|
March 31, 2003
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
- IMMIGRATION DIVISION -
Record of a Detention Review under the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, concerning
ERNST ZUNDEL
HELD AT: Niagara Falls Office
DATE: March 31, 2003
BEFORE: R. Murrant - Member
APPEARANCES:
E. Zundel - Person Concerned
W. Reid - Minister's Counsel
D. MacIntosh - Minister's Counsel
T. Hoffmann - Minister's Counsel
P. Fromm - Counsel
N/A - Interpreter
MEMBER: This is a detention review held by me, Robert
Murrant, an Immigration and Refugee Board member. This review is taking
place today, the 31st of March 2003 at Niagara Falls, Ontario and the
hearing concerning Ernst Zundel who is present.
This is a detention review and what I mean by that is I'm
going to hold a hearing to decide whether you, Mr. Zundel, remain in
detention or get released. What's going to happen is the Immigration
Department is going to present your evidence and then I'm going to give you
an opportunity to present whatever information or evidence you wish to
present. After I hear both sides I'll make a decision.
If at the conclusion of the hearing I am of the opinion that
you pose a danger to the public or that you're unlikely to appear or that
the Minister is taking the necessary steps to inquire into reasonable
suspicion that you are..there are reasonable grounds to believe that you
should be inadmissible on grounds of security or violation of human rights
or international rights I can order that you remain in detention.
58(1)(c) which is the last one referring to grounds of
reasonable suspicion that there are grounds of inadmissibility on security
grounds are the first grounds that I'm going to look at and if I find that
to be the case then I won't deal with the other two.
Mr. Zundel, are you represented today by counsel?
PERSON CONCERNED: I'm represented by Mr. Fromm, and may I
ask how do I address you, sir? Are you a Chairman? Are you Mr. Murrant? How
do we address you?
MEMBER: Mr. Murrant is fine.
PERSON CONCERNED: Okay. Mr. Paul Fromm, he'll be helping me.
MEMBER: Okay.
PERSON CONCERNED: He's not an attorney, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Mr. Fromm, what is your occupation?
COUNSEL: I'm the Director of the Canadian Association for
Free Expression, sir.
MEMBER: And you're prepared to proceed today?
COUNSEL: I am.
MEMBER: Counsel for the Minister would you identify
yourself, please?
MR. MACINTOSH: Yes, good morning, Mr. Murrant. My name is
Donald MacIntosh and I'm a Barrister and Solicitor with the Department of
Justice.
MR. HOFFMAN: Good morning, Mr. Murrant. My name is Toby
Hoffman. I'm a Barrister and Solicitor with the Department of Justice.
MEMBER: Okay. Mr. MacIntosh, as I indicated earlier, my
intention is to deal with 58(1)(c) first of all and if I feel it necessary
to go beyond that then we'll deal with that separately, okay? So, would you
being, please.
MR. MACINTOSH: At this time we would like to call Mr. Dave
Stewart who testified in this proceeding. Mr. Stewart is an employee of the
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service.
We have some concerns with respect to his picture being
taken and we would ask that you order that his picture not be taken by any
broadcast or print media or indeed by any members of the public.
Our concerns relate to his personal safety and we would like
to call him as a witness and we will meet an evidentiary basis from him
related to him why it is in our submission his picture should not be taken.
MEMBER: Counsel?
COUNSEL: I object to that, Mr. Murrant. The public has a
right to know. I think the accused has a right to face his accuser..sorry.
The defendant has a right to face his accusers publicly and the public has
the right to see who's giving evidence and I think the comment that the
person's safety might be at risk is absolutely inflammatory and very
detrimental to Mr. Zundel who is a pacifist and threatens nobody.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all this has nothing to do
with the ability of Mr. Zundel to make a full answer in defense or to use a
nomenclature or Mr. Fromm to face his accuser.
First of all, Mr. Stewart is a witness in these proceedings
and testified last time. Mr. Zundel was afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine him and did cross-examine him. At this proceeding his counsel
will be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine and he will be able to do
that.
I would note that witnesses on behalf of the Canadian
Security and Intelligence Service regularly testify in Federal Court
proceedings. Those proceedings are not televised. Their pictures are not
taken because of security concerns. This witness has responsibilities that
extend beyond this case.
Pursuant to Section 12 of the CSIS Act he conducts
investigations related to the security of Canada and our concerns certainly
cannot be limited to the proceedings today and in fact Mr. Zundel has
already been afforded more disclosure with respect to Mr. Stewart's identity
in that his last name has been used in these proceedings which is something
that is not always done.
The freedom of expression is not absolute and is subject to
certain limitations that are well recognized and grounded in the Supreme of
Canada jurisprudence. I have case law that I can refer you to in that
regard.
I would note that in the Chirrelli (ph) decision which is a
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada under the Immigration Act the
Supreme Court of Canada held that there was a need to protect sources of
information and it's my respectful submission that there is a need to
protect a person in the position of Mr. Stewart.
In no way does Mr. Zundel's ability to deal with whether or
not he should remain in detention depend upon the issue of whether or not
Mr. Stewart's picture should be taken by any media or indeed by any member
of the public. The two are not related whatsoever.
MEMBER: Thank you. I agree with Mr. MacIntosh. I don't see
how Mr. Zundel is prejudiced by the media not being allowed to take the
officer's picture or put it either on television or in a newspaper.
Mr. Zundel will be present here while the witness testifies
and his counsel will be here as well and they can cross-examine him if they
wish, but I don't see any need to have this person's photograph either on
television or in the newspapers and given that he is a member of CSIS and in
all likelihood involved in many, many cases and in all likelihood dealing
with cases where his identity, if known, could cause him or others injury I
don't believe that his picture should be taken.
So, I'm telling all of the members of the media now that you
are not to take pictures of Mr. Stewart when he is presented.
Any problems, Mr. MacIntosh?
MR. MACINTOSH: I would also ask that that order extend to
members of the public who may have entered this room to attend.
MEMBER: I agree. So if anyone in here has a camera you're
not to take a picture. Just so everybody knows. Okay.
MR. MACINTOSH: I'd like to call Mr. Stewart.
MEMBER: Okay, thank you. Mr. Stewart, you've been called as
a witness to this hearing. Would you please place your right hand on the
Bible? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
WITNESS #1: I do.
MEMBER: Thank you. Please be seated.
--- DAVE STEWART - (Witness #1): SWORN
MEMBER: Counsel?
EXAMINATION OF DAVE STEWART - WITNESS #1
EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q: Good morning, Mr. Stewart. A:
Good morning.
Q: I'm just going to begin by asking you a couple of
questions and then Mr. MacIntosh will have a few questions for you and then
I'll continue with the examination. Are you an employee of the Canadian
Security and Intelligence Service? A: I am.
Q: And how long have you been employed by the Service? A:
Since 1984.
Q: Thank you. Mr. Stewart, as an employee of the Canadian
Security and Intelligence Service do you conduct investigations pursuant to
Section 12 of the CSIS Act? A: Yes, I do.
Q: And have you testified in Federal Court proceedings as an
employee of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service? A: I have.
Q: Okay. In those proceedings have you testified have any of
those proceedings been televised? A: No, they have not.
Q: Do you have some concerns in respect of your personal
safety in the event that your picture was taken or your picture either by
print media or by broadcast media and disseminated by the public? A: Yes,
I'm an Intelligence Officer and I have conducted and continue to conduct and
I will conduct investigations involving threat to the security of Canada.
Because of that if my image was transmitted across the country or locally it
could be detrimental to those investigations.
Q: Thank you. Those are my questions.
MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Murrant, I'd just like to approach about
providing some open information that was released in the summary of the
index to Mr. Zundel.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
COUNSEL: Mr. Murrant, I wonder if we could see a copy of
this?
MEMBER: Mr. Hoffman?
COUNSEL: We don't have an extra copy, Mr. Murrant (inaudible
- tape defective - ends)
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: Okay. I think I've got this thing working again.
Okay, Counsel, repeat your objection.
COUNSEL: Yes, I would like a copy of the documents before
Mr. Stewart. I had no knowledge of this. No possibility of reviewing it and
it puts me in a terrible disadvantage in terms of asking any intelligent
questions on it.
MEMBER: Counsel?
MR. HOFFMAN: I just said to my friend and the person
concerned that all the documents in those binders were given to them in the
form of an index. Mr. Zundel apparently didn't present it to his counsel.
MEMBER: So, they were made available to Mr. Zundel?
MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, they were attached to the summary that I
believe were forwarded to Mr. Zundel.
COUNSEL: There was a supplementary report that apparently
was delivered to Mr. Zundel in the last few days which I have not seen a
copy of, but the appendix, the appendix..the documents in the appendix were
not given to Mr. Zundel and I've had no opportunity to look at them and our
inability to study them in advance makes it very difficult to ask questions
and to provide a competent defense.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all...
MEMBER: Yes?
MR. MACINTOSH: ...the witness testified at proceedings last
day. He relied on the very material that is we are now proposing to rely and
Mr. Zundel had an opportunity the last time to examine those documents.
Since the witness testified he can ask the witness questions about any of
those documents and he did proceed to question him in his cross-examination
based on some of those documents.
So, you know, to some extent Mr. Zundel has been afforded
that possibility already albeit in the absence of counsel. Now, we are
perfectly prepared to have an adjournment and re-adjourn and counsel can
look through these documents and indeed counsel is afforded the opportunity
of asking the witness in cross-examination to turn to a particular document.
MEMBER: Okay. Well, let's..first of all let's back up. I
sent out a notice to Mr. Zundel of material that was involved in a hearing I
conducted ex-parte in Ottawa and I sent this to Mr. Zundel and I believe you
received it, is that correct, Mr. Zundel?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, and I have a question on it.
MEMBER: Okay. Well, first of all I'm going to mark this as
DR number 1 and it consists of a cover page, two pages, and then the summary
report of eight pages.
--- ATTACHMENT DR-1: Notice With Cover Page, 2 Pages With
Attached Summary Report of 8 Pages
MEMBER: Now...
COUNSEL: Mr. Murrant, I'm confused.
MEMBER: Yes?
COUNSEL: What you're marking as evidence now is that your
letter to Mr. Zundel regarding the ex-parte hearing?
MEMBER: Yes. Yes, it is.
COUNSEL: But the one I have here is two pages?
MEMBER: Right.
COUNSEL: A cover page...
MEMBER: The decision is two pages, right?
COUNSEL: Yes.
MEMBER: All right. And then attached to that was the summary
report.
COUNSEL: Is the new summary report?
MEMBER: Correct.
COUNSEL: Dated the 22nd of the 2nd?
MEMBER: 28th of the 2nd.
PERSON CONCERNED: Mr. Murrant?
MEMBER: Sorry.
PERSON CONCERNED: Mr. Fromm was not aware that this was sent
to me and we haven't met until today.
MEMBER: Okay.
PERSON CONCERNED: But you aren't even aware of this either.
The summary that you're now quoting from is 28th of February which is
updated, revised, changed in 12 different places than the one that is in
evidence with Mr. Thompson. Drastically changed, Mr. Murrant.
So now, are we disregarding what was said about a month ago?
Is Mr. Stewart claiming that in the last four weeks I have suddenly become a
worse person again? I mean, this is very serious thing. We are changing
documents in midstream. CSIS updated their report from February 27th (sic)
which Mr. Stewart handed in here in the morning on a Friday in the hearing.
In the afternoon obviously after he went back to the office somebody in 12
different places drastically changed the summary.
MEMBER: Okay. Well, we'll deal with that if we need to deal
with that.
PERSON CONCERNED: I think you ought to.
MEMBER: Okay. Well, we'll see if we will or not.
PERSON CONCERNED: Thank you.
MEMBER: So first of all everybody has this? That's my first
concern.
PERSON CONCERNED: Mr. Fromm does not.
MEMBER: Okay, but I've provided you with a copy and...
PERSON CONCERNED: Photocopies.
MEMBER: And the first time you saw your counsel was today,
right?
PERSON CONCERNED: That's right.
MEMBER: Now, what are you telling that Mr. Zundel received
other than this?
MR. HOFFMAN: Well, all I was meaning to say, Mr. Murrant, is
that he received it and he had an index of the documents, so if any of those
documents were of interest to him here is counsel, he could probably have
obtained them.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN: Furthermore, as Mr. MacIntosh has said, he's
already had an opportunity to cross-examine on those documents at the first
hearing. So, this is nothing new to him. From what he said himself he just
hasn't provided the information to his counsel.
I think in fairness though, as Mr. MacIntosh had said, if
they'd like a few minutes just to review the binders I don't think that's an
issue.
MEMBER: Well, I don't think counsel is going to be satisfied
with just a few minutes. Isn't that your problem?
COUNSEL: That's right. It's four inches thick.
MEMBER: Okay. I'm not too sure why all of this material is
required. Why your witness needs it and why it has to be in this form
anyway.
The first thing we're going to deal with today, as I
indicated earlier, was is the Minister taking necessary steps to inquire
into a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Zundel..that Mr. Zundel is inadmissible
on grounds of security.
I don't think you need specifics. I don't think you need
dates. I don't think you need anything other than telling me what necessary
steps are being taken.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, the witness is going to testify and
he's going to do that in furtherance of the Minister's submissions that
necessary steps are being taken under Section 58(1)(c) and secondly..so in
order to give a complete record pertaining to that issue.
Secondly is we'll afford counsel and Mr. Zundel an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness since he has not had to date.
And furthermore, it's my respectful submission that why
don't we see what documents the witness refers to? I mean, obviously the
witness is not going to be referring to each and every documents that are in
those binders and the witness will probably be referring to a very small
number of documents and counsel can examine those documents and that may
facilitate his concern.
MEMBER: Counsel?
