How media treats Zundel

Aug 4, 2003

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!

Paul Fromm, who is the on-location legal representative for Ernst, sent me the following, to which I would like to add a brief comment:

[START]

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Most people rely on the media for their news and information. The following news story is an excellent example of how our mass media keep us ignorant of essential facts.

Sometimes, they outright lie and slander, especially those set up by the enemies of free speech for defamation and destruction. Sometimes, it's more subtle.

I'd like you to examine Adrian Humphreys' report in the NATIONAL POST (July 31, 2003). Humphreys was present through most of the three days of the Zundel hearings this week. His is the most extensive report in the mainline press. Unlike the CSIS rant against Zundel, it is relatively free -- not entirely -- of loaded phrases "holocaust denier", to be sure. It presents the facts in a reasonably balanced manner.

On the surface, it appears complete and fair, but it isn't! I've included my own report on the last day of the Zundel hearing. Three important things happened: 1. Doug Christie asked the judge to recuse himself for bias; 2. the judge granted the government's request for yet another secret hearing, where the accused will be kept in the dark as to the witnesses and evidence presented against him; and 3. there was extensive discussion of Ernst Zundel's deteriorating medical condition and the judge promised action to improve conditions in prison where he's denied a pillow, herbal medication, a pen, a chair, highlighters and post-it notes.

Is the light beginning to dawn?

The apparently fair report left the last two items out. These items would enrage most people and make even many anti-Zundelites feel sympathy toward him. However, the reader, unless he's on the Internet, will never know these shocking facts.

Is Humphreys a slick propagandist? It's hard to say. We don't know what he wrote. Perhaps, he wrote a full report and his editor trimmed it.

Regardless, the power to select, the power to omit, can sometimes be an even more potent weapon for deceit than outright lies.

[END]

Next follows Adrian Humphrey's July 31, 2003 National Post write-up:

[START]

TORONTO - Ernst Zundel's lawyer yesterday asked the judge hearing the national security case against the prominent Holocaust denier to step down for showing "open hostility" toward his client.

Douglas Christie accused Mr. Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal Court of Canada of "badgering and accusing the witness of lying" and intervening during Mr. Zundel's testimony in a manner "more aggressive than the prosecutors.''

"You have entered into the arena and expressed hostility to the accused," Mr. Christie said at the start of yesterday's hearing, a continuation of the lengthy detention review of Mr. Zundel. The federal government has declared him a threat to national security as the alleged patriarch of the violent white supremacist movement.

Mr. Christie gave as examples comments he said Judge Blais made during Tuesday's cross-examination of Mr. Zundel, including telling him to stop "snaking around" the facts; that he does not believe his testimony about who runs the Zundel Web site; and that the more Mr. Zundel talks, the less the judge believes him.

Judge Blais' reported remarks suggest he has made up his mind on the matter prior to hearing all the evidence, Mr. Christie said in making a formal motion for the judge to stand down.

He said a new judge should replace him, one who has not demonstrated "open hostility" toward Mr. Zundel.

The issue of Judge Blais' impartiality is more crucial here than in most court proceedings. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act governing national security certificate cases -- when the government declares a non-citizen a threat to the nation and orders him deported -- there is no appeal of the sole judge's decision.

"Without the means of other judicial supervision, it is all the more reason to ensure that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias," Mr. Christie said. "You are, therefore, a court of last resort."

Donald MacIntosh, the lead lawyer for the government, rejected Mr. Christie's claims, calling them "specious."

"No reasonable observer would draw those conclusions," he told Judge Blais. "You were merely alerting the witness ... that you have some doubts."

He said Judge Blais has "demonstrated even-handedness" because the judge has also interjected to redirect government lawyers during their questioning.

Judge Blais said the issue was extremely serious and charted new territory for the national security certificate process. As such, he would need time to think about the motion. "It is very interesting," he said. "Interesting enough to think about."

After close to an hour deliberating in private, Judge Blais returned to say he would continue with the bail portion of the review and rule on the motion for him to step down after a transcript of the previous day's hearing was available for review. He said he would deliver a decision when the hearing resumes in September.

Outside of court, representatives of Canadian Jewish groups who are monitoring the hearing expressed confidence in Judge Blais' impartiality.

Anita Bromberg, in-house counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, said Judge Blais is fair and astute. "I agreed with the judge's comments that Zundel's attempts at avoidance on the issue of whether he exerts control over the content of the Zundel Web site were simply not believable."

Ms. Bromberg expressed dismay at Mr. Christie's motion, saying: "Fairness is not only owed to Mr. Zundel but to all Canadians."

Len Rudner, a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the judge's comments were focused and qualified. "I do not believe these comments represent bias on the part of the justice. Just because the motion was put forward in no way means that there was bias and in no way means that Zundel will not get a fair trial."

