When history in future decades will evaluate Ernst Zundel's pioneering thumbprint on the struggle for Freedom of Speech, I am convinced that one of the laurels accrueing to him will be his ability to make the complex simple.
I'll give you a "for instance":
When Ernst stood trial in 1985 for "spreading false news", the Holocaust Enforcers made the claim - as it is made today by Holocaust Enforcers - that what he said and wrote would cause societal violence.
Explained a calm, composed and somber Mr. Zundel - and here I paraphrase from memory:
"Let's say there is a party in your neighborhood, and a pickpocket has sneaked in. If you know or suspect that he is in the room rifling people's pockets - do you have to beat him? Bomb him? Burn him? Gas him? No. Of course not. All you have to do is to ***expose*** him!"
Think of this example next time you hear the screeching for the need for stronger "hate" laws applied to politically incorrect speech. Canada already has these "hate laws" on the books, but those who fear exposure want them strengthened!
"Hate laws" prevent people from exposing that someone is rifling your pockets. Do ***you*** need hate laws as an honest, upright citizen? Of course not.
Here is the same sane argument, offered under the somewhat misleading title "Don't Fear Thought Police" by Jud Cyllorn. I give you a brief excerpt:
"Many concerned Canadians fear the suggestion of restrictions on freedom of expression legislation limiting what an individual can publicly vocalize or publish regarding the actions of any individual or institution.
"One should firstly examine the purpose of such legislation, and secondly, the intentions of those forces desirous of such.
"Those who most fear public criticism are individuals who have gained wealth and social status via deceptive means - namely those least fair, least competent, least reliable or least truthful.
Who among us would suffer most by the spread of unwanted opinions and incriminating information - information that was accurate, truthful and provided a clear perspective? Public exposure of one's actions or past deeds is only the concern of the bad guys - not the good guys!
"This proposed legislation is designed to limit individual expression. It would limit one's attempt to expose unfair actions, incompetence or falsehoods. This would be comparable to being charged - and the court not allowing for a defense.
"Therefore, when (a) society is charged with historical sins, those contesting the allegations can be restricted in their defense by charges of "hate." Properly documented criticism and information disproving the absurd claims by special interest groups against the social collective will be set aside, and the bureaucrats and courts will proceed unencumbered.
"Judicially controlled 'Freedom of Speech' restricts public criticism or challenging the actions of the people of power. Our politically correct court could limit the public expression of one group, accurately pointing out the hypocritical conduct of someone, or the legislated "special" privileges of another.
"Those most fearing being "exposed" are, of course, people of power or those receiving "special" privileges. Historically, the real power of any society wishes anonymity while directing the lives and well-beings of m any. The evolution of the "free society' was developed as a result of daring individuals challenging the debilitating social dogmas established by generations of unchallenged authority - authority which crucified its critics.
"Much blood flowed to establish this freedom.
"Remember, power begets power. Power strives to monopolize. Power is ambitious, domineering and often heartless. Power wishes to dominate ideas, opinions and directions.
"Power, unlike noble leadership, greatly fears criticism. Criticism results in a spread of ideas resulting in opinions working contrary to the ambitions of power. Today, those most powerful fear criticism most.
"Who has the most to lose from free speech? What are they afraid of losing?
"Canada's unique social and economic structure greatly limits the spread of ideas and overtly limits criticism of those with power. The monopolization of idea or criticism transmitting mechanism, (e.g., television, newspapers) by plutocratic imperialists ensures those allowed to publicly criticize are all standing under the same umbrella.
"Fear of criticism has proven systemic among Canada's elite. Public exposure of political deception, special privileges for "special" groups and bureaucratic incompetence can be proven to affect social, moral and property values and the orderly payment of debt.
Canada's faceless financial monarchs cowardly rely on the combination of all three to maintain a "third world" level of social and financial control over Canadians.
So. Next time you read about the need for "hate" legislation, remember the pickpocket. You don't need to beat him. You don't need to bomb or burn or gas him. All you need to do is ***to make sure you have the means, the freedom and the right to expose him***.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Of all the tyrannies on human kind
The worst is that which persecutes the mind."
(John Dryden)