COUNSEL: Well, for the record I object to this manner of
procedure. We have to have some opportunity to study these in advance and as
Mr. Zundel was in prison it's very difficult for him to obtain documents
that appear at a very quick glance in books and extensive reports. We're not
talking about a couple of photocopies and so I'm being in no position to
examine any of this material and it's very difficult to cross-examine on
that basis.
MEMBER: Okay. Let's talk about what is this material?
MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Murrant, all the material that is before
Mr. Stewart is open source information. It's information that comes from
publications and journals and I submit it's the basis of the classified
summary that you presented to Mr. Zundel.
So, that is the only reason we provided it to Mr. Stewart,
so that he may refer to it if he wants to refresh his memory.
MR. MACINTOSH: I would not furthermore that the law is very
clear, the law with respect to disclosure and in the absence of a specific
request for documentation there is no obligation to disclose information,
even with respect to Stinchcolm (ph) which is no application to civil
proceedings. That is the law.
We received, Mr. Reid, received a letter from Mr. Fromm who
is counsel and asked for disclosure of a specific document related to
information that was in the possession of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration pertaining to a conviction in Germany with respect to Mr. Zundel
and that information was promptly disclosed to Mr. Fromm.
So there has been a communication between the Commission and
counsel for Mr. Zundel. That was the only thing that was requested
pertaining to disclosure.
Counsel presumably, because he prepared for this hearing,
undoubtedly got a copy of the transcript and was able to see from the
transcript that the witness had testified in relation to certain issues and
so he had an opportunity to request further disclosure and he didn't do so.
So therefore the Commission cannot be faulted for not
anticipating disclosure that counsel is now requesting. It's up to him as
counsel to take steps of a pro-active nature on behalf of his client.
COUNSEL: Mr. Murrant, I think Mr. MacIntosh misstates my
correspondence with Mr. Reid. I asked Mr. Reid, this is the crux of my
request, all documents in the possession of the government regarding charges
Ernst Zundel in the German courts, the disposition of these cases.
I only received what appears to be a request for extradition
of Ernst Zundel in regards to some present charges. I asked for the entire
documentation on charges against Ernst Zundel in the German courts going
back to the early 1980's. I receive one document.
So, the governments has not been at all responsive to my
request.
MEMBER: What I'm going to do is I'm going to allow the
witness to refer to the documents and I'll give you an opportunity to look
at the documents before you are required to cross-examine and we'll see how
much time I'm prepared to give you.
COUNSEL: Are we now..so we are now hearing evidence on the
document that begins with your letter to Mr. Zundel about the in-camera
hearings and continuing with the new summary report, is that correct?
MEMBER: No, what I understand is we're talking about those
binders in front of the witness and that the witness is going to use as an
aid to his memory I take it?
MR. HOFFMAN: That is correct.
COUNSEL: But these relate to the new summary, is that
correct?
MEMBER: I take it that they're part of the new summary, is
that right?
MR. HOFFMAN: That's right. They do relate to that summary
that was issued to Mr. Zundel last week.
COUNSEL: Well then, but this is all part of one document
starting off with the letter from yourself about the in-camera hearing?
MEMBER: Yes.
COUNSEL: Okay. Well then at this point I'd like to object to
the fact that they were in-camera hearings. This seriously prejudices the
right of the defendant to confront his accusers, even to know what his
accusers have said.
I would also like to ask at this time if there were lawyers
from SIRC (ph) present at that hearing?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all the in-camera procedure is
a procedure that is provided in the statute of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act pursuant to Section 86 of that Act, which specifically
authorizes an in-camera procedure, and Section 86 of that Act references
Section 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in relation to
in-camera procedures.
In-camera procedures are regularly held in the Federal Court
in cases involving allegations with respect to the danger, to the security
of Canada. In a case called Bohani (ph) those proceedings were upheld by not
only the Federal Court Trial Division, the Federal Court Appeal, leave to
appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Furthermore, I would note that in the Chirrelli decision
which dealt with in-camera hearings held before the Security and
Intelligence Review Committee the Supreme Court of Canada held that to have
in-camera hearings in the absence of counsel did not violate Section 7 of
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of fundamental justice.
In that particular case, I'll just refer to this. I have a
Book of Authorities which I'd like to hand up. My friend has been given a
copy. In Chirrelli, which is at tab 5, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld
the constitutionality of this process and in that particular case there were
rules, they weren't even statutes, starting at page 744, it says at the
bottom of the page, after referring to the right of an individual to an
interest and fair procedure, it says, "The state also has a
considerable interest in effectively conducting national security and
criminal intelligence investigations and in protecting police sources. The
need for confidentiality in national security cases was emphasized by Lord
Denning (ph) in R versus Secretary of State for the Home Department ex-parti
Vozunval (ph)."
There's a quote set out at 745, "The information
supplied to the Home Secretary by the security service is and must be highly
confidential. The public interest and the security of the realm is so great
that the sources of information must not be disclosed nor should the nature
of the information itself be disclosed if there's any risk it would lead to
the sources being discovered. The reason is because in this very secret
appeal our enemies might try to eliminate the source of the
information."
Then they also discuss that there's a need for protection of
police sources in the context of drug related cases and then in the third
paragraph of 745 they say, "The CSIS Act and (inaudible) Rules
recognize the (inaudible) individual and state interest and attempt to find
a reasonable balance between them." Talking about the need for
discretion.
So, in my respectful submission..if you go back to 743 you
can see the process that was applied before SIRC. It says, "A party to
an oral hearing," reading from the first paragraph, "may be
represented by counsel, may call and examine witnesses and may make
representations. It is within the Committee's discretion to exclude from the
hearing one or more parties during the giving or evidence or making
representations by another party.
It is also within the Committee's discretion balancing the
requirements of preventing threats to the security of Canada and providing
fairness to the person affected to determine whether a party is entitled to
cross-examine witnesses called by the other party and whether if the party
has been excluded from portions of the hearing and substance of the evidence
given or representations made by the other party should be disclosed to that
party." And it points out that, "The principles of fundamental
justice vary according to the interests at stake."
So, this entire procedure, a procedure similar to this
procedure, has been ruled, has been Constitution by the Supreme Court of
Canada, the highest court in the land in Chirrelli and in fact, most
recently of this year, in the Suresh decision which appears at tab 3.
This is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated
January 11th, 2002. At page 54 the Supreme Court of Canada says as follows,
and before I read this I'll just..this was a case involving terrorism and it
related to among other things disclosure of certain information and whether
or not the appellant, Mr. Suresh, or persons generally who have been accused
of being inadmissible to Canada by reason of terrorist activities receive a
certain level of disclosure.
And the Supreme Court said at paragraph 126, they were
talking about a Section 53(1)(b) opinion which is related to whether or not
a person should be removed from Canada as constituting a danger to the
security of Canada to a country where the person could face the risk of
torture and they said that after outlining that the Minister must provide
written reasons for her decision as to whether or not the person constitutes
a danger to the country of Canada, a decision given under Section 53(1)(b)
of the Immigration Act, they said, "The reasons must also articulate
why subject to privilege or valid legal reasons for not disclosing detailed
information the Minister believed the individual to be a danger to the
security of Canada as required by the Act."
So, privilege is an additional ground for not disclosing
information. When they say "for valid legal reasons" obviously
danger to the security of Canada or what is specifically referred to in
Section 78 of the Act, and if I can just..if I can just turn to that.
Section 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
which applies to this Board by virtue of the intersection between Section 78
and Section 86 says that, referring to Section 78(g), "The information
or evidence described in paragraph (e)," and paragraph (e) refers to,
"A test of whether or not disclosure of information would be injurious
to national security or the threat of any person," "shall not be
included in the summary, but may be considered by the judge in deciding
whether the certificate is reasonable if the judge determines that the
information or evidence is relevant and the disclosure would be injurious to
national security or the safety of any person."
Now, in conducting the procedure at the in-camera hearing
that was held last week you applied those Sections of the statute not only
in Section 86, but also the reference in Section 78 of the Act, and averted
to the requirements pertaining to the need not to disclosure information
that is injurious or could be injurious to the safety of persons or a danger
ot the security of Canada.
Consistent with the statutory scheme and also having regard
to principles of fundamental justice which you averted to, you after
examining the material that was provided, provided a summary which was given
to Mr. Zundel and it's our respectful submission that that summary fairly
reflects the material that was adduced before you in-camera and indeed, in
issuing that summary you made a determination that the summary fairly
reflected the material that was adduced in-camera.
Based on Chirrelli and Suresh and on the statutory scheme
Mr. Zundel is not entitled to any greater degree of disclosure in this
regard, and in fact, his counsel's assertions are entirely inconsistent with
not only the statutory scheme, but all the case law laid down by the Supreme
Court of Canada that specifically relates to matter of national security.
Those are my submissions.
MEMBER: Thank you.
COUNSEL: In my respectful submission Chirrelli does not
apply here. If you look at page 745 it references, "The documents set
out the nature of the information received by the Review Committee for the
Ministers, including that the respondent had been involved in drug
trafficking and was involved in the murder of a named individual."
This was meant to apply to protect witnesses in matters of
serious breaches of the Criminal Code like drug trafficking and murder. Here
we have..here we have a man who's a publisher. He's not a drug trafficker.
He's not a murdered.
In fact, in the previous summary of CSIS evidence against
Mr. Zundel there was the admission that he's a non-violent man himself. So,
this would not seem to apply whatsoever. These are not..this is not a case
of a dangerous drug traffickier or a murder for hire network, this man is a
publisher and to hold these hearings in secret is basically to deny him any
ability to respond to the charges.
PERSON CONCERNED: Mr. Murrant, I must ask your indulgence
because Mr. Fromm does not know the facts entirely of this case. I am no
stranger to secret evidence being introduced against me.
I battled for five years against CSIS with the assistance of
the Security Intelligence Review Committee at every open Federal Court
hearing, at every secret session, I was told by two senior SIRC attorneys,
Mr. Cameron and Mrs. MacKenzie, that SIRC takes my interest at any secret
in-camera showing of evidence, they are my representatives to make sure that
you in this case, Mr. Murrant, look at this material, follow the rules.
No aspersions cast against you, sir. It is the rule of
fundamental or Canadian tradition. I was told in Eddie Goodman's (ph) office
on Yonge Street in January 1995 and unless Mr. MacIntosh can say to me that
the law has been changed the law is..SIRC representatives, not one, two,
have been present at those hearings.
Now, maybe because you're not the Federal Court and this is
Immigration it might be different, but that's what I was told and we battled
for five years. Every time we went to Federal Court, every time we made
Motions, submissions, always two SIRC lawyers present.
MEMBER: Mr. MacIntosh?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all, I'll respond to Mr. Fromm
and then I'll deal with what Mr. Zundel just said.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. MACINTOSH: The Chirrelli case is a very ranging case
which is not at all confined to the facts related to the drug trafficking or
threats to a person. Mr. Fromm completely misunderstands the import of the
case and misstates the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Canada. They're
clearly set out in the case.
The Supreme Court of Canada was enunciating broad principles
of law, which Chirrelli indeed is one of the cases quoted regularly by the
Federal Court when dealing with terrorism cases and other cases where people
are alleged to be a danger to the security of Canada. It has never been
confined to the specific facts in the case.
Secondly, in relation to the Security Intelligence Review
Committee argument that was just made by Mr. Zundel I would note that you're
operating under a completely different statutory regime than the Security
Intelligence Review Committee.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee is a watchdog for
CSIS and the Immigration and Refugee Board in these proceedings, as you're
well aware, has its own counsel, independent counsel, who they will assist
you coming to any..with respect to legal advice and coming to any
determinations you may make in the course of this hearing should you choose
to call upon them.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee obviously are not
here today because they do not consider this to be within their mandate. The
Immigration and Refugee Board is entirely a separate tribunal, as I said,
who operates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which is a
completely different statute.
MEMBER: The hearing that was conducted in Ottawa was
conducted under 86 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and
therefore has come about as a result of the statute and it clearly indicates
that such a hearing is lawful in this statute and I'm satisfied that the
hearing was not contrary to the Charter of Rights and I do believe that
Chirrelli and Suresh do apply.
So, I'm not satisfied that there's anything in here that
offers you can relief from the decision that I make. Carry on.
COUNSEL: Well then, just for the record I renew my objection
and again ask if there were any lawyers from SIRC present?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, I don't think that really what my
friend is doing is asking for further disclosure with respect to what took
place at the in-camera hearing. It's my submission that we shouldn't be
required to answer that.
If he wishes to pursue that it's open to him to contact the
Security Intelligence Review Committee directly and see what they have to
say about that, but you prepared a statement that has been disclosed to Mr.
Zundel and that is the extent of the disclosure to which he's entitled in my
respectful submission in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice under Section 7 of the Charter.
So, my friend is attempting to obtain further disclosure of
an in-camera process that he's not entitled to receive under the law.
MEMBER: I've provided the summary and my decision and that's
the information you're going to get about that. Carry on, please.
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Murrant.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q. Mr. Stewart, could
you briefly explain what the mandate of the Service is? Canadian Security
Intelligence Service? A: The Service investigates threats to the security of
Canada as defined in the CSIS Act under Section 12 of the Act and the
threats are referred in Section 2(c). CSIS also provides information to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under Section 13 of the CSIS Act.
Q: Mr. Stewart, would it be correct for me to say, or would
you agree that a large portion of the Service's business concerns the
collection of information concerning threats to the security of Canada? A:
That's correct.
Q: Now, as you've heard, Mr. Stewart, we've been talking
about a summary report that Mr. Murrant provided to Mr. Zundel. Do you have
a copy of that report with you? A: Yes, I have a copy of the report.
Q: The document that was provided by Mr. Murrant, if you
would take a look at it, says it was unclassified. Now, Mr. Stewart, can you
just briefly indicate the source of the information contained in this
document? A: The sources of information contained in this document are
documents that were of an unclassified nature which were available to the
Service. Statements that were made in this document are supported by
reference material that I have in these binders that we've spoken about
earlier.
