The rather lengthy but excellent summary, prepared by Paul
Fromm, has now been sent to our world-wide contacts in media, the legal
professions, human rights activists and organizations and anonymous sources
in various governments to keep them abreast of what is happening in Canada
in the notorious Zundel persecution/prosecution.
I am sorry it comes to you late - I only received it last
night.
Please publicize this far and wide! Ever more activists are
becoming alert to how Canada's formerly good image is being befouled by
these Stalinist Star Chamber proceedings, presided over by former CSIS boss,
Judge Blais:
Defense Attorney Lindsay Demands More Information About
Zundel Secret Hearings
Reported by Paul
Fromm
TORONTO, AUGUST 11, 2004.
An exasperated Peter Lindsay, head of the Zundel defence
team, insisted "respectfully but firmly," that he could not do
his job to properly represent his client if he did not receive more
information that about the secret hearings that have preceded and
paralleled the certificate review of the German-born dissident and
publisher.
"I can't make any more useful submissions about the
detention because the detention is all based on secret evidence. This is
not about me. It's about the Court and this Court cannot do justice
without hearing from both sides."
Some in the audience called the called this day
"starvation day" as Mr. Justice Pierre Blais, apparently eager
to leave early, skipped lunch and forced the hearings to go from 9:20 to
2:15 before adjourning until August 30.
Most of the proceedings were taken up with submissions
concerning the continued detention in solitary confinement of the
65-year-old German-born artist and dissident. Under the infamous
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), would-be refugee claimants
held as suspected threats to national security, like Mr. Zundel, are
entitled to a "detention review every six months. July 21 marked the
six month anniversary of Judge Blais decision that Mr. Zundel was likely a
danger to Canada's national security and, therefore, should remain in
custody.
In his submission, Mr. Lindsay argued: "The ministers
have produced double, triple and quadruple hearsay. After the ministers
produced no witnesses, Mr. Zundel had to call Dave Stewart of CSIS, a
hostile witness who had already testified against him" at earlier
immigration hearings. "Yet, this adverse witness again and again had
to say there was not public adverse evidence against Mr. Zundel. I, as his
counsel, was not even allowed to ask Mr. Stewart about unclassified
evidence of Mr. Zundel's alleged links to acts of violence."
Mr. Lindsay then referred to the transcript of the hearing
of April 14:
Mr. Lindsay: "Are you able, on behalf of CSIS, to
speak of any acts of violence directed by Mr. Zundel?"
Judge Blais: "Your question is directed at classified
information and I will not allow the question."
Mr.Lindsay: "Limited to unclassified information, can
you point to any act of violence inspired by Mr. Zundel?"
CSIS counsel Mr. Rodych objected.
Judge Blais: "I will not allow the question."
Mr. Lindsay continued: "I was not being permitted to
ask about public material to get answers as to a question fundamental to
this case: Did Mr. Zundel ever help or encourage acts of violence? The
import of these transcript quotations is that there is no public evidence
against Mr. Zundel. Objections that had not even been made were upheld and
threats were made to shut down the evidence of Mr. Stewart. Your Lordship
has made it clear that the secret evidence is crucial to the case against
Mr. Zundel."
Referring to Mr. Justice Blais's detention review decision
of January 21, Mr. Lindsay said: "Since then, there's been even more
secret evidence. On June 9, I again asked, and I was told by Your
Lordship. 'Frankly, I don't remember,'"
"I must note the extent of the secrecy," Mr.
Lindsay continued. Not only is there secret evidence, but the person who
is the subject of it doesn't even have the right to know if there is
secret evidence, and the public has to rely on your 'courtesy', to use
Your Lordship's words. Then, there's this secret trial, the very existence
of which, subject to 'courtesy', may be secret."
Quoting from the January 27 transcript, Mr. Lindsay quoted
Judge Blais's ruling:
"IRPA says secrecy is needed if disclosure of the
information 'would be injurious to national security or the safety of any
person.'" The judge has said that this line has never changed. On the
contrary, 'it has been inconsistent in this case. I've been restricted
from asking questions when the information 'could', not 'would', be
injurious of national security. I say respectfully that that's not good
enough. Your Lordship is applying the wrong test: 'would' not 'could' [be
injurious] to national security is mentioned in at least four sections of
IRPA."
Warming to his critique of Judge Blais's handling of this
case, Mr. Lindsay has moved for a second time for the judge to recuse
himself for a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Mr. Lindsay added: "The submissions of Mr. Zundel's
counsel simply get forgotten as if they had never occurred."
In the January 6 disclosure motion decision, Judge Blais
noted that Mr. Harkat, an Arab subject to a similar national security
certificate, was allowed to submit more specific questions about the
secret evidence. Blais, then, asserted that no specific questions have
been asked.
"But, on December 11, I submitted a list of 16
questions. Yet, on January 6, Your Lordship said: 'No specific question
has been asked.' I say this respectfully but firmly."
"IN your June 26. decision, when you quashed the
defence subpoenas, you said: 'I have not been convinced that Mr. Landy (of
the Canadian Jewish Congress) or Mr. Dimant (President of the League for
Human Rights of B"nai Brith) can shed any light on the reasonableness
of the certificate and counsel has been unable to specify the questions he
would ask.'"