Paul Fromm, a long-time activist with the far right who acts as a legal representative for Mr. Zundel in Mr. Christie's absence, said the judge's words call the process into question. "The comments made to Mr. Zundel that the judge didn't believe him tainted the rest of the trial. I don't think Ernst Zundel can be confident that he is being given an impartial or unbiased hearing," he said.

Mr. Zundel was certified as a security threat and has been held in solitary confinement while Judge Blais reviews the reasonableness of the government's declaration. Mr. Zundel is slated for deportation to his native Germany, where he faces a charge of inciting hatred.

[END]

Ingrid's comments:

Here I would like to put in a word for Adrian Humphreys. I personally don't know this reporter, but I have in the past been embarrassed by criticism from our own people about his write-ups. I considered that criticism poorly focused and insulting, and I have been impressed by his calm and rational replies.

Humphreys works for the National Post, a paper that has been anything but fair in its coverage of the Zundel struggle. He has no editorial control and certainly can't choose the headlines. That he got the "snaking around" comment in by the judge is a feat. How would a Jew feel if a judge told him in a hearing that the more he talked, the less was he believable, that he was "snaking around"? You'd never hear the end of it from B'nai Brith! And Paul Fromm is right - we don't know how much might have been written about the request for another hearing in camera, and about Ernst's very serious health concerns, of which I only learned a few days ago. We cannot have the Canadian public feel even a twinge of guilt, can we, for holding this man in inhuman detention, now for six months already - when all he "missed" was an "immigration interview" that was never scheduled to begin with, and of which he was never aware? I thought this write-up, truncated though it might have been, at least refrained from calling him names!

And speaking of health concerns, here I want to add something else that Ernst might be upset about that I am putting it out on the air, but I have been sufficiently troubled that I feel I simply have to do it. And it is this:

A supporter sent me a greatly enlarged color photo as part of one of the media write-ups, and I don't like at all what it reveals. Ernst has a look on his face I have never seen before. I don't know how to describe it. There is a big red bruise on his face near his left ear that even shows up on his ear itself, and there is a very noticeable swelling protruding from out of his ear. There is also some blood and a large blister on his lips. I asked him twice if he has been physically abused. He denied it. He did not sound convincing to me. He has repeatedly said in letters to supporters, "I am being treated correctly." In my opinion, he is saying that too much, with too much emphasis, over and over again. I have at least ten copies of such letters with that statement.

He said to me when I pressed him about what I see in that picture, "When that picture was taken, I was very disturbed." I should also state, for the sake of fairness, that the photo was taken, as far as I know, while he was still in Thorold, right after he asked SIRC to look into the revelations in Covert Entry, the book that documents CSIS knowledge of the 1995 parcel bomb that was sent to the Zundel-Haus from Vancouver. Ernst came to that Thorold/Niagara Falls hearing, not looking at anyone, not greeting anyone. His supporters, some of them near tears, were very upset that he did not acknowledge their presence. Immediately after the hearing, he was transferred to Rexdale, one of Canada's most notorious and unpleasant prisons. The first time he was allowed to call out, he said to me, with three guards standing at his elbow, "Hess had it easy...", referring to Rudolf Hess's lifelong incarceration at Spandau that ended in his murder - at age 93, if I remember right.

When I pressed Ernst about the strange look on his face in that picture and what looks like a large bruise on his face, in connection with his odd behavior during that hearing, he avoided giving me a direct answer but only said: "I have to obey rules. I was told not to 'signal' to anyone. I was not allowed to wave or shake hands. If prison rules are broken, it could mean weeks of no telephone or no access to canteen materials. It would mean I could not write or draw or call collect. These guards have strict rules, they are dealing with violent criminals. I am probably the only dissident in all of Canada."

He added, but not energetically the way he often speaks, that I should not "imagine" something that wasn't there, and he said specifically, "I am not being beaten. I would tell you."

I'm not so sure.

You make of it what you will. I am so upset about this picture, I feel like offering myself as a hostage so Ernst can get out and have an honest doctor look at his condition and get a good feel for what is going on. Or should we do what some Zundel supporters have already offered - to alternately offer themselves as Prisoners of Conscience Substitutes to register a public protest that WOULD get adequate media attention?!

How many of you would be willing to volunteer to spend a week in the slammer to know what it feels like, and to give Ernst Zundel some relief? I would. I already know what it's like, since I did part of my internship working with juveniles in detention. I can tell you, jail is not a pleasant place - and what is happening inside does not often get told on the outside.

Contribute to Ernst Zündel's Defence

Table of Contents for additional articles

Revisionism 101: Basic Revisionism

Revisionism 201 for Holocaust Skeptics

"David against Goliath": Ernst Zündel, fighting the New World Order

"Lebensraum!": Ingrid Rimland, pioneering a True World Order