Q: Okay. Now, Mr. Stewart, can you just briefly state does
the Service have information, other information, in relation to the contents
of that document, the unclassified document? A: Yes, there's additional
information that's available to the Service.
Q: Thank you. If I could take you to the unclassified
summary. In paragraph 2 there are three allegations concerning Mr. Zundel.
The first is that he's viewed as a patriarchal leader of the White
Supremacist Movement in Canada, that he's a leading distributor of
revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda worldwide and then he's maintained contacts
with White Supremacists internationally and channeled money to those
contacts to promote his case.
In your opinion, Mr. Stewart, are those accurate
allegations? A: Yes, they are.
Q: Now, with regards to the first allegation that I read
out, of Mr. Zundel being a patriarchal leader of the White Supremacist
Movement, for the benefit of Mr. Murrant could you briefly explain what that
movement is? A: The White Supremacist Movement was, and has been active in
Canada for a number of years, in the mid-90's it was a group of neo-Nazi
individuals across Canada, a large number of whom were active in the Toronto
area, and included contacts with individuals in other countries who were
likeminded. Involvement with groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and others in
North America and abroad.
Q: Now, Mr. Stewart, in paragraph 1 of the summary it states
Mr. Zundel left Canada for the United States in August of 2000. Could you
briefly explain what had happened to the movement after Mr. Zundel had left
Canada? A: In my opinion the neo-Nazi White Supremacist Movement in Canada
peaked in the mid-90's and has been on the decline since that period. My
readings on the matter indicate that there was a lot of dissention within
the movement itself and by the time Mr. Zundel had left Canada the group was
not, or the groups were not as strong as they had been in earlier years.
Q: So, Mr. Stewart, what in your opinion believe may happen
to the movement if Mr. Zundel were released or allowed to remain in Canada?
A: The indications from open source information are that Mr. Zundel is a
lightening rod for individuals who believe in the neo-Nazi White Supremacist
philosophy. It would seem to me that historically the information that's
available through those media sources, through open information, indicate
that he has had a strong leadership role within that community for a lengthy
period of time and should he return to Canada one could assume that he would
resume that role.
Q: Now, I'm going to ask you to turn to paragraph 11 of the
unclassified summary, please. Now, as I recall, this paragraph speaks to an
interview that Mr. Zundel engaged in with The Fifth Estate. Are you aware of
that interview? A: Yes, I am.
Q: Now, it says in paragraph 11 that Mr. Zundel stated,
"I support the groups in Germany. Yes, absolutely. I've organized
speaking tours for what I call Ernst Zundel's Foreign Legion, the
Intellectual Foreign Legion's information campaigns." Can you speak
briefly about what Mr. Zundel had said or your opinion on what he had said
in regards to supporting groups in Germany? A: If you'll allow me I'll turn
to that document which is I believe a transcript of the interview which took
place in February 1993?
Q: Okay.
MEMBER: Just before we go any further when I look at
58(1)(c) it says, "The Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire
into reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of
security." That's what you're trying to establish here, right?
MR. HOFFMAN: I think, Mr. Murrant, with respect, we're
taking Mr. Stewart through the evidence so that he can demonstrate for you
that there is information of an open nature which he's already said the
Service possesses other information in this same regard.
So, you'll have an appreciation of the fact that something
is being done in this regard. The Government of Canada is or can be seen
taking steps. By having Mr. Stewart here to speak to the information,
hopefully that will be evident to you.
MEMBER: Well, are you saying there's an ongoing
investigation now?
MR. HOFFMAN: I can't comment on that, Mr. Murrant, but what
I can say is the Government of Canada is taking steps in that regard with
regards to Mr. Zundel's inadmissibility or admissibility to Canada. I
guess...
MEMBER: Okay, you can't give evidence. He has to give
evidence, right?
MR. HOFFMAN: That's correct, and that's why I'm going
through these questions with him, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Well, I'm just..what you're providing me is more
detailed information than I think I require. That's why I'm questioning you
about this.
What I want to know is what steps you're taking or explain
to me the necessary steps and the reasonableness of the suspicion. You're
saying this goes to the reasonableness of the suspicion, right?
MR. MACINTOSH: It does go to the reasonableness of the
suspicion in my respectful submission. All of this provides a factual and
legal backdrop that goes to the reasonableness of the suspicion under
Section 58(1)(c) and this is all the statutory scheme in Section 58(1)(c) is
obviously related to a context and you're being given testimony in relation
to the particular context of this case that has accrued over any number of
years up to and including the present date.
MEMBER: Well, the first thing I want to know is about
this..just to keep it simple for me. We start off with necessary steps. So
let's start off with necessary steps.
What do you mean by that and what are they?
MR. HOFFMAN: Can I have one minute?
MEMBER: Yes.
MR. HOFFMAN: Can I just beg your indulgence for a few
minutes, Mr. Murrant?
MEMBER: Do you want a recess?
MR. MACINTOSH: Sure. Perhaps ten minutes.
MEMBER: Okay. Recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is now resumed. Mr. Hoffman?
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Murrant. I have three questions
for Mr. Stewart to hopefully address your concerns.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN: That you raised before the recess.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q: Mr. Stewart, can
you discuss what steps are being taken by the Service with regards to Mr.
Zundel? A: The Service is preparing to give advice to the Minister and in so
doing we are analyzing the information that's available to us right. We
have, as I described earlier, a mandate to collect, analyze and obtain
information and provide advice to the government.
We are currently reviewing all the documentation that we
have at our disposal to provide advice to the government. We will do so in
consultation with CIC and we will do so in consultation with the Solicitor
General.
Q: Mr. Stewart, to clarify, has the Service completed its
analysis of the information? A: No, it has not.
Q: And my last question, Mr. Stewart, and I think you may
have alluded to this previously, has the Service been in consultation with
CIC regarding the information? A: Yes, we have.
Q: And, Mr. Stewart, would it be correct to say that when
you say, and you've just said CIC, that's the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration? A: That's correct.
Q: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay. No more questions?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all, in terms of the
discussion that we had before break, I would note a couple..I wish to make a
couple of observations.
Firstly, of course, it's our respectful submission that
58(1)(c) has to be read in its totality and one can't parse it and obviously
not only does it speak to the issue of taking reasonable steps, the Section
also speaks to there being a reasonable suspicion and the witness's evidence
not only goes to the taking steps, but there being a reasonable suspicion
port of the test.
Secondly, while I'm cognizant of the fact that you have
stated at the outset of these proceedings here today that in the event you
make a determination under Section 58(1)(c) it would not be necessary for
you to rule on the other grounds contained in the Section, namely whether or
not Mr. Zundel constitutes a danger to the public or whether he would likely
show up at an admissibility rearing or indeed for removal.
It's the position of the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration that not only are there grounds for pertaining to Section
58(1)(c), but there are also grounds for believing that Mr. Zundel
constitutes a danger to the public in that he would not show up for removal.
Since we don't know what position you will be taking with
respect to 58(1)(c) then it's our position that some of the witness's
evidence provided goes towards the other grounds contained in this Section.
That's all I wanted to say in that regard.
MEMBER: Okay. I've got two questions for you. First of all,
when I read 58(1)(c) and it talks about a reasonable suspicion whose
reasonable suspicion are we talking about?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, it is a reasonable suspicion...
MEMBER: Is it your position that you have to satisfy me? Do
I have to come to a reasonable suspicion? Or is it a statement of fact that
the Minister has a reasonable suspicion?
MR. MACINTOSH: The test says, when read in its entirety,
"That you shall order the release of a permanent resident or foreign
national unless it is satisfied, taking into account prescribed factors,
that they are a danger to the public, they are unlikely to appear for
examination and the Minister is taking steps to inquire into a reasonable
suspicion."
So, you would have to be satisfied that the Minister is
taking steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion.
MEMBER: Okay, but there's two things here, right? There are
reasonable steps and...
MR. MACINTOSH: Necessary steps, that's right.
MEMBER: Okay. Necessary steps into a reasonable suspicion.
So, one part are the necessary steps and when I'm talking about reasonable
suspicion whose reasonable suspicion? Is it a statement of fact that you
make that the Minister has a reasonable suspicion or is it something that
you have to prove to me that there's a reasonable suspicion?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, the Minister would have to have a
reasonable suspicion. We would have to...
MEMBER: Do I decide whether the Minister's opinion is a
reasonable opinion, a reasonable suspicion, or is it a statement of fact?
MR. MACINTOSH: First of all the Minister would have to be
taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion on the part of
the Minister, that Mr. Zundel constitutes a danger to the security of
Canada.
Secondly, you would have to be satisfied, having heard the
totality of evidence, that a) the Minister is taking the necessary steps and
that objectively there is a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Zundel is...
MEMBER: So I'm to look into whether or not the Minister has
a reasonable suspicion?
MR. MACINTOSH: That's correct, because the way this Section
reads, the preamble to this Section starts off, "The Immigration
Division shall order the release of a permanent resident or foreign national
unless it is satisfied, taking into account prescribed factors."
Well, one of the prescribed factors is danger to the public.
Another prescribed factor is...
MEMBER: Well, let's..I know those two. Let's go on to see
what you're talking about?
MR. MACINTOSH: I'm saying you have to read it in its
totality.
MEMBER: Mm-hmm?
MR. MACINTOSH: You can't just take one portion of the
Section and the fact is that you would have to be satisfied that the
Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion
that he's inadmissible on the grounds of being a danger to the security of
Canada and what we're saying is that the evidence that has been led
in-camera in conjunction with the evidence that's being led today provides a
ground for the Minister's belief that reasonable steps are being taken and
there's a reasonable suspicion that he's a danger to the security of Canada.
We're saying that after you consider the totality of the
evidence then you will then be satisfied that the prescribed factors under
Section 58(1)(c) of the Act.
MEMBER: Okay. So you're going to lead more evidence, right?
MR. HOFFMAN: If that's okay with you, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay, but just before we go there I want to refer
you to the Immigration Division Rules about disclosure, 26, "If a party
wants to use a document at a hearing the party must provide a copy to the
other party and the Division. The copies must be received a) as soon as
possible in the case of a 48 hour or seven day review or the admissibility
hearing held at the same time and, b) in other cases at least five days
before the hearing."
Why doesn't this apply here?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, first of all those rules and you have a
discretion as to whether or not to apply those rules in this case, as you do
with respect to any rules.
And secondly, we are entitled to assess requests for
disclosure. In my respectful submission based on the request that we
received from counsel for Mr. Zundel. If you look at the specific request
that he presented to the Minister all the Minister was asked to disclose was
documents in the Minister's possession that related to convictions.
It's our position that he's entitled to receive documents
related to convictions that have been adduced in evidence. He's not entitled
to have the Minister go out on a fishing expedition and get in touch with
the German courts and obtain a whole plethora of material that we haven't
introduced in this proceeding.
MEMBER: We're not talking about all the..we're talking about
the documents...
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, none of those documents were contained
in that letter that you can examine from counsel for Mr. Zundel. He didn't
ask for disclosure of any of those documents and undoubtedly he read the
transcript of the witness's evidence, and in fact, today the witness has
only referred to one document in the binder.
So, and I would also note that during the break that to my
knowledge counsel didn't go and even look at any of those documents.
MEMBER: Well, I'm still having a little trouble how you're
getting around this. I mean, the requirement is that if a party wants to use
a document at a hearing they have to disclose it to the other party. I don't
know why would I go away from that rule? What rationale would I have for not
following that rule?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, in my respectful submission, those
rules have to be exercised in a manner that's consistent with the common law
and the common law, and particularly the law laid down by the Supreme Court
of Canada in the common law, even in criminal cases where there's as
presumption of innocence which Mr. Zundel is not entitled to...
OBSERVER: Not entitled to?
MEMBER: Be quiet, please.
MR. MACINTOSH: The law in Stinchcolm is enunciated by the
Supreme Court of Canada until there's been a specific request for
disclosure. There's no obligation on the Crown to disclose any...
MEMBER: But we're talking about the Immigration Act? We're
talking about a hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
with rules and the rules are clear. So I think they should be followed
unless I've got some reason why they shouldn't be followed.
How are you..how are you hurt other than the lack of time
today, how are you hurt by providing this material to counsel? How are you
prejudiced?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, we've offered to provide the material
to counsel at the outset of this hearing. We can't provide material...
MEMBER: But there's a little bit of a difference between
counsel walking into a room and saying here's two binders that looks to be
1,000 pages there and saying you can look at it for ten minutes after we've
asked him all the questions. That's not what disclosure is all about.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, disclosure is also about having regard
to information that's specifically requested by counsel, which in...
MEMBER: Well, no.
MR. MACINTOSH: ...my submission...
MEMBER: No, no, no, no.
MR. MACINTOSH: If I can finish?
MEMBER: That's not what the rules say.
MR. MACINTOSH: If I can finish?
MEMBER: Sure.
MR. MACINTOSH: Which in my respectful submission takes
precedence over a general rule. Counsel has a letter and counsel
specifically averted to what documentation he wanted in his letter.
Now if he wants additional documentation, well, we can
provide it to him, but until today..I mean, surely it's incumbent upon
counsel to get in touch with counsel from the other side? It was quite clear
who was representing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration from the
transcript and at no time was I ever contacted by Mr. Fromm or anybody else
representing Mr. Zundel and neither was Mr. Hoffman and the only contact was
made through Mr. Reid with respect to that letter that we would be pleased
to present if you haven't already seen it.
So, therefore, when we saw that letter we assumed that
that's all that was being requested and so we, you know, as far as we were
concerned what was requested in that letter took precedence over the general
rule.
I mean, why would we produce information if it's counsel's
position that the information has no relevance?
