and I were rather pleased because the article has many things embedded in it that have never been said quite that way in a widely-read international print medium such as the New York Times.
Here is today's installment:
NYT: Now for the first time there is a serious attempt to address the issue of the (Holocaust denial) material on the Internet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has charged Zundel with spreading hate propaganda and is intent on shutting down the Zundelsite. The commission contends that although the site is run from California, Zundel controls its content and thus can be prosecuted under Canadian laws.
Ingrid: No. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has not charged Zundel under the infamous "hate laws." It has charged Zundel with having hurt the feelings of self-appointed Jewish censors by his criticism of their ethnocentric lobbyists.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has gone on record in these proceedings, to the disgrace of all of Canada, stating that ". . . truth is no defense" and ". . . truth is irrelevant." Besides, Ernst Zundel didn't write the novels. I wrote the novels. The novels were seized without first having been analyzed by a competent literary expert, as far as we can tell, because I chose to speak well of Ernst Zundel who is my comrade and my friend.
NYT: The case against Zundel began last fall and has encountered complications as the quasi-judicial tribunal wrestles with new legal issues of law and technology.
Ingrid: Here the reporter is wrong. The CHRC proceedings against Ernst Zundel began already in the fall of 1996 - not last year. For almost two years, by hook and by crook, these latter-day Inquisitors are wrestling away what is left of that country's Free Speech. Thanks to the censorious, predatory Holocaust lobby, Canadian authorities are now known the world over for their mania for regulating and legislating against freedom - the latest being this attempt to zap the Zundelsite and thereby set a precedent for strangling freedom on the Net for Canadians.
NYT, quoting Bill Pentney, general legal counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their top legal head honcho: "'We don't think the Internet is a law-free zone -- much as some people might want it to be when it suits their purposes. We are trying to control -- not the Internet -- but Ernst Zundel by applying Canadian laws to him."
Ingrid: Did Mr. Pentney really say that? My guess is that he wished he hadn't. The then-head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, did that already when he said, as quoted in the Hamilton Spectator, November 23, 1996: "But I don't think Zundel is engaged in free and open debate. I think he's engaged in inciting people against Jews, and it's on that basis that we're proceeding."
That is pre-judgment before trial! A lawyer ought to know that is a no-no!
Stifling of criticism of Jewish attacks on Germans and others is the goal - not "protecting" people from "hate"! People like Pentney would not recognize a genuine Human Rights case if it bit them in the ass - and this one might well do just that when all is said and done.
Control Ernst Zundel's freedom to defend his own ethnic group - from incessant vilification and maligning by an ethically bankrupt and politically biased quasi-judicial body and a politically influenced law enforcement oligarchy? An "enforcement oligarchy" that has been mollycoddled by politicians and the media on one hand which gave them licence to cow patriots who have the gumption to talk back endless police investigations, "criminal" charges, trials, imprisonment and now with crippling fines imposed after lengthy Human Rights Tribunal hearings on the victims ? What morally corrupt behavior! What an abuse of power!
Mr. Pentney might better redirect his zeal by making sure the CHRC controls Canada's Jewish Lobby spokesmen such as Bernie Farber, Marvin Kurz, Sol Litman and the ever-busy Sabina Citron, so Mr. Zundel could get relief from harassment and the tax payers would get a break from having to fork over their money for Zundel's persecution. Better yet, Mr. Pentney and his wrongly named "Human Rights" Commission ought to strive more vigorously to protect German-Canadians and, in particular, Ernst Zundel from the Holocaust Lobby's vilification - and not to award them with full status as "intervenors" in these proceedings to muddy the quasi-judicial process in these biased hearings even more by going on private vendettas against defense witnesses and fishing expeditions useful to them in other litigation!
NYT: The case has raised questions of freedom of speech, which is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ingrid: That is exactly right. Mr. Zundel has helped define and guarantee those charter rights by an almost decade-long legal fight, forced onto him already in the 1980s by the same accusers, financed in his defense out of his own pockets.
What was the end result? The following Canadian Supreme Court ruling, issued on August 27, 1992:
"Section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right of a minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be. All communications which convey or attempt to convey meaning are protected by s. 2(b), unless the physical form by which the communication is made (for example, a violent act) excludes protection. The content of the communication is irrelevant.
"The purpose of the guarantee is to permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social participation, and self-fulfillment. That purpose extends to the protection of minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or false.
"Section 181, (the "False News Law") which may subject a person to criminal conviction and potential imprisonment because of words he published, has undeniably the effect of restricting freedom of expression and, therefore, imposes a limit on s. 2(b)."
Writing for the majority, Justice Beverley McLachlin stated:
"To permit the imprisonment of people, or even the threat of imprisonment, on the ground that they have made a statement which 12 of their co-citizens deem to be false and mischievous to some undefined public interest, is to stifle a whole range of speech, some of which has long been regarded as legitimate and even beneficial to our society."
It is now six years later - and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its tribunal, mainly composed of trained lawyers, and other minions for the Holocaust Promotion Lobby act as if this ruling by Canada's highest court in Ernst Zundel's own case never happened. Is there still room to learn?
NYT: Recently Zundel was prohibited by the House of Commons from holding a news conference in a room in Parliament that is available to the public. He complained that his rights had been violated.
Ingrid: Check against the above mentioned Section 2(b) Supreme Court decision and decide for yourself if Canada's Parliament and politicians, again many of them lawyers also, violated Zundel's rights with that "unanimous" ban.
NYT, now quoting Mr. Zundel about the current Human Rights Tribunal case: "Ultimately it has everything to do with freedom, and all these other issues are really only subjective, peripheral, spinoffs. I am not a country, I am one man, and I say this man will not be browbeaten."
Ingrid: Which is more than can be said for much of the rest of docile bipeds who have grown a bit long in the tooth when it comes to protecting their so-called freedoms of speech. Here I gleefully quote Lizard - he of the squirly Fight-censorship group, utterly cowed by the Holocaust Shriekers - who has said: Mark this well -- your ass is going to be next, because the (US Supreme Court) has been quite staunch in its defense of 'hate speech'." (Lizardus, as he likes to call himself, was speaking of flag-burning as a protest gesture of free speech, but the principle applies.)
NYT: The German-born Zundel . . . has lived in Canada for 40 years, but he has been denied citizenship on the ground that he is a security risk."
Ingrid: That outrageous accusation was made three years ago by an anonymous bureaucrat in Canada's Mossad-infiltrated Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in Ottawa, quoting not one single specific case, issue, or thread of evidence of such a an imagined "security threat" supposedly caused by Ernst Zundel. It's been three years since that politically motivated, absurd accusation was first leveled against Ernst - and, wonder of wonders! Canada still stands.
It is ridiculous to say that Ernst Zundel poses a security risk to Canada. It's quite the other way: Canada has turned out to be a security threat to Ernst Zundel over many years, as you will next find out - if all goes well, tomorrow.
Tomorrow: Part III of the New York Times write-up and comments.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"I saw the article reprinted here - Arizona Daily Star, 2nd. page titled "Government wants to shut down pro-Nazi web site in San Diego." The title is misleading. I had to read the article to see that it was the ***Canadian*** Government...."
(Letter to the Zundelsite)