In yet another remarkable Ottawa Times article, December 19, 1998) titled "Free Speech Fights Back: Controversial and unpopular figures say they have rights too" by Timothy Bloedow, ethics reporter, we read and comment as follows:
Ottawa Times:
People whose views defy currently politically correct parameters have become increasingly concerned with the attempts made to suppress their freedom of speech. In the past they have generally preferred to avoid conflict over specific incidents when they were challenged.
Today, however, there seems to be less of a willingness to roll over and avoid a fight. From the east coast to the west, Canadians harassed for their views are starting to fight back, even taking their accusers to court.
The latest incident has notorious "holocaust denier", Ernst Zundel, fling a lawsuit against all five federal political parties in the House of Commons as well as their leaders. Also named in the lawsuit are six other MPs, the Canadian Jewish Congress and its director, Moshe Ronen.
Zundelsite:
Just to refresh my reader's memory and rub it in the eyes of our foes, what really happened was that I was sitting in my little office in California, trying to get a press release headline to blink - and ***accidentally*** caused the entire homepage to blink. It really did look SOS'ish! Somebody must have seen it in Ottawa in the Ministry of Multiculturalism and galloped to inform Moshe Ronen, who was meeting with the minister at that time, that Mr. Holocaust Denier was up to something fearsome!
The rest is history!
Ottawa Times:
Mr. Zundel is demanding recompense for the violation of his Constitutional right to free speech when the House of Commons anonymously voted on June 4 to forbid him access to the press conference room on Parliament Hill on the following day.
Mr. Zundel is renowned for openly challenging the accepted historical record of the Nazi holocaust, and a few MPs, claiming to represent their parties and the Canadian population at large, objected to his use of the press conference room on Parliament Hill to host a press conference.
Zundelsite:
Well, no. What really happened was on reflex: A Chosenite said "Genuflect!" - and that the MPs did! As though they were trained seals!
Ottawa Times:
Coverage of the issue by a media that jumps at the opportunity to report on stories of "censorship" inspired by conservatives was almost nil. The few free speech advocates such as Paul Fromm, head of Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) who have condemned this decision, suspect that most free speech advocates have avoided addressing the issue for fear of being maligned as "anti-Semite" simply for defending the principle of free speech.
Zundelsite:
Two points need to be made.
First, media coverage was ***not*** almost nil. It was coast-to-coast, amazingly fair-handed - except for the Toronto market where Mr. Zundel lives. It offered several hearty blasts of condemnation in the direction of the Chosenites. It was a watershed event in Canadian media coverage - and quite a few reporters with brains instead of mush inside their skulls said so.
Secondly, this "fear of being maligned" is played by Mr. Zundel's opposition straight to the hilt and back. The Chosen people know that gentile media people rather mess their pants the moment somebody starts hurling calumny than stand up straight because they've got a spine!
Ottawa Times:
Of particular concern for free speech advocates was complicity of the Reform Party in the incident. Reform House leader Randy White spoke up in favor of the motion, and no Reform MPs present in the House at the time publicly opposed it by quashing the vote (for a motion of this kind that requires unanimous consent, it only takes one "nay" to block it).
Mr. White urged that the government House Leader "give this House the confidence that not only will {Ernst Zundel's press conference} not occur, but that it will not occur again as far as the booking of that facility for such an individual is concerned."
Talking to the Ottawa Times he stood by his House of Commons statement, arguing that Mr. Zundel does have "the right to speak; it's just where he does it. . . . The House of Commons is probably the wrong place for this individual."
Zundelsite:
The Internet as well?
What could "such an individual" say that is so threatening - if he is ". . . merely a buffoon and clowning his absurdities," as the Canadian media has portrayed him for so many years when he could not fight back because of a judicial gag?
Ottawa Times:
Mr. White did not believe that his position is a denial of the Reform Party's policy of equality for all Canadians before the law, since he does not oppose altogether Mr. Zundel's right to speak.
Free speech advocates, however, argue that Mr. White's opposition to Mr. Zundel's right to speak on the Hill demonstrates that location is an important aspect of the right to free speech.
Zundelsite:
There is an easy test to clarify that point. Mr. White could come and testify for the defense at the CHR Tribunal hearings in Toronto that he believes Canadians are people of discernment who will not faint if they pull up the Zundelsite.
Ottawa Times:
Interestingly, no MPs in recent years are known to have attempted to prevent access to the conference room by those who deny the humanity of unborn children, or to others with provocative views such as EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians everywhere), a leading homosexual activist organization.
