Now that the holidays are behind us, we are all rested and "ready to roar." Today's and tomorrow's Zgrams will be a quick recap of where we are in Canada regarding the issue of Freedom of Speech.
The content below is from the December issue of Canada's "Friends of Freedom" newsletter, a publication put out by the Canadian Free Speech League, a group known to be a thorn in the eye of Canada's self-appointed censors. It contains a couple of beautifully summarized assessments of just how atrociously Stalinist these so-called "Human Rights Tribunals" have become - if ever they were anything else. Reflect and ponder duly:
"The Zundel Tribunal is now reduced to two members with the resignation of Harish Jain. It now consists of Reva Devins and Claude Pensa. There is a judicial review outstanding which challenges the standing of Reva Devins on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias.
"Though the APEC inquiry {into RCMP brutality against demonstrators} has been adjourned due to apprehension of bias for a member's previous expression of opinion, the Zundel Tribunal has refused to disqualify Ms. Devins for comments made by a Human Rights Commission of Ontario of which she was a member {at the time}, about Mr. Zundel.
"This issue is before the court for hearing in March 1999, along with several other judicial reviews arising out fo this long and complicated hearing.
"Between December 7th and 18th, the Tribunal (sat) for a total of 8 days, (heard) the evidence for Mr. Zundel from his experts and conclude(d) the cross-examination of Bernard Klatt which began in November.
"Mark Weber, (director of the Institute for Historical Review, was) being called to testify as to the social effects of Holocaust revisionism, the content of the Zundelsite and its meaning. The commission and its intervenors (were expected to) oppose his evidence as they (were expected to) say it is biased.
{Note: Since this letter was written, the Commission has approved Mark Weber in a restricted sense!}
"It seems that it's okay for witnesses called for the commission (i.e. Prideaux and Schweitzer) to be biased, but not for the defendant. Anyone who agrees with the accused is, it seems, by definition an "extremist" or biased, """so the only expert the tribunal will recognize is one who does not agree with Mr. Zundel, the party calling him""".
"That means that only if the witness is of more use to the prosecution than to the defense will the defense by allowed by the tribunal to call them. This is the process which disqualified Alexander Jacob who gave rational explanations for anti-Semitism and was therefore disqualified.
"Thus you have a self-fulfilling system which defines its own outcome as an inevitable consequence of its preconditions. """To be a witness you must agree the defense is wrong."""
"Kafka couldn't have designed it better - and thus we have the Newspeak of George Orwell imposed in the real world by a politically correct, politically appointed tribunal. This is the reality we cope with, and there are two choices when faced with it: seek to correct it, or surrender.
(End of Friends of Freedom Letter)
Thought for the Day:
"Is Clinton still President...?"
(Ernst Zundel, on the road...")