MEMBER: Okay. I'm going to recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is now resumed. There are two binders
full there. Now, I take it in all likelihood your witness is not going to
refer to all the material in there?
MR. MACINTOSH: That's correct, and so far he's only referred
to one document.
MEMBER: Okay. I am going to require that disclosure be made
to counsel, but it's not necessary to provide all of the material if he's
not referring to the material. What should be disclosed to him should be
material that you're going to have the witness refer to and we can do
it..we've got half an hour before we break for lunch normally.
What we can do is we can proceed with your
examination-in-chief if you want and then pull whatever materials then and
give it to counsel. Counsel can then look at it and tell me how long he
thinks he's going to need to look at it. If it's not too much we may be able
to proceed today, if not then we'll look at how much time he does need,
okay?
MR. MACINTOSH: That's fine.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you.
MEMBER: So, do you want to proceed now then, carry on now,
or do you want to break?
MR. MACINTOSH: Carry on.
MR. HOFFMAN: I'll carry on now, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q: Mr. Stewart, I
think where we had left off was paragraph 11 of the unclassified summary. Do
you have that? A: I do.
Q: Now, as I recall, paragraph 11 speaks to or refers to an
interview with The Fifth Estate in 1993. Are you aware of that interview? A:
Yes, I am.
Q: There's a quote from the interview that I've read into
the record and it states that Mr. Zundel supported the young groups in
Germany. Can you elaborate on what that means? And this is one document you
may wish to refer to, Mr. Stewart. We can provide it to the other side,
although I'm sure they're already aware of this. A: The document I have is
the document which is a transcript of a segment of The Fifth Estate which
aired in February 1993. It contained, among other things, an interview with
Mr. Zundel by Victor Mallorick (ph) and on page 8 of that document Mr.
Mallorick asks, "When German police raid neo-Nazi hideouts they find a
surprising amount of material which comes from Canada here at the Office of
the Protection of the Constitution where German authorities keep tabs on
rightwing extremists. Ekart Vertabak (ph) is the German government's top
Nazi watcher." Mallorick asks, "How would you rank Ernst Zundel in
the neo-Nazi movement in Germany today." Vertabak says, "He's one
of the six most prominent distributors of such material to Germany."
And subsequent to that Mr. Vertabak states that, "Mr.
Zundel is a clever fundraiser. I estimate he raises between 100,000 and
160,000 marks a year through his activities. You can imagine what he can do
with that kind of money. It's a considerable sum." And the interview
breaks to Mr. Mallorick asking Mr. Zundel, "Do you earn that much?
"A hundred and sixty thousand marks, that would be $120,000. That would
hardly pay for the electricity of this building."
Mallorick asks, "So you earn much more than that? Have
you given money to neo-Nazi movements in Germany?" Mr. Zundel says,
"I have supported young groups in Germany. Yes, absolutely. I have
organized speaking tours for what I call Ernst Zundel's Foreign Legion, the
Intellectual Foreign Legions. That's where the money went, information
campaigns."
Then Mr. Mallorick comments, "This is what Germany's
neo-Nazis calls information campaigns?" "This one is an annual
rally in honor of Rudolph Hess, the Deputy Fuhrer, marketed on a video by
Zundel's company, Zamnistat (ph)." Organizer Kristian Vork (ph) seen in
the middle of the stage says, "Zundel contributes funds for these
events."
Mr. Vork says, "He has a part of the costs."
Mallorick asked, "So, in other words, to get groups together?" Mr.
Vork says, "Yes." Mallorick says, "He fronts up some
money?" and Vork says, "As happened at every other group
also."
Q: So, Mr. Stewart, in your opinion in this transcript Mr.
Zundel is saying he supports neo-Nazi groups in Germany, is that correct? A:
That's correct.
Q: With reference to paragraph 11 again in the unclassified
summary it says that movement, the neo- Nazi movement, is known for racially
motivated assaults. Do you agree with that? A: I do.
Q: There's also reference to the Rothstock (ph) riots. Could
you just briefly explain what the Rothstock riots were? A: Rothstock riots,
again the early '90's, were a neo- Nazi..were involved neo-Nazi violence
against immigrant groups who were emigrating, I believe it was young Turks.
I could refer to a document that would give me more information on that, but
it was involving rioting by neo-Nazis and violence against immigrants,
European immigrants.
Q: So these presumably would have been some of the same
people that German authorities said Mr. Zundel..had Mr. Zundel's
information, his publications? A: That would be a safe assumption.
Q: If I could just take you to paragraph 12 of the summary.
It says in the interview Mr. Zundel stated, "That he sows the seeds and
other people build on those ideas. He considers himself to be the guru or
the rallying point of the riot." Is this consistent with other
information in the Service's possession? A: Yes.
Q: If I could ask you to go to paragraph 16 of the summary
please. Paragraph 16 speaks to Mr. Zundel's dissemination of propaganda. Can
you elaborate on that for Mr. Murrant, please? A: Well, there have been a
number of references and I think Mr. Zundels web site, the Zundel site,
itself refers to the extent of the distribution of material that he
publishes that's made available over the web site that is distributed
throughout the world. My understanding is that his material is distributed
to over 40 countries.
It includes materials through the internet, it includes
videos, it includes audio cassettes and it includes books and pamphlets.
Q: And is that web site still active today to the best of
your information? A: To the best of my information it is active today.
Q: Now, are you aware that there has been or there have been
legal proceedings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal with regards to the
web site that you just referred to? A: Yes, I am.
Q: And could you briefly explain what those proceedings
concern? We reference this at paragraph 5 of the summary. Paragraphs 5 and 7
to be specific. Mr. Stewart, are you currently referring to a document in
those terms? A: I am. I am referring to the decision of the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal in the case of Sapina (ph), Toronto Mayor's Committee on
Community and Race Relations and Canadian Human Rights Commission and Ernst
Zundel.
Q: Thank you. A: And your question was what is my
understanding of the decision that was taken in that case?
Q: That's correct. A: My understanding is..my reading from
the order, the last paragraph dated January 18th, 2002, "We order that
the respondent, Ernst Zundel, and any other individuals who act in the name
of or in concert with Ernst Zundel, cease the discriminatory practice of
communicating telephonically or causing to be communicting telephonically by
means of the facilities of the tele-communications undertaking with the
legislative authority of Parliament matters of the type contained in Exhibit
HR-2 and found on Zundel site or any other messages of a substantially
similar form or content that are likely to expose a person or persons to
hatred to contempt by reason of the fact that that person or persons are
identifiable on the basis of prohibitive grounds of discrimination contrary
to Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Q: So, Mr. Stewart, you had said that you have looked at the
site recently, the web site? A: That's correct.
Q: And in your opinion do you believe that Mr. Zundel has
complied with the order of that tribunal with regard to the removal of the
material, offensive material? A: No. There's every indication that the web
site contains the same materials it contained prior to the decision.
Q: Now, Mr. Stewart, you had made some mention earlier of
the concepts of a racial superiority and racism with regards to the neo-Nazi
movement. Would it be fair to say any of the tenets of beliefs of those
organizations are applicable to what Mr. Zundel espouses? And I believe you
characterize it as revisionism. Is there a main tenet that could be
attributed to both of those associations or ideologies? A: I think the
common theme would be the superiority of the white race.
Q: If could take you to paragraph 9 of the unclassified
summary. In the middle of the paragraph there's a sentence that begins with,
"Zundel." "Zundel describes the Jews as being physically,
spiritually, economically and culturally corrupted parasitic race." Do
you think that's an accurate statement with regards to Mr. Zundel's beliefs?
A: Yes, I believe there's documentation on the web site that would support
that statement.
Q: So Mr. Zundel would have referred to Jewish people as
being a parasitic race, just to be clear? A: Yes.
Q: If I can take you to paragraph 4 of the unclassified
summary. The third sentence talks about..I believe you may have mentioned
this already. It talks about West German police officials seizing material.
Can you provide any elaboration on that? I believe there's reference to a
Toronto Star article. A: Yes, I have a reference here from a Toronto Star
article dated March 25th, 1981.
Q: What does that article say, Mr. Stewart? A: Among other
things the article says that, "Zundel has been sending Nazi literature
out of Canada for 18 years in 14 languages to 45 countries." There's a
further, in another paragraph, it says, "A Toronto man has been named
by West German investigators as one of the biggest suppliers of banned Nazi
propaganda seized in hundreds of raids at the homes of neo-Nazis."
It says, "Stuttgart (ph) authorities pushed the action
in conjunction with their investigation of three major producers of the
brochures, including Ernst Zundel, who for years have smuggled neo-Nazi
propaganda into West Germany."
Q: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart, I'm going to take
you to the third allegation that is in paragraph 2 which refers to Mr.
Zundel's contacts with White Supremacists. Can you speak about any of the
contacts Mr. Zundel may have? A: I'll refer again to The Fifth Estate
interview which aired in 1993 and Mr. Zundel's statement, that he does have
international contacts with the young neo- Nazi movements in Germany.
Just to back up and give it some context here, Victor
Mallorick, who is hosting the program said, "Ewald Alsins (ph) Zundel's
man in Murick (ph) is seen here rallying the troops for the Rudolph Hess
memorial. He once boasted that he has an annual budget of 600,000 Deutsche
marks. In his newsletter Zundel is always appealing to supporters to send
money to the Zundel Alsins headquarters."
Mallorick asks, "Does Zundel give you money or support
for speeches and conferences and seminars that you are holding around
Germany?" Alsins says, "If we do them for him, yes, he does."
Mallorick asks, "How much money does he donate? " Alsins says,
"I won't say anything about it." "You don't want to talk
about the amount of money?" Alsins says, "No." Mallorick
says, "He donates?" Alsins says, "No, he doesn't donate. I
have to do something for him." Mallorick says, "The most important
thing Alsins has done is help Zundel spread his denial of the
Holocaust."
Q: Mr. Stewart, could you just briefly explain who Mr. Ebald
Altans is? A: Alsins was a protegee of Mr. Zundel's in the early '90's.
Works closely with Mr. Zundel. In '93, '94, '95 he subsequently served time
in prison in Germany for activity that was against German laws and had to do
with his appearance on a documentary video in which he espoused ideas that
were against the German Constitution.
Q: So if I were to say would it be fair to characterize Mr.
Alsins as a person who subscribes to the neo-Nazi or White Supremacist
Movement would you say that's correct? A: I'd saying that during the times
that they were associated in the mid-90's that's correct.
Q: Now, in paragraph..just go back to paragraph 10. It
refers to Zundel having a budget. Can you just briefly explain how Mr.
Zundel obtains his money? A: Well, going by the public documentation that we
have here I'd say that the amount of money that Mr. Zundel receives is
subject to speculation. The number of overt requests for money on his web
site and in his pamphlets and his documentation has been something that is
remarkably consistent over the years.
At the end of each statement or posting on the web site
there is usually a request to send funding to Mr. Zundel in support of his
defense for what has been over the years a number of legal issues that he's
been involved in.
The web site currently asks for support for the proceedings
which I believe are ongoing. My understanding is that Mr. Zundel also asks
for donations from a number of different countries. He even requests people
to include him in their wills.
Q: Mr. Murrant, I just would like to approach. I just want
to present Mr. Stewart with a document that's already been submitted as an
Exhibit in these proceedings. It's a letter dated the 2nd of August 1995 by
the then Minister of Immigration, Sergio Marchi (ph). I believe it was
entered as Exhibit A, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay. Counsel, you have it, right?
COUNSEL: Yes, I do.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q. Mr. Stewart, could
you just read the allegation out for the record, please? A: "In the
matter of an application for citizenship may be Ernst Kristof Freidrich (ph)
Zundel and the matter of the Citizenship Act and in the matter of the
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act the undersigned reports to
the Security Intelligence Review Committee as follows:
Ernst Kristof Freidrich Zundel made an application for a
grant of citizenship dated 24th of October 1993. Pursuant to Subsection
19(2) of the Citizenship Act the undersigned is of the opinion that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that Ernst Zundel will engage in activity
that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada and that he has been
associated with and has supported groups of individuals that may engage in
acts of serious violence in the furtherance of political objectives.
Attached as Annex A is a report prepared by the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service which is submitted to the Committee for its
consideration." Signed in Hull, Quebec, 2nd day of August 1995, The
Honorable Sergio Marchi, Minister of Immigration, or Citizenship and
Immigration.
Q: So, Mr. Stewart, with regards to violence do you believe
that Mr. Zundel himself would engage in any acts of violence? A: I don't
believe that Mr. Zundel would engage in any act of violence personally.
Q: Now, Mr. Stewart, based on your testimony today with
regards to Mr. Zundel being a lightening rod for the movement would it be a
fair characterization today that he perhaps can incite others to violence?
A: I'd say that Mr. Zundel over the years has associated with a number of
individuals and groups who themselves have advocated or have personally been
involved in the use of violence.
Q: And again, would it be a fair assumption to say that
those individuals would have had Mr. Zundel's publications? A: I think
that's a fair assumption.
Q: Mr. Stewart, I have one final question. In light of what
you just read do you believe that the concern expressed in that 1995
document still exists today? A: I believe they do.
Q: If we can beg your indulgence for just one minute? Mr.
Stewart, one final question. Again, paragraph 2, states that Zundel was a
patriarchal leader of the movement in Canada. Paragraph 2 of the
unclassified summary, excuse me. "Zundel was and still is a leading
distribution of neo-Nazi propaganda worldwide and that he maintained
contacts with White Supremacists internationally and channeled money through
those contacts to promote his cause."
Based on your testimony today would you agree that those
statements are correct? A: Yes, I would.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Those are my questions, Mr.
Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay. What I propose now that we break for lunch.
That I have the Immigration Department provide you with the materials that
the witness referred to and that you would have an opportunity over lunch to
look at those materials before you ask him any questions.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
COUNSEL: Yes.