Mr. White said he has a lawyer taking care of the lawsuit for him.
Zundelsite:
Mr. Zundel now being on the offensive as the complainant in this lawsuit will have the right to subpoena and cross-examine any of the defendants, from the Prime Minister on down, including Mr. White. And since the Reform Party is made up of a goodly number of German-Canadians who are keen Zundel-Watchers, you draw your own conclusions.
Ottawa Times:
Government House Leader Don Boudria, who spoke on behalf of the Liberal government on the issue and who later introduced the motion, was also named in the lawsuit. He did not return a call from the Ottawa Times, but in an interview with the Canadian Jewish News, he said that he also has a lawyer looking at the matter on his behalf.
In his short House of Commons speech, he invoked a definition of democracy which did not include freedom of speech. He said that he was disturbed that "the house of democracy in our country was going to be utilized in any way, shape or form for the benefit of one Ernst Zundel."
Zundelsite:
A Government House Leader whose definition of democracy does not include freedom of speech can easily be held by many as a menace to a society that calls itself a democracy. Has he considered that?
Ottawa Times:
Don Boudria told the Canadian Jewish News that he didn't think Mr. Zundel's lawyers would get very far, arguing that "you can't sue Parliament for how a person votes in Parliament, {or} Parliament cannot function."
Mr. Zundel, however, is not suing Parliament per se. He said that legislation and policy produced by Parliament is always being challenged in court. He added: "They think this is a frivolous little case that {I launched} as a publicity stunt. Have they got something else coming!"
Zundelsite:
:)
Ottawa Times:
It is not known how many Reform MPs were concerned about the implications of the ruling on free speech. Popular conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville), however, was willing to discuss his reservations.
He told the Ottawa Times: "It concerns me that Parliament picks and chooses who gets to speak. ... I have concerns that we try to silence people because we strongly disagree with them. ... If a person is out to lunch, let the people judge. That is more effective than some elites deciding what's right and what's wrong in a society - what should be said, and what shouldn't be said."
"I disagree very strongly with many many people around me," added Mr. Breitkreuz, "but I have to respect their view as I would expect them to respect mine. If we want to keep society free and open, we have to have that dialogue."
He reflected on his experience with the Reform Party as well as his life as a Christian to put the issue in context. "{When} Reform first came to Parliament in '93 the Liberals tried to ignore us and silence us...and they did the same to those who elected us. ...And the same thing happens today {with} Christian teachings...often ignored in discussions they don't exist, {or} mocked or criticized with an arrogant-type attitude." (...)
Zundelsite:
One of the social benefits of having Mr. Zundel's point of view exposed in Canada is that some people finally begin to see the light re what freedom of speech really means. Discussion of things related to the Holocaust are increasingly the litmus test of freedom of speech - and who predicted that?
Who told you so? Way back?
Remember: "They came to silence Mr. Zundel, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Mr. Zundel..."?
Ottawa Times:
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of the controversy over Ernst Zundel's attempt to use the Charles Lynch room is that he was not seeking at this time to use it to advance his views of the Nazi holocaust and related historical events. Rather, he was attempting to raise public awareness about a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling against him that he felt had ramifications for all Canadians. (...)
Ten days earlier, the CHRT forbade Mr. Zundel's lawyer, Doug Christie, from arguing for the truth of his client's claims. "The truth in some absolute sense really plays no role," stated the three-man panel. "Rather, it is the social context in which the message is delivered {and} how it is understood by the recipient." (...)
Many Canadians may be of the opinion that such reasoning - in which hurt feelings are given greater significance than truth or falsehood - is limited to human rights tribunals, yet Mr Leishman {London Free Press columnist) noted the existence of it even in the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly in a 1990 case involving another holocaust revisionist, John Ross Taylor."
Zundelsite:
Those darn "holocaust deniers" are flushing 'em out good, aren't they? Even at the Supreme Court level?
And to think that there are hundreds of thousands of them, by now, in the world, thanks to the Internet!
If not millions?
A goodly portion of them reading Ingrid's ZGrams with amazement and disgust and wonder how it is in a "democracy" that Moshe bullies Parliament - and gets away with it?
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"The Jewish problem is one of the greatest problems in the world, and no man, be he writer, politician or diplomatist, can be considered mature until he has striven to face it squarely on its merits."
(Henry Wickham Steed, as quoted in Albert Lindemann's "Esau's Tears")