As many of you noticed or surmised, I took a long-needed break from ZGram composing by running a seven-part, canned series - "Two weeks in the life of Ernst Zundel" - in my own absence, so to speak.
I had to take care of some urgent personal business. Now I am back and catching up - with renewed energy and vigor.
_______ Remember that one of the judges in snowy mid-January reserved judgment in one of the latest Zundel battles? The big and good news is that Judge Reed ruled firmly and decisively in favor of Ernst and ***against*** the Human Rights Kommissars by allowing Ernst's five judicial challenges (reviews of CHRT jurisdiction or decisions taken by them so far) to go forward as scheduled.
Not only that, the lady judge assessed costs against the self-appointed censor crowd for their audacity to try to derail the proceedings at this late stage!
This means that the first judicial review is scheduled for March 19. It will deal with our oppositon's idiotic ". . . the internet is like a telephone" claim and other, important, statutory matters.
This one is going to be interesting because, to put it in the most simplistic terms, the censors argue, in essence, that the "carrier" of content determines what sits on the receiving end. Their argument, paraphrased, goes something like this:
"Since pipes carry water to both the toilet and the sink, a sink is like a toilet . . ."
Chorus of the Politically Correct: ". . . the Internet is like a telephone. . . "
We say a sink is not a toilet. The Internet is definitely not a telephone, as any kindergartner knows.
_______ Bad news: Dr. Faurisson of France has been disqualified as an expert witness by the same "logic" and "wisdom" of the Human Rights Tribunal, as we all expected would happen. Their snide argument is, in essence, that a man who is an acknowledged international expert in the analysis of documents would not know how to analyze the documents posted on the Zundelsite.
It is transparently simple: These people will not allow ***anybody*** (especially anybody suspected of being "pro-Zundel") of Dr. Faurisson's caliber to become part of the all-important historical record and transcripts in these precedent-setting Free-Speech proceedings. This document is yet another biased Human Rights Tribunal ruling that I will put on the Zundelsite shortly - for all the word to see.
_______ Mix of good news and bad news: The Canadian mainstream media continues to do an amazing Dance of Schizophrenia around the issue of Free Speech. Many have come out on the side of Free Speech - but what to do with the "villain" Ernst Zundel who claims that very right they need for their own good and for their own professional survival?
You know about not looking the gift horse in the mouth! Like Midas we're hoarding our gold! It can get very odd. On one hand, these media minions are prone to the obligatory "Bless you!" reflex by kicking Ernst Zundel whenever the name comes up. On the other hand, they have started paying him indirect homage for being at the forefront of this monumental struggle and digging in his heels. Some have even gone so far as to refer to him as Christie's ". . . outspoken client" instead of the ". . . hate spewing Nazi."
And why not? As one of the Zundel Watchers summarized it nicely, a selected few of them are now beginning to ". . . wake up one morning and find their ass in a sling."
Writes he, while speaking of one such - an ever-so-politically-correct fellow named Green:
"This is Canada, after all, where racial bigotry exists in the eye (or ear) of the complainant -- especially if he or she is a member of some privileged minority.
(D)uring a TV broadcast on CBC Newsworld's "On the Line," Green had pilloried Ernst Zundel, while acknowledging that Zundel (like shock jock Howard Stern) would likely garner very high ratings were he given a chance to produce a radio show for the mainstream media.
(O)nly a day or two after the Ottawa Citizen, the newspaper of record in Canada's capital, ran an editorial in which both the Toronto publisher **and** the Ottawa talk-show host were mentioned in the same editorial breath, as it were - lumped together as persons subjected to arbitrary measures by the Powers intended to intimidate them both.
The editorial . . . is a telltale sign that media are at long last reacting to the serious threat government is starting to pose to Canadians' civil liberties and human rights.
Note: This same editorial, published in the Citizen on Saturday, January 30, was republished as an op-ed piece in the Calgary Herald on Tuesday, February 2. What is remarkable about the text of the Citizen editorial are the extraordinarily simple solutions that it advances as a remedy for offensive speech.
For example, turn off the radio if you don't like what you're hearing or grin and bear it as the price for having a free-speech society.
Now why didn't we think of that, eh?"
(end of letter)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Here I quote selected passages from the Ottawa Citizen's above-mentioned lead editorial:
* "Free speech can be confusing, in part because to defend it requires a willingness to be offended."
* "In Canada's broadcasting industry, we must conclude, you can now be censured for sarcasm. Alarming. "
* "(B)ecause the broadcast industry holds its free speech "privilege" by way of government fiat, it forgets that the public is perfectly capable of censuring . . . without any help: listeners offended by words can reach for their radio's "off" button. In a free-speech society, that is how to correctly handle distasteful views."
* "Now to Ernst Zundel, a tougher illustration. Zundel, purveyor of nonsensical views about the Holocaust, attempted last year to give a press conference on Parliament Hill in a room that is routinely made available for the public to do precisely that. The parties banned him from the precinct. A judge agreed. In January, his lawyer, who wanted to give a press conference on Canada's hate laws, was also banned. (Who's next? Opponents of the government's magazine bill? Anyone who says something MPs don't like?)"
* "Again, free speech has been stifled because the speech in question offends us. Again, those acting for the state have failed to understand that in a free-speech society, individuals can easily censure Zundel without suppressing his right to speak: by not listening to him or, if they choose, by easily refuting him."
* "That a person's speech is emotionally off-putting is not reason enough to limit speech. If emotions are the standard by which we judge what is to be permitted in human communication, then we have no standards."
* "This is a far more offensive idea than anything these controversial figures can conjure up."
(Excerpts from: Others Voices | Regulators should get out of speech-curbing business. The Calgary Herald (letters@theherald.southam.ca) | February 2, 1999 ( This editorial appeared a few days before in the Ottawa Citizen)
=====
Right. It's finally beginning to sink in - to the horror and despair of our opposition. Ernst Zundel warned them over and over again that this development was going to be the outcome of the latest censorship battle. Canada's Favorite Villain is truly is like the biblical Samson, leaning against the pillars of their temples of lies and shaking them at their foundations.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Nobody tries to outlaw Mary Poppins. At least I don't think anyone does, though with our Human Rights Commissions one never knows."
(Guest editorial in the National Post by George Jonas)
Back to Table of Contents of the Feb. 1999 ZGrams