MEMBER: Okay. So that's what we're going to do and I'll
recess until 1:00. At 1:00 I'll come back and I'll talk to you about whether
or not you've had enough time to look at the material.
Does that sound agreeable to you?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes.
MEMBER: Okay. So we'll recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is now resumed. Mr. MacIntosh?
MR. MACINTOSH: Yes, Mr. Murrant, over the lunch break it
came to my attention that someone within this room has taken some pictures
and we're not sure whether or not pictures have been taken of Mr. Stewart. I
would ask that you remind everyone in here of your order made this morning
with respect to not taking any pictures of Mr. Stewart and with respect to
the ban on publication and broadcast.
MEMBER: Okay. I don't know if you've all heard, but the
concern is a picture may have been taken of Mr. Stewart. As I said when I
started no one is take a picture of Mr. Stewart and there's a ban on any
picture taken by anyone of him. No one is to take a picture, whether you're
press or otherwise. I want to make that perfectly clear.
Has anyone taken his picture? No? Okay. Okay, so I've been
provided with some materials here. The first is the transcript of portions,
I guess, of The Fifth Estate program and I'll mark that DR number 2.
--- ATTACHMENT DR-2: Portion of The Fifth Estate Transcript
MEMBER: The second is a Toronto Star article dated March
25th, 1981. I'll mark that as DR number 3.
--- ATTACHMENT DR-3: Toronto Star Article dated March 25,
1981
MEMBER: And the last is the decision of the..whose decision
is this again?
MR. HOFFMAN: Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is 70 pages long.
I guess this is the cover page, right? That's what I was trying..okay. It
consists as 70 pages and it will be marked as DR number 4.
--- ATTACHMENT DR-4: Decision of Canadian Human Rights
Commission - 70 pages
MEMBER: Okay. Counsel, you received these three documents?
COUNSEL: Yes, we did.
MEMBER: And have you had an opportunity to look through
them?
COUNSEL: We have, yes.
MEMBER: Okay. Are you prepared now to ask questions of the
witness?
COUNSEL: I am.
MEMBER: Okay. Would you proceed?
COUNSEL: Mr. Murrant, I seek your direction on another
matter. We have in the hearing room today persons prepared to provide bail
for Mr. Zundel and provide a place for him to stay and I didn't know whether
you wanted to hear these people.
We'd like to at some point in this hearing this afternoon,
if this hearing is going to on, get this on the record. I don't think it
will take very long
MEMBER: Okay. I want you to deal with the witness first and
then we'll deal with that after.
COUNSEL: Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Okay. Mr. Stewart, at the
beginning of your testimony you indicated that CSIS investigates national
security as defined by the CSIS Act, is that correct? A: That's correct.
Q: Could you outline to us just what constitutes a threat to
national security according to the Act you operate under? A: Threats to the
security of Canada are defined in Section 2 of the CSIS Act.
"Espionage, sabotage that is against Canada or detrimental to the
interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such
espionage or sabotage."
The (b) of the Section is, "Foreign influence
activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the
interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to
any person."
(c), "Activities within or relating to Canada directed
toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence
against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political,
religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state,"
and d).
"Activities directed towards undermining by covert,
unlawful acts or directed towards or intended ultimately to lead to the
destruction or overthrow by violence the Constitutionally established system
of government in Canada."
Q: And as you're reading from the CSIS Act could you read
the next paragraph, please? A: "But does not include lawful (inaudible)
protest or dissent unless carried out in conjunction with any of the
activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d)."
Q: And considering that that is the Parliament's definition
of a threat to national security is it your testimony that Mr. Zundel
constitutes a threat to Canada's national security? A: My testimony has said
that with respect to his application for citizenship the Security
Intelligence Service provided advice to the Minister of Immigration that his
activities would constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
Q: In which of these ways, espionage, foreign related
activities, serious acts of violence against persons or property? A: If I
can refer to the summary report which we've referred to, paragraph 2 says,
"That there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zundel is viewed
as a patriarchal leader of the White Supremacist Movement and is still a
leading distributor of neo- Nazi propaganda and that he maintains White
Supremacist contacts internationally and channeled money through these
contacts to promote his cause."
Q: Even if all these were true could you explain to me how
according to the definition set down by Parliament these would constitute a
threat to national security?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, with respect, first of all the witness
has testified as to the parameters of the CSIS Act and this witness's
testimony has been based on what is contained in the open summary, the
documents that he has referred to, and also the parameters of Section
58(1)(c).
This is not an admissibility hearing. This is a hearing to
determine whether or not Mr. Zundel should be detained and in my respectful
submission is attempting to have this witness comment on matters that are
still under consideration by the Minister and further more is attempting to
probe information that was led in the in-camera session. The question is
overly broad.
MEMBER: Counsel?
COUNSEL: Well, the area of concern here, Mr. Murrant, to
this hearing today is the national security aspect, whether the government
is conducting any inquiry and whether that seems reasonable and I'm simply
trying to probe the information, the statement provided by CSIS, and to find
out whether this properly is within their mandate.
These are pretty serious things. Espionage, foreign
influence activities, serious acts of violence against persons or property.
Perhaps I wasn't listening very carefully or I don't read very well, but I
saw very little evidence that anything Mr. Zundel has been alleged to have
done falls within any of these categories.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, that's a submission, it's not a
question, but in any event the fact of the matter is the witness is here
testifying as an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
The witness is not here testifying in terms of legal
definitions contained in the CSIS Act. Those are arguments made by lawyers
and by counsels at hearings for the party..what does and does not constitute
threats to the security of Canada within the various Sections of the CSIS
Act.
These matters are under serious consideration by the
Minister and the witness has outlined the parameters of the CSIS Act. It's
not up to the witness in my respectful submission to beyond testifying as to
what's contained in this summary to disclose to Mr. Zundel which Section of
the Act it is that the Minister would rely on in coming to a conclusion that
the constitutes a danger to the security of Canada.
The only thing that the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration is required to do at today's hearing is to satisfy you that the
Minister is taking steps to investigate whether or not there's a reasonable
suspicion that he constitutes a danger to the security of Canada and we also
have to satisfy you if we're relying on the other grounds that he will not
appear for removal, which we are, and that he is a danger to the public,
which we are relying on, but in any event you made your ruling with respect
to with..or you made your comment at the outset with respect to 58(1)(c) and
you're going to make that determination first.
So, really if counsel wants to direct his question to the
testimony the witness has given that's fine, but to suggest that the witness
should go beyond that and advise counsel of the particulars of the
allegation that Mr. Zundel constitutes a danger to the security of Canada
beyond what the witness has testified to and what's in this summary, in my
respectful submission I would object to that.
MEMBER: All right. I think the witness here is here today to
tell you what information or what he's done in relation to providing
information to the Minister and what's in this report and it's really not up
to him to decide whether Mr. Zundel, there's a reasonable suspicion that Mr.
Zundel is inadmissible on grounds of security.
What he can tell you is the information he's told us already
and how he's got to that conclusion, but he's not the one who makes the
conclusion. It doesn't matter what he thinks about under what Section Mr.
Zundel would fall or not fall. That's going to be a decision of the Minister
at the end. Just one minute, please.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: So, please carry on.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Sir, did write
this report? A: I did not.
Q: Are you cognizant of the contents of the report? A: Yes,
I am.
Q: This report differs in certain ways from the report that
was produced I believe at the February 28th hearing, detention hearing. Were
you responsible for the changes? A: I'm not sure what the changes were. The
document I'm looking at is dated February 27th.
Q: In paragraph 2, subsection (I) indicates, "Zundel
was viewed as a patriarchal leader of a White Supremacist Movement in
Canada." What would your definition be of White Supremacist Movement?
What are we talking about here? A: I would, having referred to the media
information that's available, I would say the White Supremacist Movement is
a broad coalition of individuals who believe in the supremacy of the white
race. Corollary to that would be the inferiority of non- white races and
there would be an anti-Semitic component to the philosophy.
Q: Is there any group in Canada that identifies itself as
such, saying we're White Supremacists to your knowledge? A: Historically I
can think of a few groups that existed in Canada, including the Heritage
Front, including the Klu Klux Klan, including factions of other groups that
have existed in Canada and Europe.
Q: Well for instance, did the Heritage Front say, we are
White Supremacists? I mean, is that the way groups identify themselves or is
that a term of abuse by people, you know, who don't agree with them? A: I
would say that groups that use the slogan, "White Power" and chant
the slogan "White Power" at rallies and demonstrations could be
White Supremacist groups and I believe that the groups that I've mentioned
have been involved publicly in those activities.
Q: Okay. Are there many individuals involved in these groups
in Canada? A: According to the documents that I've reviewed estimates as to
the number of people who adhere to that philosophy vary. I would say that
there are not a great deal of individuals and groups in Canada who would be
considered White Supremacists. I wouldn't venture to estimate how many
individuals there could be. Like probably several thousand.
Q: Like you're..just let me get this straight. You didn't
write this report, but are you an expert on the Zundel file? A: I've made
myself familiar with this report itself and I've reviewed the material that
was used to support the facts that are stated in this report.
Q: Okay. The first allegation on 2(1) is that Zundel is
viewed as a patriarchal leader of a White Supremacist Movement in Canada. Is
it our testimony that the White Supremacist group constitutes a threat to
national security?
MR. HOFFMAN: I object to that question. I don't see the
relevance of it. Mr. Stewart already explained what his views are with
regards to Mr. Zundel and it's calling for speculation.
As Mr. MacIntosh said earlier it's not up to Mr. Stewart to
sit here and make a determination as to the fact. That's a determination
that will be made by the Minister.
COUNSEL: Well, in my humble submission it has every
relevance. The CSIS Act clearly excludes non-violent dissent from the
definition of national security. So when we're talking about White
Supremacists are we talking about a threat to national security or are we
talking about another political point of view? Social, Credit, Liberal,
Conservative, Alliance, NDP? Whatever.
MEMBER: What you've got here is a witness who says I've got
some information and I'm going to put this information before the Minister
and the Minister will decide whether or not he's a threat to national
security, not this officer.
This officer is saying this is the information I gathered.
This is what I believe to be true and this is what I'm going to present to
the Minister. It's not up to him to say, well, I think he's a threat or not
a threat. It doesn't matter what his position is.
What matters is what the Minister decides based on the
information he's going to be providing him with. So you should ask him
questions about what's in here, but not necessarily his opinions about
national security or..or at least that's how I see it.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Okay. Still in
paragraph 2, subsection (2), "Zundel was and still is a leading
distributor of revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda worldwide." To your
knowledge do the individuals or the groups that you're mentioning here
identify themselves as neo-Nazis? A: Yes, I've seen them. I've seen
that..I've seen that word used. I've seen it used in documentaries. I've
seen it used in articles that have been written about the groups. Whether
they refer to themselves as individuals or groups as neo-Nazis I would have
to refresh my memory by looking at the documentation.
I know that there was a documentary that was done in Germany
that was called Profession: Neo-Nazi. It was the story of Ebald Altans that
was done and I believe in that circumstances Mr. Alsins identified himself
as a neo-Nazi.
Q: My question isn't do other people call these people
neo-Nazis. My question is, is that the way they identify themselves? A: Well
that's what I said.
Q: You don't know? A: I believe...
MR. MACINTOSH: No, that's...
WITNESS #1: ...Mr. Alsins identified himself as a neo-Nazi.
MR. MACINTOSH: Counsel has mis-characterized the witness's
evidence. Clearly he said Mr. Alsins identified himself as a neo-Nazi.
MEMBER: And the witness clarified.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: In your..when
you're reading..when you were giving your testimony today you indicated, as
I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you called it the White
Supremacist Movement in Canada began to decline in the mid 1990's. Is that
fair? A: I would say that's a fair assessment.
Q: And when was it your testimony that Mr. Zundel apparently
left Canada? A: I think the documentation indicates that the left Canada
permanently in the year 2000.
Q: Okay. Well, would it be still your testimony that your
testimony that his return would re-activate the White Supremacist Movement?
A: You're asking me to speculate on whether...
Q: Well, it is your testimony? A: ...it would or whether it
could. I believe I said that it could.
Q: That's fine. A: Was my wording the first time through and
I believe that my speculation would be that it could rally individuals who
appear to be supportive of his ideals.
Q: Would it be your testimony that one of the major groups
in the White Supremacist Movements in the mid 1990's was the Heritage Front?
A: Yes, that's the..I think that's clear from the information that I've
read.
Q: And would you agree that the Heritage Front began to fall
into disarray or decline about the time that CSIS agent, Grant Bristol,(ph)
was exposed?
MR. HOFFMAN: I object to that question. Counsel hasn't
demonstrated any relevance.
COUNSEL: Well, there's every relevance. The witness's
testimony is that Ernst Zundel is a patriarch or a guru of the White
Supremacist Movement in Canada, whatever that is, and should he return to
Canada the movement that has been in disarray sine 1994 might possible
re-activate and I'm pursuing what might have been the reason for its
disarray.
MEMBER: And your question is has this group declined since?
COUNSEL: Since CSIS agent, Grant Bristol, who was a key
member of the Heritage Front was exposed.
MEMBER: Okay.
COUNSEL: Was that relevant with Ernst Zundel leaving the
country, that the White Supremacist Movement supposedly went into decline?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, there might be any reasons why the
White Supremacist Movement went into decline. It would require him to
comment and to single out one reason that's determinative. How can that he
say that one reason is determinative? And that's what the question
pre-supposes. That there's only one answer to the question.
MEMBER: Well, there's also a couple of other problems with
the question that I have anyway. One is I don't know who Grant Bristol is
and I don't know that he belongs to CSIS and I don't know that he was a
member of the Heritage Front. I don't know any of that.