Directly taking the former CSIS boss, now judge, to task,
Mr. Lindsay said:
"I say that's wrong. On April 30, I submitted
questions. I would ask Mr. Dimant the nature of his contact with the
ministers (of justice, immigration and the solicitor-general's
department), what he was saying to the ministers, what they were saying to
him, what pressure was being brought to bear on the ministers. B'nai Brith
boasted is was having close communications with the minister. I would ask,
'What was the nature of these communications?' About the Canadian Jewish
Congress, I indicated I would ask what contact there was between [the
Immigration Minister] Coderre and the CJC.. I would ask what led Mr.
Coderre to say about Mr. Zundel 'Just watch me!'."
"This Court has said it has carefully considered the
problems inherent in secret evidence. You Lordship said: 'The evidence
presented to me in camera was weighed carefully as to the quality of the
witnesses.' Yet I say, respectfully but firmly, that even when Mr.
Zundel's counsel are present, they are ignored or not acknowledged, like
your saying I was not able to come up with questions to ask Mr. Dimant. We
are asked to have confidence that the evidence heard in secret against Mr.
Zundel is carefully weighed. I ask that some outline of the secret
evidence against Mr. Zundel be given to us, so that we can call evidence
to refute it. I am submitting questions about the secret evidence that
would not compromise national security."
Examples of Questions Regarding the Secret Evidence
1. Were any live witnesses called as part of the secret
evidence?
2. If so, how many were there? Were any of them
"expert" witnesses?
3. With respect to the witnesses, did they testify as to
their personal knowledge or as to hearsay? Was it first hand hearsay, or
second hand hearsay, or worse?
4. Did any such witnesses have criminal records? Did any
of them have any apparent bias or animus with respect to Mr. Zundel? What
investigation was there (if any) of any bias or animus? Were any of the
witnesses from groups strongly opposed to Mr. Zundel's remaining in
Canada?
5. Were any such witnesses promised or given anything by
CSIS or the government?
6. Did any witness offer corroboration of documentation to
substantiate his testimony?
7. Were any documents introduced as part of the secret
evidence? How many?
8. Were any such documents allegedly written by Mr. Zundel
introduced? How many?
9. How do we know that any such documents were, in fact,
written by Mr. Zundel?
10. Are any of those documents publicly available? If so,
why haven't they been disclosed?
11. Apart from witnesses and documents, what other kinds
of evidence have been introduced as part of the secret evidence?
12. How many days or hours of secret evidence have
occurred? How many days or hours of secret submissions have been made?
Have there been secret submissions about public evidence?
13. In what way has the secret evidence been introduced?
That is, are witnesses sworn or affirmed? Are there examinations in chief,
followed by judicial questioning? Is the evidence transcribed or are notes
simply taken? How does it work?
14. Was some, all, or none of the secret evidence shown to
the Ministers prior to the issuance of the security certificate against
Mr. Zundel? If the answer is, 'not all', did the evidence not presented to
the Ministers exist in CSIS or the Department of Justice's hands as of May
1, 2003, or was it gathered later? If it was not presented to the
Ministers, will your Lordship consider it on the security certificate
review and, if so, on what basis?
[Ingrid's comment inserted here: I have not been able to
double-check the reference to the year 1990 below, but apparently there
exists an official CSIS document that states that, prior to 1990, there
was NO appreciable violence in Canada that could be traced to so-called
"White Supremacist" groups or individuals.]
15. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific
act of violence at any time since 1990.
16. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in a
specific act of violence at any time since 1990.
17. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific
act of violence at any time since 1990.
18. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding a specific
act of violence at any time since 1990.
19. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the strings
with respect to a specific act of violence at any time since 1990.
20. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific
crime at any time since 1990.
21. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging a
specific crime at any time since 1990.
22. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in a
specific crime at any time since 1990.
23. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding a specific
crime at any time since 1990.
24. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string
with respect to a specific crime at any time since 1990.
25. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring any act of
terrorism at any time since 1990.
26. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging any act
of terrorism at any time since 1990.
27. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in
any act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
28. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding any act of
terrorism at any time since 1990.
29. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string
with respect to any act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
30. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
31. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
32. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in
anything that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since
1990.
33. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
34. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string
with respect to anything that could endanger the security of Canada at any
time since 1990.
Crown Attorney Donald MacIntosh insisted that Judge Blais
consign Mr. Zundel to another six months in solitary confinement at the
West Toronto Detention Centre, where he continues to be denied alternative
health products with which he's medicated himself for over 30 years.
"There is more than sufficient evidence Mr. Zundel
should remain in detention under Secondary. 83 of IRPA," MacIntosh
argued. "A judge must ask if there is any evidence the subject is a
threat to national security or the safety of any person or is
likely."
What particularly exercised the gray-maned MacIntosh was
the feat that Mr. Zundel might re-unite with his supporters. If released,
"Mr. Zundel would be able to reestablish links with groups and
individuals who are violent White supremacists and racists and he might be
funding groups that can reasonably be considered terrorist groups and,
therefore, a threat to national security. He's a committed warrior; he's a
committed ideologue," he said, concluding his remarks with a strange
spinning gesture of his upstretched left hand.
Zundel supporters sat in bemused silence. What
"terrorist" groups could the life-long pacifist have contacts
with?
Mr. Zundel is fighting for his freedom and political life.
When he has a desperately depleted defence fund, how could he fund others?
Such logical inconsistencies seem hardly to trouble the Canadian state's
spokesman who seemed intent on keeping Canada's most famous dissident in
prison indefinitely to prevent him from political activity.
Judge Blais reserved his decision.
[END]
