Writes one of my Zundelsite loyals, referring to the CHRC wonder in declaring truth not be a defense in "human rights" proceedings and other aberrations:
"Excuse me? Am I alone, or have others also noticed how funny these angry clowns are? Truth is irrelevant? Or, much more bombastic: Preoccupation with truth would undermine the sanctity of this tribunal?
Let's play it their way, so they'll not throw a tantrum:
The fundamental rationale for the persecution (alright, have it your way: prosecution) of the holocaust deniers is the notion that the extermination story is true and the denial of same is not true.
If the truth is irrelevant in defense of the denial, then it is equally irrelevant in defense of the propagation of the extermination story.
No matter whether the Germans did, or did not, commit any of the atrocities claimed by the propagators of the story, the dictum - Truth Is Irrelevant - ***makes the propagation of that story the primary offensive act***, against which the denial is merely a defensive reaction.
Clearly, the accusation of genocide, uttered through the media and disguised as entertainment, instead of before an impartial court of law, where the accuser is compelled to support his allegations and the accused is free to defend himself, is in itself a most grievous assault on the human rights and dignity of the Germans.
***When truth is irrelevant, then this assault, this primary offensive act, is culpable under the tribunal's own guiding principle***, namely, that the hurt and mental anguish of the maligned alone is worthy of consideration and relief.
Had the tribunal acted in accord with its published ideals, it would have put an end to the propagation of anti-German propaganda many years ago and, absent the provocation, Historical Revisionism would be dealing with different topics, while Holocaust Denial would never have been conceived - much less born.
So, by this asinine ruling, these asses have made the holocaust story and its propagators the proper target of investigation and prosecution through human rights tribunals, under existing human rights legislation.
To me, this looks as simple as two and two. Have they been confronted with this implication? Will we be able to read about an argument along these lines in the transcript?"
Now isn't that a nifty argument? I have thought about it myself for a very long time, having felt so aggrieved and so hurt by having that Holoschlock thrown in my face morning, noon and night - but Ernst tells me that Germans are not considered an aggrieved minority in Canada.
However, it never hurts to repeat a good argument, and improve on it if possible. Here is an exceropt of the Hoffman Wire, Michael Hoffman II, Zundel biographer:
"Here in the United States there is a faction of the right wing/militia/survivalist movement that teaches that most American freedoms are illusory. According to this theory, it is no use trying to organize by traditional means.
This is of course precisely the notion the FBI and other arms of the secret police wish to disseminate, "it's too late to legally organize for freedom and dissenting opinion, so play dead or become a terrorist."
The "National Post" is an intriguing independent newspaper which debuted in Canada a few months ago. The following article from its pages champions the rights of two anti-Zionist dissidents, school teachers Malcolm Ross and Jim Keegstra.
(Keegstra has had no less than three, horribly distorted, Hollywood movies made concerning his case. In every movie--one of which stars Raquel Welch--he is cast not as a hero but as a monster).
Canada's "National Post" conveys what the right wing faction in the U.S. has been lacking: a knowledge of current events north of our border and gratitude to our American Founding Fathers for the rights we continue to enjoy, in particular the key freedoms of speech and press.
The intellectual dictatorship spreading over Canada like darkness at noon must be publicized by every concerned American. Our own "human rights" groups and mass media have thus far demonstrated no inclination to do so, hence it's up to us.
For Canadians a key remedy, discussed at length in "Revisionist History" newsletter no. 8, is to bring charges, under current Canadian law, against establishment-approved hate propaganda, such as Daniel Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," which foments vicious hatred against Germans.
This would be a test case and not an attempt at censorship. But without such a test of the law, Canadians will forfeit their best means for exposing its politicized nature and the fact that the old Anglo-Saxon standard of equal protection does not apply, because almost all "human rights hate legislation" is intended not to protect minorities (they are amply protected by existing legislation), but to raise certain races, religions and sexual maladies to a supreme status over the rest of us.
In the name of fighting "white supremacy," Jewish, black or homosexual supremacy is established in the "some are more equal than others" farce immortalized by Orwell in "Animal Farm."
That this tendency is circulating in the U.S. is undeniable. Jesuit Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington has actually created a one-sided "hate curriculum" and even offers a B.A. degree in "hate studies."
So the . . . Canadian article is hardly a reason for American complacency, but it does demonstrate that we in America still have the freedom to create our own media and influence and organize our neighbors with truths suppressed by the corporate press.
To belitle or minimize the political and informational potential of so precious a right is not only to mock the sufferings of our Canadian brethren, but to demonstrate our own exhaustion in the face of present challenges.
It is easy to hop into a survivalist mode and a bunker and declare the battle is lost before a shot has been fired. Tougher by far is the prospect of a grueling political battle at the local, precinct level over the years ahead.
That we have the freedom to engage in such a struggle here in the U.S. also underscores our responsibility to fight with these First Amendment weapons, which our still reverberating Bill of Rights makes possible.
To deny the fact of these American freedoms is simply to create an alibi for defeatism.
Our American activism should entail more than the Internet, where a parasitic freebie mentality often prevails, in which jaded percipients imagine that everything of interest is on the 'net for free or soon will be, so why bother financially contributing to those who toil to produce the information online or purchase hard copy publications that are not online?
Every month this writer is on the streets of Washington, Idaho or Montana distributing revisionist truth literature face to face to Americans, as part of my First Amendment Exercize Machine which, with the ancient Greek physicians, proclaims: "What is used develops, what is not used wastes away."
That my distributions often take place some 80 miles south of the Canadian border is a source of inspiration. To know that I would be jailed there for what I do here kindles a kind of anger that is the fuel of my very existence.
(The preceding information is courtesy of THE HOFFMAN WIRE. Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor. Copyright©1998. http://www.hoffman-info.com
THE HOFFMAN WIRE is a free electronic publication of The Campaign for Radical Truth in History. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to hoffman@hoffman-info.com with the message: "subscribe" or "unsubscribe".)
Thought for the Day:
"We think our civilization near its meridian, but we are yet only at the cock-crowing and the morning star. In our barbarous society the influence of character is in its infancy."
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1999 ZGrams