COUNSEL: Well, it's public record.
MEMBER: Well, I don't know if it's public record or not, so
I don't know if there's a problem even talking about it that way, but on the
other hand what you've asking him is to speculate as to why there was a
decline in the '50's..I'm sorry, in the mid-'90's?
COUNSEL: Well, the allegation is if Ernst Zundel is released
he may serve as, the term is lightening rod, for the White Supremacist
Movement and it will revive.
MEMBER: No, that's not what this is all about. Let's go back
to what this is all about. What this is all about as far as I'm concerned is
that I have to be satisfied that the Minister is taking necessary steps to
inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of
security. "They" being Mr. Zundel.
So, what as far as I'm concerned I have to look at here
today is, is the Minister taking necessary steps into a reasonable
suspicion.
Now, unlike what counsel had submitted to me earlier I'm not
necessarily satisfied that I'm required to look into how reasonable the
suspicion is by the Minister. I think it's more a statement of fact and
unless there's something put before me that leads me to the conclusion that
it's so unrealistic or so unreasonable as to be outrageous then that's a
statement of fact, that the Minister has a reasonable suspicion.
I've allowed them to present their information and I'm going
to allow you to present what you wish to present, but what I'm going to look
at at the end of the day is whether or not the Minister is taking reasonable
steps and I'm told that unless..I'm told that the Minister has a reasonable
suspicion and unless there's something that tells me that the suspicion is
so unreasonable as to be outrageous that's all I'm going to look at.
COUNSEL: Well, that would certainly be our submission. That
the suspicion of Ernst Zundel is really outrageous.
MEMBER: Well, you can carry on then.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: It was your
testimony at the beginning, if I recall correctly, that CSIS is conducting
an ongoing investigation into Ernst Zundel? A: I don't believe I said that.
I said that CSIS collects information and provides advice to the government.
In the case that we have before us CSIS has been asked to provide
information to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
What we have, what we..what we have on our files, in our
records, is information that we have collected through a number of
investigations. I'm not going to get into the specifics of the
investigations, but because of investigations that have been conducted we
have information, some of which you have before you here. That information
is being compiled and it's being analyzed and it will be used to provide
advice to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Q: It would be fair though to say this is not the first time
Ernst Zundel has been investigated by CSIS?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, I object to that. He's asking questions
as to CSIS's investigatory practices, procedures and methodology and that is
not relevant of the purposes of Section 58(1)(c) which is what is focused on
here today.
He has the statements of the witness, Mr. Stewart, this
morning in relation to..based on the unclassified summary in relation to
what is being done and to go beyond that is really not germane to any of the
issues that are presented to you today, particularly in relation to the
narrow question under 58(1)(c) that's been identified.
MEMBER: I agree. I don't think the witness is required to
answer whether or not he conducted previous investigations of Mr. Zundel.
COUNSEL: Well, would it not be relevant that if for instance
Mr. Zundel has just dropped in from Morocco and was totally unknown to the
authorities here, but perhaps seemed to be a possible threat to national
security, perhaps at that point CSIS would begin an investigation in order
to give advice to the Minister.
My point, or at least what I'm trying to determine from the
witness is that Ernst Zundel has been a known quantity to CSIS for many,
many years and therefore the government should be able to make a decision
very quickly. He should not continue to be detained. Either they've got
something on him or they don't have something on him.
MEMBER: Counsel? I think just before...
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, he can certainly ask him whether he's a
known quantity. That's a different question than the question that was
previously put.
MEMBER: I agree.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Was Ernst Zundel
known to CSIS prior to his arrival to Canada a month and a half ago? A: Yes,
he was.
Q: Was Grant Bristol a CSIS agent?
MR. HOFFMAN: I object to that question, Mr. Adjudicator, for
the reasons...
MEMBER: Yes, you don't have to answer. See, obviously that's
public record, you know it. I didn't know it, but you know it and you
thought everybody else knows it.
COUNSEL: Fine, if everybody else knows it why can't he say
so?
MEMBER: Well, I didn't know it.
COUNSEL: Sorry.
MEMBER: Okay?
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Is it your
testimony that Ernst Zundel is a member of the White Supremacist Movement in
Canada? A: If you refer to the definition I gave you as a broad definition,
yes, I would say he is a White Supremacist.
Q: That would be your testimony? A: Yes.
Q: And perhaps I'm not very slick, but you are an expert on
the Zundel file, are you? A: You asked me that before and I told you what
I'd done to prepare myself.
Q: You read a report and you're talking about the report? A:
Correct, and I've read documentation relating to the information that's
contained in that report.
Q: How would you prove that Ernst Zundel is a member of the
White Supremacist Movement? Is it something you carry a card in or? Like a
drivers license or a membership card?
MR. HOFFMAN: Again, Mr. Adjudicator, I'd object to that. I
think Mr. Stewart's role has been..we've gone through his role a number of
times. My friend is asking for proof.
COUNSEL: Well, a man's freedom is at stake. Allegations are
made and then we're told, well, you can't say much about it.
MR. HOFFMAN: Again, Mr. Adjudicator, the decision is not Mr.
Stewart's. The decision rests with the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
MEMBER: What this witness can testify is to information he
has contained in the report. But for him to tell you what his views are of
Mr. Zundel or what his views are on national security don't help me at all.
COUNSEL: Well, what I'm trying to determine is not his
personal views, but what he knows about this.
MEMBER: But what this man is here to tell you is that he's
compiling information that he's going to put before the Minister and this is
generally the information he's going to put before the Minister.
COUNSEL: Okay.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Okay. If I could
draw your attention to this transcript that we received over the lunch hour
from a book of documents and this is the transcript of a Fifth Estate
television program that was aired I think on February 3rd, 1993. I was
wondering if you could read Victor Mallorick's comments that begin,
"Back in business and free," referring to Ernst Zundel? A: Sorry,
where are you again?
Q: Page..well, it's page 14 of a transcript, although
there's a page 15 in the top upper right hand corner. It's the 14 of the
transcript, beginning, "Zundel had meeting," but I'm asking you, I
wonder if the witness would read Mallorick's comments, "Back in
business." A: "Back in business and free to keep publishing what
he wants unless or until he's charged under another law. Many people believe
that Ernst Zundel can be charged until Canada's Hate Propaganda law and stop
from publishing. That would be an answer for the German government, but so
far nothing has happened and it seems nobody wants to talk about it. The
Federal Justice Department told us that the province handles such cases. At
the Attorney General's Office they they are waiting for the outcome of a
police investigation before deciding if they'll prosecute and the police
told us they're still checking on Ernst Zundel."
Q: Okay. Now that was a decade before, but do you know has
Ernst Zundel been charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for any of these
activities in the decade since? A: To my knowledge he has not.
Q: On page 18 of the transcript was it your testimony based
on the television show that a fellow, a man by the name of Ebald Altans was
Ernst Zundel's public relations man or Deputy and Chairman? A: Could you
repeat that, please?
Q: Was it your testimony based on the television program
that a person named Ebald Altans was Ernst Zundel's representative or public
relations person in Germany? A: I believe that was my testimony, that he
was..that he, Mr. Alsins, and Mr. Zundel at that time were aligned and
whether you characterize it..I don't think I characterized as Mr. Zundel's
public relations man. I think I said that they..I think I used the word
protege as I've seen the Fifth Estate comments here and other comments that
have been made in other media reports.
Q: All right. So he's a representative in some way would be
your testimony. In that Fifth Estate report I think you were asked about
this, much was made of the violence of some of the rightwing groups in
Germany, would that be true? A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: There's some attempt to connect the fact Ernst Zundel
sent literature over there with the fact that some groups over there were
violent. Would that be fair? A: Yes.
Q: Okay. I wonder if you could read the question..the answer
by Ebald Altans that's right after Mallorick's remarks at the top of the
page, page 18? A: He says, "You, yourself, may not have lit the match,
but you are an ideological flame."
Q: Yes. A: And Altans says, and I see this is written
in.."No, I cannot be an ideological flame for violence because I am
against violence and always tell everybody I'm totally against
violence." Mallorick says, "You're been praising Hitler for the
last two years..."
Q: No, that's all. A: ..."How can you wash your
hands..."
Q: No, that's all. What was your testimony that Ernst
Zundel's activities in terms of Germany?
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, that's a very broad question. He's now
asking the witness to summarize his entire testimony. Maybe you can frame a
more specific question than that?
WITNESS #1: I think I recall my testimony, if I could, just
I was again referring to that article and I was referring to the support
that Mr. Zundel provides to young groups in Germany.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: And just to
recap, what is that support or when was that support? A: Monetary support
and I think we also referred to ideological support in another document in
which material had been found that had been published in Canada.
Q: So, we're talking about monetary support perhaps, books,
pamphlets, videos? A: That's correct.
Q: To your knowledge did Ernst Zundel instruct these groups
to commit acts of violence? A: To my knowledge, no.
Q: Okay. I was just wondering if you could read the first
two statements on page 9 of the transcript of The Fifth Estate Show,
Mallorick and Zundel? A: I believe I read these into the record earlier.
Q: Well, indulge me? A: The question was, "Do you earn
that much, somewhere between 100,000 and 160,000 marks per year?" and
Zundel said, "A hundred and sixty thousand marks, that would be
$120,000. That would barely pay for the electricity in this building."
Mallorick says, "So you earn much more than that? Have you given money
to neo-Nazi movements in Germany?" Mr. Zundel says, "I have
supported young groups in Germany, yes, absolutely. I have organized
speaking tours for what I call Ernst Zundel's Foreign Legion, the
Intellectual Foreign Legions. That's where the money went, information
campaigns."
Q: And to your knowledge did the money go to anything else
other than information campaigns? To your knowledge. A: I have no knowledge
of the money going to anything else.
Q: Than information campaigns? A: Yes.
Q: If you could turn to page 10 of the transcript of The
Fifth Estate program. Do you have that there? A: I do.
Q: Okay. I was wondering if you could just read the first
question by Mallorick and Abald Altans's answer? A: Mallorick's question
was, "Does Zundel give you money or support for speeches and
conferences and seminars that you are hoidng around Germany?" Altans,
"If we do them for him yes, he does." Mallorick...
Q: Okay. A: I read this into the record earlier.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, if he's asking the witness to read
something, you know, then he should him to complete whatever it is he's
reading.
MEMBER: I don't agree. The entire thing is here. I can read
it. Other people can read it. He's just trying to go through certain
portions of it and I have no problem with that.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Did you
have..sir, do you have the report which you testified about, testified to
about a month ago? A: I do.
Q: Okay. Number eight there, paragraph 8...
MEMBER: Just one minute. We're talking about Exhibit D from
last time? Is that what you're talking about?
COUNSEL: Yes, it's what's called a summary report concerning
Ernst Zundel.
MEMBER: Right, and what are you referring to?
COUNSEL: Paragraph 8.
MEMBER: Right.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: In the first
sentence of paragraph 8 of the report from a month ago we read, "On the
Zundel site home page there's clear reference to Zundel's battle for the New
World Order and his fight against the belief of the Holocaust," et
cetera. I was wondering, Mr. Stewart, as you're familiar with this report if
you could explain in the current report before us today it says, "On
the Zundel home page there's clear reference to Zundel's battle against the
New World Order and his fight," et cetera. A: Right. I noticed that
what I would call..as I said to you earlier I did not prepare this document.
When I read through it I noticed that there was what I would call a typo in
there and that it said "battle for the New World Order" and should
have said "against the New World Order" because the New World
Order is a term that has been used and I think it's been referred to on I
believe the Zundel site as New World Order being the Jewish Zionist
Communist conspiracy to dominate the world. This is clearly something that
Mr. Zundel would be against.
The confusion came, I believe, and I'm not sure who prepared
this document personally, but the confusion could come from the term
"the Order" which is a White Supremacist organization which has
been involved in extreme violence in the United States and was an offshoot
of a neo-Nazi organization in the United States. So there was some confusion
apparently and I corrected that in this document here and I think the
reference now is correct in a sense that there's clear reference to Zundel's
battle against the New World Order and his fight for the belief in the
Holocaust.
Q: So it's your testimony that the editorial change came
about as a result of your more carefully looking over the document? A:
That's correct.
Q: Would you know whether CSIS is monitoring Ernst Zundel's
telephone calls from the prison?
MR. MACINTOSH: Objection.
MR. HOFFMAN: Don't answer that question.
COUNSEL: No further questions.
MEMBER: Okay, thank you. Any redirect?
MR. HOFFMAN: If we could just have a couple of minutes, Mr.
Member?
MEMBER: We'll recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is now resumed. Mr. MacIntosh?
MR. MACINTOSH: Mr. Hoffman has some questions in
re-examination, Mr. Murrant.
MR. HOFFMAN: I just have three questions, Mr. Murrant.
RE-EXAMINATION BY: MR. HOFFMAN Q: Mr. Stewart, while you
were being cross-examination, cross-examined, excuse me, you were taken to a
part in the transcript in the 60 Minutes..60 Minutes. Fifth Estate interview
in which you were talking about Mr. Altans. I believe it may have been page
18 and you were reading a portion of that with regards to Mr. Altans saying
he was a non-violent person. You were continuing to read that, but you were
cut off by my friend. Could you just continue or read that statement again
in its entirety? A: The answer from Mr. Altans to Mr. Mallorich was,
"No, I cannot be an ideological flame for violence because I am against
violence and always tell everybody I'm totally against violence." Mr.
Mallorick continued, "You've been praising Hitler for two years. How
can you wash your hands of all violence?" Altans says, "Show me
people doing it better and I will follow them immediately. Now in a world
which is covered by creeps" - I'm not quite sure what the words was
there - "I have the right to resist." And then Mr. Mallorick
continues, "Two months after Rothstock in November rightwing extremists
fired on the Turkish home in Mohen (ph). A woman and two children were
killed. The murders enraged the public and forced the German government
finally to start cracking down again neo-Nazi violence. Zundel was not
impressed."
