Canada's not-so-secret secret

Dec 18, 2004

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

A few weeks ago I got hold of a list of professors of law at various Canadian universities who are gathering support for opposing the loathsome Security Certificate Act. Sixty names were on this list - one might presume, if one is optimistic as I am, that they belong to men and women of conscience with solid grounding in the law.

I wrote to all of them, spending more than $500 on a Global Priority mailing so no one could have the excuse they might have missed my envelope. I sent them information about my own credentials as a fellow writer with educational credentials as well as basic information about Ernst, including "Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell # 7."

Four of them refused my mailing out of hand. They are Professor Michael Link of the University of British Columbia, Kim Brooks of the University of British Columbia, and Professor William Black of the University of British Columbia. Professor Sanda Rodgers of Ottawa (no university affiliation given) likewise shipped my mailing back to me.

The rest of the recipients were silent as the grave.

Several weeks later I followed up with yet another mailing, this time including the FBI Report that clears Ernst utterly of any "terrorist" connection or involvement.

One more illustrious academic refused that hot potato mailing - Professor Nicole LaViolette of Ottawa, Ontario. (No university affiliation given)

Two additional envelopes came back as "undeliverable" because, allegedly, the University of British Columbia could not be spotted by the postal employee.

May we assume that political correctness has utterly co-opted its venerated faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, as far as the name Zundel is concerned - or that there sits one anti-Zundel censor, undetected, where mail gets sorted out?

That still leaves 53. Not one of them saw fit to comment, at least not openly. I think dark thoughts. Who wouldn't?

I do detect a tiny media shift, however. Several media mavens are now beginning, ever so reluctantly and gingerly, to add Ernst Zundel's name to the five Muslim victims who sit in prison sans any means of any meaningful legal defense. Except for some courageous Globe and Mail editorials that spoke up for his rights, it used to be for almost two years that Ernst was either vilified the ritualistic way or totally ignored in any formal write-ups - and only "five muslims" were mentioned.

Shortly, I shall follow up with mailing Number 3. This time I'll send a DVD demo of our Zundel documentary-to-be. Let's see what happens next.

Meanwhile, compare the interesting development in two very similar countries, Canada and the UK, that have adopted Stalinist tactics to "aid" the War on Terror by locking up some folks but never bothering to tell them why so as to allow a defense - with Canada remaining staunchly Stalinist, but with the British having second thoughts:

[START]

1. CANADA'S 'DIRTY LITTLE SECRET' Toronto Star, 12/17/04

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1103237410061&call_pageid=968256290204&col=9683501167 95

International Human Rights Day usually passes without notice in Canada. There aren't many egregious violations of human rights to talk about. This year, things were different. On Dec. 10 - the 56th anniversary of the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that got a lot of people talking.

A three-judge panel affirmed Ottawa's right to use security certificates to detain suspected terrorists without charging them or giving them full access to the evidence against them. The court said such treatment - while unusual - was neither unjustified nor unconstitutional.

This procedure makes it virtually impossible for a person accused of threatening Canadian security to mount a credible defence. It strips him or her of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, on which Canada's justice system is based. It gives the state the power to deport individuals for reasons they will never know.

"People's lives are being destroyed but they face no charges and they have no effective way to defend themselves," said Ed Broadbent, former leader of the New Democratic party.

"For many Muslims and Arabs, security certificates embody an arbitrary and non-transparent legal process that they never expected to find in a democratic country," said Riad Saloojee, executive-director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

=====

2. British Anti-Terror Law Reined In

By Glenn Frankel

The Washington Post

Thursday 16 December 2004

Highest court of appeals rules foreign terror suspects cannot be held indefinitely.

London - Britain's highest court of appeal struck a blow against the government's anti-terrorism policy Thursday by ruling it cannot detain suspected foreign terrorists indefinitely without trial.

In a stinging rebuke to Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, the panel ruled by 8 to 1 that the anti-terrorism act that authorized the detentions violated European human rights laws and were discriminatory because they applied only to foreign nationals and not to British citizens.

"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these," wrote Leonard Hoffmann, one of the eight Law Lords in the majority, referring to the anti-terrorism provision. "That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

The decision was hailed as a triumph by civil libertarians who have labeled as "Britain's Guantanamo Bay" the indefinite detention of 11 suspects, most of whom have been held since December 2001.

Under British law, the last word on the legality of the anti-terrorism act belongs to Parliament and not the courts. But legal observers said the ruling would force the government to amend the law to either bring the men to trial or allow for less restrictive measures such as house arrest.

"It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and how we should amend the law," said Home Secretary Charles Clarke in a statement . "Accordingly, I will not be . . . releasing the detainees, whom I have reason to believe are a significant threat to our security."

Parliament adopted an amended anti-terrorism act in December 2001, in response to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, that allowed for the detention and deportation of foreign nationals accused of terrorism. In cases where the detainees argued that deportation to their host country could lead to their torture or killing, the authorities opted for indefinite imprisonment.

Eleven men are currently being held under the act, including Abu Qatada, a cleric whom the government has described as being the spiritual inspiration for leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks. Another detainee is Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian who was granted refugee status in Britain after he alleged he had been tortured in Israel. The others have not been identified.

In all, 17 people have been detained under the act. Three others have been freed, one released but charged under another provision of the law and two others voluntarily left the country rather than remain in custody. The detentions have been upheld by a special tribunal in secret hearings.

[END]

===== ===== =====

Reminder:

Help free Ernst Zundel, Prisoner of Conscience. His prison sketches - now on-line and highly popular - help pay for his defence. Take a look - and tell a friend.

http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html

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