While it is not, as yet, the "in" thing to do in Canada to admit openly to friend or foe that the Zundel struggle is now commanding genuine respect among many European-descended Canadians, privately they'll tell you so. They'll say so - with big grins.
Of course whenever that happens, I make it my duty to keep many of these ethnic groups informed about the complicated Zundel struggle - and trust you me, they listen!
Even a year ago, when I was in Toronto, some of my German friends let it be known that they were fed up to the hilt with traditional parties' shenanigans, but that they felt the Reform Party of Canada was tenuously representing them - at least ostensibly, all the while looking over their shoulder. Of course that is the party that has been smeared with the "anti-semitic" brush, which makes them very antsy.
I can tell you with certainty that, of late, these same German-Canadians are watching Reform with regards to their own interests with more than just a little cynicism.
And with good cause. Here is another excerpt from the "Friends of Freedom - January/February 1999 newsletter - a publication that is being sent to many ethnic conservatives. It contains a sharp letter to Randy White, Reform Party House Leader which I am happy to quote below:
The all-party agreement which banned Ernst Zundel from holding a press conference in the parliamentary press gallery last June was extended in January to lawyer Doug Christie, when he attempted to hold a press conference about truth being ruled irrelevant within human rights commission hearings, as well as the proposed amendments to Canada's hate laws, which would have the same effect. (...)
The house leaders of all the political parties agreed to ban Mr. Christie from the parliamentary precincts during the current session of parliament. They alleged that Mr. Christie was only acting as a paid spokesman for Ernst Zundel, and that he was only going to repeat Mr. Zundel's message. There was more than a little bit of self-interest in their motives, as Mr. Christie had the previous day argued before a high court judge that the law suit commenced by Mr. Zundel against the major political parties for denial of his constitutional rights in the June banning should not be struck down. The judge had subsequently allowed this motion.
Statements by politicians convey the impression that they regard Parliament as their property. For example, Don Boudria, the government House leader, said he agreed to ban Mr. Christie because he is acting for Zundel, ***even though he did not know what the lawyer planned to say at his news conference***. (Emphasis added)
"It would have been somewhat incongruous to say Mr. Zundel can't enter the House of Commons to give a press conference, but he can pay someone else to do the same thing," said Mr. Boudria. "In terms of what the content of his speech was, I have no idea."
While the Commons approved the ban against Zundel by adopting a motion from Don Boudria, there was no record of Mr. Parent's ruling on Mr. Christie, or any written reasons for the decision.
Douglas Christie wrote the following letter to Mr. White, the Reform Party leader, who also apparently agreed with the motion to ban Mr. Christie. "
Randy White, M.P.
Reform Party House Leader
Dear Mr. White:
Regarding your agreement to ban me from Parliament, permit me to reason with you. For the record, I really wanted to say just two things.
Firstly, that to deny the truth the right to be stated in defense of a human right complaint, or even to deny attempting to do so, is a serious error in a free society. Secondly, I wanted to warn you and the public of the dangers of amending the Criminal Code, section 319(3), as the Attorneys General unanimously agreed in October, 1998 in Regina, and in a resolution currently being considered by Minister of Justice McLellan.
Simply put, this amendment would make truth telling illegal. All I wanted to say was this: No free or democratic society should ever impose criminal sanctions or administrative sanctions against truth. Don't you agree? What kind of society do you think we will have when people can go to jail for telling the truth?
Maybe I am risking your wrath again, but if you thought what you did in barring me was right, and that of barring my client was right, why would you fear losing in court? It would seem unlikely. Now that it is over, would you reverse the ban?
Another question emerges from your reported statements. You say, "The guy is suing me personally for a million bucks. Why should I give him a soap box anywhere?"
First of all, were you referring to me? I wasn't suing you; my client was. Was it up to you to give me the House of Commons? Is it your property? Maybe I missed something, but I was always informed that was the property of the people of Canada. It's a lot of people's workplace. People elected you to go there to represent ***them***, not yourself. Don't you agree?
Then you said, "If Christie is not talking about my affairs then I don't care where he speaks." First of all, how does the action of the Canadian Human Rights tribunal in denying truth as a defence become your private affair? I thought it was "our" affair, so I wanted to talk about it as a serious threat to free speech. It had nothing to do with you or Ernst Zundel. Can't you see the point of principle here? Can't you see the difference? Do you consider the abolition of the defence of truth in the Criminal Code a private affair of yours?
Another thing comes to mind as a result of your previous statement. How did you know what I was going to say? If you read my press release, you would know it had nothing to do with "your affairs", as you put it.
Maybe I am really naive to believe that you were telling the media the real reason for your agreement to ban me from the Commons; however, if you mean what you say, you leave me totally confused. Maybe you think it is unfair of me to ask all these questions of you, and not the other House leaders, but I don't ask the others. Frankly, it is because I expected more of you and your party. Can you tell me where I might look for an M.P. with principle?
Do you really think, in retrospect, I should be denied the right to raise the concerns I mention in the foregoing two points? Is truth important enough to you to withdraw your consent to this denial of my rights? Are you man enough to admit a mistake? Since the fear of litigation is now gone, what are you afraid of now?
Long ago someone said, "Cast not your pearls before swine." I should always try, however, to believe the best of my critics. If honest ignorance was the cause I have borne witness to the truth, and you can never say before God you did not know my intentions were to preserve the truth. As God is my judge and yours, I have told you.
Will you be so kind as to tell me now if you would continue to support a denial of my rights (enjoyed by all other law-abiding citizens) to attend in the House and listen to you, or to speak in the Press Gallery, as the right of anyone else? Are you still so afraid of what I might say? Will you remove this ban on my right to walk in that building where is supposed to repose the freedom my ancestors fought to defend? Or has it become necessary to agree with you for you to recognize that right?
Yours truly,
D.H. Christie"
Doug Christie has as yet received no reply.
It should also be mentioned that this ZGram is being sent to some of my contacts in the German-Canadian media, since the Reform Party is seen by many German Canadians as their potential party of choice, having little hope, as they do, that any of the other parties are acting in their interest.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Tyrants are powerful only when they have mobs of fools to carry out their tyrannies. When people understand liberty, tyrants cannot rise to power."
(Quote sent to the Zundelsite)