And then it quotes Mr. Zundel, "As people get all hot
and bothered about the killing of these three Turkish women and
children," and Mr. Mallorick says, "Why shouldn't they get hot and
bothered?" Mr. Zundel says, "Sure they should be hot and bothered,
but at the same time whose talking about the German victims of those
foreigners? At first it was that at the house they were in had been known to
the police as being a center for drug and dope dealing. How do we know that
somebody whose kid has gotten on dope by this very Turkish dope dealer
didn't take revenge out on the house itself?"
Mr. Mallorick says, "It sounds like blame the victim,
blame the foreigners?" Zundel says, "It's not blame the foreigner,
it's that we want to be masters of our own land and we want to get our jobs
first and our living space first," and Mallorick says, "But the
neo-Nazi movement that you're helping rebuild, the one that you support, the
one you send your materials to is a very violent movement." Mr. Zundel
says, "It's not a very violent movement." Mr. Mallorick says,
"Two thousand two hundred attacks and 17 killings?" Mr. Zundel
says, "On whose statistics? The Toronto Star's? The Canadian Jewish
News?" Mr. Mallorick says, "The government of Germany." Mr.
Zundel says, "Oh, the quislings of power, right?"
Mr. Mallorick says, "But many Germans are fed up with
violence and the neo-Nazis. On January 30th 5,000 Munich residents marked
the 60th anniversary of Hitler's seizure of power with an anti-Nazi protest.
They singled out Altans and his Canadian benefactor. The organizers told the
crowd Altans has once again gone to beg for money from his boss, Ernst
Zundel."
Q: Thank you. Now, there was a question asked of you as well
regarding, I believe it was to the effect, and my friend can be of
assistance, that Zundel..whether or not Zundel instructed groups to commit
violent acts. Simply are you aware of all of the instructions that Mr.
Zundel has ever given in that regard? A: I am not.
Q: And my final question is this. In your testimony today
did you rely on only information in this summary? A: Yes, I relied on the
information in that summary.
Q: Those are all my questions, Mr. Murrant. Thank you.
MEMBER: Thank you. You may be excused. Again, no one is to
take his picture. Mr. MacIntosh, any further evidence you wish to present or
Mr. Hoffman?
MR. MACINTOSH: No, we don't have any further evidence to
present, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Counsel?
COUNSEL: I wonder if you could clarify your instructions,
Mr. Murrant. Whether we will be able to get copies of the remainder of the
appendices of this witness?
MEMBER: I think the problem you have with that is they
didn't refer to it.
COUNSEL: But would this not be part of the record?
MEMBER: No. What's going to be part of the record of this is
what I entered. What you were given and what I've marked as Exhibits.
COUNSEL: I'd like to call Karen Kruger. (ph).
MEMBER: What purpose?
COUNSEL: The purpose of confirming that she's prepared to
put up bail for Ernst Zundel.
MEMBER: Well, I'm not prepared to hear that at this time.
What I'm going to make a decision on, as I indicated to you earlier, is
58(1)(c). Once I make a decision on that, if I decide Mr. Zundel should not
be detained on those grounds, then I'll look into the other two areas and
that's when whether or not someone is willing and able to post guarantees
becomes important.
COUNSEL: Just in the courtesy of the people who come down
from Toronto would it be possible to simply get their evidence? It's only
going to take two or three minutes.
MEMBER: Okay. Counsel, subject to what you have to say. What
he's saying is if the decision goes the other way and we carry on tomorrow
and these people have to leave and can't come back...
MR. MACINTOSH: No, no, I understand what he's saying. We're
willing to accommodate that, Mr. Murrant.
MEMBER: Okay. Fine. Go ahead.
COUNSEL: Call Karen Kruger.
MEMBER: Ms. Kruger, is an oath on the Bible binding on your
conscience? Do you believe in the Bible?
WITNESS #2: Yes.
MEMBER: Will you take an oath on the Bible?
WITNESS #2: Sure.
MEMBER: Okay. Please stand and place your right hand on the
Bible. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
WITNESS #2: Yes.
MEMBER: Thank you. Please be seated.
--- KAREN KRUGER (Witness #2): SWORN
EXAMINATION OF KAREN KRUGER
EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Give me your name, please? A:
Karen Kruger.
Q: And your residence? A: 1119 Northmount Avenue,
Mississauga.
Q: Are you prepared to post bail or guarantee for Ernst
Zundel? A: Yes, I am.
Q: Those would be all my questions.
MEMBER: Spell your last name for me please?
WITNESS #2: K R U G E R.
MEMBER: Mr. Hoffman, any questions?
MR. MACINTOSH: I have some questions of this witnesss.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: MR. MACINTOSH Q: Madam, how much bail
are you prepared to post? A: My house or my property.
Q: Is that in cash or by way of security or what are you
talking about? A: Security.
Q: Is there a mortgage on your house? A: No.
Q: Is there..do you have an independent real estate
appraisal of the house that you could bring in today? A: No.
Q: So, you have no independent evaluation from a real estate
agent as to how much your house is worth? A: No.
Q: What's your relationship with Mr. Zundel? A: He's an old
friend.
Q: How long have you known him for? A: Twenty years.
Q: Have you ever posted bail for Mr. Zundel before? A: Yes.
Q: What proceeding? A: I don't know.
Q: In what proceeding did you post bail, Ma'am?
MEMBER: If you don't know you can say you don't know, that's
fair, but if you do know answer.
WITNESS #2: Well, in 1984 or '85. He was in jail.
MEMBER: He was in jail. You posted bail and you're not sure
what it was all about, is that what you're saying?
WITNESS #2: No. Yes, that's what I'm saying.
MEMBER: Okay.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: MR. MACINTOSH Q: Are you
aware of whether or not Mr. Zundel has any convictions in Germany for
violating German law? A: All I know is that he was convicted in absence. Is
that what it is?
MEMBER: Just answer the best you can. Hopefully nobody is
trying to trick you. All we want to know is what you know and if you know
and if he asks and you don't know say you don't know. That's fine.
WITNESS #2: Okay. No.
CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: MR. MACINTOSH Q: Sorry, I
didn't hear you? A: No, I don't know.
Q: And if the Adjudicator were to attach terms and
conditions on Mr. Zundel's release or..sorry, excuse me, the Division
Member, would you be in a position to guarantee that Mr. Zundel abide by
those terms and conditions? A: Yes.
Q: How would you go about guaranteeing that? A: I trust him.
Q: You trust him? A: Mm-hmm.
Q: So you would simply guarantee it based upon your own
personal trust, is that right? A: Yes.
Q: What is your approximate age? A: I'm 61.
Q: Those are all my questions. Thank you.
MEMBER: Redirect?
COUNSEL: No.
MEMBER: Thank you. You may be excused.
COUNSEL: Yes, sir I'd like to Gerhard Hass.
MEMBER: Mr. Hass, come this way. It's probably easier for
you. Remain standing and place your right hand on the Bible. Mr. Hass, do
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
WITNESS #3: I do.
MEMBER: Thank you. Be seated.
--- GERHARD HASS (Witness #2): SWORN
EXAMINATION OF GERHARD HASS
EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Would you give us your name and
spell it for the recorder? A: Last name Hass, H A S S, first name Gerhard, G
E R H A R D.
Q: Mr. Hass, could you give us your address? A: 2690
Lakeshore Boulevard West. That is Etobicoke, Ontario. Postal code M8V 1G8.
Q: Are you prepared to give Ernst Zundel a place to stay
should he be released? A: Yes.
Q: And could you describe the facilities that he could have?
A: Well, I have three bedroom. At the moment my son living with me, but I
have got one bedroom free.
Q: Those would be all my questions.
MEMBER: Counsel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: MR. MACINTOSH Q: You said you were
prepared to offer Mr. Zundel some accommodation in the event that he were
released, is that correct? A: Yes.
Q: And would you be prepared to.. I take it that beyond
providing accommodation that that's the extent of your assistance that
you're prepared to provide for Mr. Zundel, is that correct? A: Sorry?
Q: You're simply prepared to provide him with accommodation
in the event that he were released, is that correct? A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. Those are my questions.
MEMBER: Any redirect?
COUNSEL: No.
MEMBER: Thank you, sir. You may be excused. Mr. Fromm? Mr.
Fromm?
COUNSEL: Yes, can I have a moment to consult?
MEMBER: Yes. Recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is resumed. Yes, Mr. Fromm?
COUNSEL: I'd like to call Ernst Zundel to the stand.
MEMBER: Mr. Zundel. Mr. Zundel, will you take an oath?
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, I will.
MEMBER: Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
PERSON CONCERNED: I will and I do.
MEMBER: Thank you. Be seated.
--- ERNST ZUNDEL (Person Concerned): SWORN
EXAMINATION OF ERNST ZUNDEL
EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Mr. Zundel... A: Yes.
Q: ..you have before you the report that was submitted
today, the summary report concerning Ernst Kristof Freidrich Zundel? A: I
have both, the one from the last hearing and the one from this hearing.
Since this is changed in 12 different places I think we should look at that.
Q: Yes, that's the one I'd like to look at. In that first
paragraph...
MEMBER: Just a minute.
COUNSEL: Sorry.
MEMBER: Just recess for one second.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: The hearing is now resumed. I'm sorry, Mr. Fromm,
please carry on.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: If I could draw your
attention to the first paragraph of the report and the first sentence says,
"Zundel was seen as a patriarch of the Canadian White Supremacist
Movement before he left for the United States in August 2000."
MEMBER: I'm sorry to bother you. I'm sorry, recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: The hearing is now resumed. I'm sorry, Mr. Fromm,
please carry on.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Thank you. In the
first paragraph of the report you are identified as being seen as the
patriarch of the the Canadian White Supremacist Movement before you left for
the United States. Do you agree with that characterization? A: Mr. Fromm, I
think for the record because other judges will be looking at this, I think
we should establish some of the ground rules. One, what is in evidence are
two different reports. One that was subject of the last two in-camera
hearings. The one is marked the 27th and then this new one that was faxed to
me in the jail on Friday. There are 12 substantial differences and I think
what we should do is in order for Mr. Murrant to understand what's being
here, that CSIS is basically submitting new evidence with the same type of
reports. It's not the same report.
When 12 different changes are made, drastic changes, Mr.
Murrant, that bring me..that makes me presently supporting people which have
been out of my orbit for eight years there is a substantial difference here
and I wonder why CSIS did it and so with your permission I want to outline
the changes that were made because I think they're important for you, sir.
Now, Mr. Fromm, you asked me about the first paragraph.
There is a sentence inserted in the very first paragraph that was not in the
previous one and it says, "Zundel describes himself as the guru of
national socialism in Canada."
Now, why it is important for this hearing and wasn't for the
last two hearings before Mr. Thomson, I don't know, this is the thinking of
CSIS, and we couldn't ask Mr. Stewart because he said he didn't prepare the
report.
Now, I want to go to paragraph 3. If you go in the middle of
paragraph 3 they inserted the word "pro-Nazi, militant revisionist
books." In the last report I was accused of only publishing militant
revisionist books. So they must have been short of a bunch of pro-Nazis in
the document. They must have felt it would turn you more against me.
Now, we look at the bottom line of paragraph 3 they have
interjected the following half sentence. It says, the old one read,
"This material has been distributed internationally." Ended there.
And now suddenly we find, "with particular emphasis on Canada, the
United States and Germany." It just happens that those are the three
countries that are raking me over the coals for the moment, but it was not
felt important one month ago but now it seems to be important and I want to
draw that to your attention.
I complained to my lawyers on the telephone, previous
lawyers, that this was a slipshod document and do I find..CSIS is typing up
after my telephone complaints that I have complained..they said a 1994
report? In the old..in the new version suddenly they give the title and now
it's a 1994 B'nai Brith report. So listening to telephone calls is very
good.
Now, I want to go to..I want to go to paragraph 10, Mr. Mr.
Murrant, and this is where I think it is important, sir, for you. Suddenly
in paragraph 10 they say, "In addition to publishing volumes of
material in support of his political ideas, soon to continues to contributes
financially," and in the last report it says, "Contributed
financially." You see?
So within four weeks while I'm laying in the high security
jail I'm suddenly having become a past contributor, I'm not a present
contributor to these Nazi causes.
So this is the first change in that sentence, but there are
four more changes in that one paragraph and I think it is important that a
man like yourself should draw his attention to it.
Paragraph 10, "In addition to publishing volumes of
material to support his political ideas to continues to contribute."
Last time it says contributed financially and then as we go on in the
sentence they add the exchange rate in current day Canadian dollars of what
I'm supposedly having financed with and then they say, "The money
is.." If you go further down, "According to Altans Zundel's money
is not donated." "Is not donated."
In the last time it was, "Altans was expected to do
something." Now it says, "donated freely with German neo-Nazi
cause as Altans is expected to do something for it." Now there's a huge
difference between if I send half a million Deutsche marks to a guy 1993 to
whenever or if I do it from my luxury hotel accommodation in Thorold within
four weeks, you know.
So, if there is something going on. If you come to the tone
of this whole document and you being an attorney you will undoubtedly
appreciate the next paragraph, paragraph 11. Half the paragraph is new
compared to the last time and here what is new.
After they talk about this much to do about these
Intellectual Foreign Legions, information campaigns and so on,
"Nonetheless" - now this is new - "Zundel's material ends
up," not "did end up," but "ends up," present
tense, "in the hands of some of Germany's 'violent rightwing militants'
and leading neo-Nazi organizers," and they continue on, still new
material, "Zundel is well respected in German neo- Nazi scene."
Present tense. "Known for his numerous racially motivated assaults
including notorious Rothstock riots."
So what they have added is emotionally laden word, violent,
rightwing militant, neo-Nazi, racially and one more neo-Nazi here in one
addition within four weeks. So 50 character smears were not enough, they had
to import another six in one paragraph to turn you against me.
Let's go to paragraph 12, they didn't add anything on there.
Go to paragraph 13, they go and translate the value of what I was fined,
12,600 Deutsche marks and they kindly give us the Canadian equivalent and
then they say, "And he was removed from Germany."
Mr. Murrant, first of all, the sum is totally wrong and this
is what I find in this document that Mr. Thomson, the previous Adjudicator,
found compelling and persuasive and I'm making a big to do about this
because my freedom is at stake, number one, not only in this country but in
other countries. The sum that the prosecutor asked for, Mr. Murrant, was
45,000 marks fine which would have been about $30,000 and what eventually I
was convicted was 30,600. So CSIS either didn't read the newspaper clippings
right or that's slipshod work. The sum is totally wrong.
What they did is they mixed up different things. I was
convicted to 30,600 less than what the prosecutor had asked for and then I
went to two appeals. I flew from Canada to Germany to face the German court
for two appeals, Mr. Murrant.
It's only then did they reduce it in each case and finally
in 1995 we arrive at the sum of 12,600. Now this is important. Number one, I
prove that I go to courts to fight for my rights and the German prosecutor
saw things obviously my way because he reduced the fine two-thirds. Big
difference when you come to an inflammatory document like this. So, this is
an addition that they added here.
And those are the minor..no, on the last page when under
international activity they bring it back up to the presence tense and they
say, "Zundel also broadcasts anti-Semitic propaganda by a
short-wave." I haven't made a short-wave broadcast, Mr. Murrant, since
I moved to the United States which is almost three years ago. They import
this as if I'm still lying in my jail in Thorold and I'm making these
inflammatory anti-Semitic propaganda broadcasts around the world.
Now, you should imagine that a Security Service that looks
to Canadian taxpayers for millions of dollars comes out with a little more
accurate stuff, but it gets a little worse even. This is supposedly publicly
available information.
They have me in paragraph 3 land in Canada in 1958, Mr.
Murrant, in September, they got that right, and then magically I became a
landed immigrant in 1959. I became a landed immigrant September 2nd, 1958.
There are all kind of microfilms that could have made that report accurate.
So, these are the changes that are made and I think it would
be nice if there was some official here from CSIS that could actually say
yes, I prepared this report, that we would find out how these wily updates
go in and then we could question him on it.
Now, Mr. Murrant, also I just want to say for the record so
the other judges looking at this know that there were not only 12 additions
and changes made in the tense of the past or the present to make me look
even more evil now, but what we have in the document are four pages, four
sheets of eight and a half by eleven papers. There are 50 emotion laden
trigger words such as 18 times neo-Nazi and pro-Nazi, eight times White
Supremacist, four times anti-Jewish, six times racist and racial, five times
violence, three times extremist and radical rightwing and six times
(inaudible).
Now, in lawyer language these people are engaging into
(inaudible) arguments and loading the deck against me with you, sir. Now, I
know that you are a fair man, but I find this. After 45 years in Canada I
have never looked at an official document, Mr. Murrant, that was so loaded
against a defendant or an accused.
If we were in a regular court there would be very serious
admonitions by the judge. I've been through so many legal proceedings, Mr.
Murrant, this is..this is beyond the pale to load the deck against a
defendant like that and now I've addressed the details of the report because
these people mean to do me harm. Okay, Mr. Fromm?
Q: Okay. I was wondering if you could answer the original
question. The first sentence identifies you as being seen as a patriarch of
the White Supremacist, of the Canadian White Supremacist Movement. Do you
consider yourself a patriarch of the White Supremacist Movement? A: I
suppose I'm guilty of becoming a pensioner soon. That's my crime in this
line because I'm old, older than I used to be, so now I've become a
patriarch.
Q: Okay. Are you a White Supremacist? A: I am not a White
Supremacist. That term was invented by CSIS when they needed a new boogey
man and it was during the time of the Heritage Front that Mr. Murrant says
he knows nothing about.
Well, CSIS was running out of boogey men. Communism had
collapsed. There was no more need for spies and so the budgets were cut.
Everybody was talking about peace dividend and CSIS found themselves a
boogey man and I was one of them.
White Supremacist, no. Now, it's a pity that Mr. Stewart
isn't here any more and that I'm such a computer illiterate, the Zundel
Site, that is the repository of 4,000 documents can be searched by anyone,
media, anyone, can check how often Ernst Zundel took the word White
Supremacist in his mouth. Once, when I wrote against the Klu Klux Klan
running around, dancing in front of fires in their Casper the Friendly Ghost
nightgowns.
In other words, the one time when I used the term is against
the Klu Klux Klan uniforms and practices. So, CSIS has totally turned this
upside down throughout the document. I object to loading the dice against me
and calling me a White Supremacist. I am not. There is no evidence. In all
my public utterings, in all my writings, I have never, ever supported White
Supremacy.
Q: Mr. Zundel, you were for many years an employer... A: I
was.
Q: ...of people through your Zamnistat Publishers, is that
correct? A: Yes.
Q: During the time that you were an employer in Canada did
you ever hire non-whites? A: I certainly did.
Q: Did you ever have non-whites living in your house? A:
Yes, I did.
Q: Could you be specific? A: One of them was a lady that was
a nurse at Waco and she was a Seventh Day Adventist. She was a black woman
and she had nowhere to go and was penniless and her lawyer called me and he
asked if I could put her up for seven months.
Q: For seven months? A: Yes.
Q: And this was a black lady? A: She was a Jamaican woman.
Q: In the United States? A: And because I was a Seventh Day
Adventist as a child he thought that I would take care of her and I did and
I hired, everybody knows that, Dr. Jacobs (ph), who is an East Indian
Professor and I made movies with him. He worked for me for about two years.
Q: So, just to be very clear about this, you would reject
the label White Supremacist? A: Totally.
Q: To describe yourself? A: I totally and I critically
reject that I am a White Supremacist. I am not a guru of them. I am not a
patriarch of them. I never was a member of them. I have no membership in any
of these organizations. It is an absolute fabrication by Canada's civilian
spy agency.
Q: One of the groups mentioned by Mr. Stewart, one that I
think was active in the early '80's, the Klu Klux Klan, were you ever a
member of the Klu Klux Klan? A: I was never a member of any white racist
organizations here or in Germany or in America.
Q: I'm not sure how long to characterize it, but the name
Heritage Front did come up. Were you ever a member of the Heritage Front? A:
I was never a member of the Heritage Front.
Q: In paragraph 2, subsection (2), "Zundel was and
still is a leading distribution of revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda."
Are you a neo-Nazi? A: Neo-Nazi is..neo-Nazi, the term, is a Marxist smear
word that came up during, or shortly after World War II and in the context
that it is meant I am not. Neo- Nazi today has become a smear word with
which political opponents operate and we will come to this, Mr. Murrant. We
will come to that because we have a German constitutional police report here
about the court case that Mr. Stewart testified to and I will read to you
what the German police calls me in the police report as compared to what
CSIS called me about the same event.
Q: Do you identify yourself as a publisher of neo-Nazi
materials? A: I have never published neo-Nazi material. I have published
historical material about the national socialist era in Germany. I am a
German. These people were for 14 or 15 years people of our history. They
were Germany's leaders. They were Premiers, the Foreign Minister. Canada had
diplomatic relations with them, America did, the Queen of..the King of
England, later the man who married the Simpson lady, went to see Hitler.
Everybody wined and dined Hitler. The Olympics were held in Germany. If I go
and deny 13 years of Germany history, I'm a German.
Q: How would you identify yourself? CSIS called you a
publisher of neo-Nazi propaganda. How would you identify yourself? A: I am a
German Canadian human rights activist. My entire effort in Canada has been
to defend my ethnic group amongst media and government borne hate mongering
against my ethnic group.
Q: Now, what you led you into this struggle for human rights
for the German Canadian group? A: I came to Canada because I was a Christian
pacifist. Canada that was the only country that did not draft young men into
military service to go and kill other people and so I chose Canada purposely
for the pacifist background that they had and that I could come here without
being forced to go to military service.
Q: So is it your testimony you were a pacifist? You are a
pacifist? A: I still am a convinced pacifist and furthermore I was raised in
post-war Germany as an anti-Nazi. All our textbooks were controlled by the
allies. There was nothing good in our textbooks about the period of German
history and I bought this propaganda image by the allies hook, line and
sinker. I had a guilt complex about what my German people had done
supposedly to the Jews.
Only after I came to this country where the libraries were
not burnt and cleaned like they were in Germany after the war did I change
my mind slowly and it was at the university in Montreal, Sir Charles
(Inaudible) University, Professor Carl Bertrand (ph), and a French Canadian
man called Adiarca (ph) who turned my thinking around.
I changed my mind. My crime is I used to believe in the ally
lies and I changed my mind and believe in my truth as I found it.
Q: I was wondering if we could focus a little bit more on
why you became a human rights activist for German Canadians? A: Because
every day when I turned on my television and when my children came home with
their schoolbooks and went I went to university even my university textbooks
we still had the human cadaver factory where the Germans in World War I were
supposed to make soap from human corpses which was recycled in post-World
War II propaganda.
Every single German person who would be polled could tell
you that they're constantly assaulted by media borne hatred against our
ethnic group and I spoke up and the reason why I wear this nice orange suit
today is strictly because of that fact, not because I'm a threat.
Q: In the third paragraph of the report before us it says
that, "Zundel had authored pro-Nazi militant revisionist books,
articles, news videos that claim the Holocaust is a hoax." Would you
accept that? That you authored pro-Nazi revisionist books? A: In the normal
(inaudible) of Western media, especially the Canadian media of late, any
time you defend a position, for instance for Germany's eastern territories,
15 million German people were ethnically cleansed from that territory where
they had lived with their ancestors bones buried for 800 years. Why should
we not insist that this was a historic wrong and that this land belongs to
the Germans? Just because we lost the war means nothing.
The Mexicans want to get the southwest back off the United
States. They're not called militant Mexican racist, Nazi bigots. That's
my..that's my statement. I defend my German people's history, warts and all,
Mr. Chairman. Warts and all.
I freely admit some of the wrongs that were done. I've said
that over and over again. There's a thousand records of my statement to that
effect, but I am not what they say I am.
Q: In that fourth paragraph you are described as, "A
pro-Nazi propagandist." How would you describe yourself? Are you a
pro-Nazi propagandist?
A: I am not a pro-Nazi propagandist. I was in advertising. I
made my living as a broadcaster, as a publisher. I produced 2,000 radio
shows, 600 television shows. I have written 30, 40 booklets, some of which
landed me in front of Canada's courts for nine and a half years of
litigation, and I won them in the Supreme Court.
I have no criminal record. What I published was material in
defense of the German historical position. Now, that's what they call
neo-Nazi today? I can't change it. It is like a millstone around my neck. I
refused to be labeled by my enemies. Till the day I day I am not the
publisher of pro-Nazi militant revisionist books. I am the publisher of
revisionist books and when we get to the German police report the German
police refers to me in far away Canada as a revisionist publisher.
Q: In both this and the previous summary report, in
paragraph 4, mention is made of The Toronto Star article of March 25th, 1981
which talked about raids on the homes of many people in Germany and the fact
that some of your material was found in these raids. Can you tell us what
the disposition of these charges were in Germany for the 1981 raids? A: I'm
glad that you are raising that point because it was raised in-camera with
Mr. Thomson, this clipping, and Mr. Stewart testified like he did today. Mr.
Murrant, there were not 450 homes raided in Germany because they received
material from three different publishers. If you go down to the bottom of
this clipping that Mr. Stewart introduced into evidence, three major
producers of brochures, the American Gary Lau (ph) and (inaudible) and the
Canadian Ernst Zundel.
Now, by mixing three different publishers they came up with
the inflammatory headline because the other two, like Gary Lau for instance,
he's known as the Prairie Fuhrer in the United States, he floods Germany
with (inaudible) and so on and the other one publishes borderline material,
Mr. Ditz (ph). I have never sent any material to Germany with swastikas on
it because it is illegal in Germany and I do not sacrifice the people who
buy my books and support me financially to the German judiciary or the
German police.
Therefore, I do not publish neo-Nazi memorabalia. This is
what others have done and they mixed three different publishers and so, but
the interesting thing is the disposition of the court is, and I have a
letter to Mr. Alan Borenbeau (ph) from the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association of which I was a member for 25 years, after a year, Mr. Murrant,
after one year, and this is the shame that I find with CSIS in this report
and this is why it would have been nice if we could have questioned the
actual author of this report, the disposition of this case is that when the
prosecutors in the town of Stuttgart looked at all these 2,000 raids that
were conducted by the German police involving 300 prosecutors, 50 judges and
10,000 police in this March 1981 series of raids.
After one year, the prosecutor looking at all these
documents of the three publishers I was the one that they dropped the
charges, Mr. Murrant. They dropped the charges. There was not sufficient
evidence to proceed, but how they got the names of these 2,000 people is
interesting.
The German police seized my bank account in Germany and they
took the names of all these people that have paid for my books and the
German police was forced to give me back my money, pay the legal fees for my
lawyer, give me back my money plus interest, but that didn't prevent the
German police from seizing my bank account twice more and get slapped down
twice more.
So, the disposition of this case is that CSIS lets hanging
in the air, presents to you as if I was this monstrous person upsetting the
Germany body politics. I was not charged. I was found innocent.
Mr. Murrant, this is why it's dangerous to bring in 1,000
pages of news clippings and not pursue it to the end. CSIS, to be fair to
its citizens, should check the disposition. There would be numerous
incidents where CSIS takes the accusation and we'll come to one in a very
brief moment. They take the accusation as if it was a conviction. It is not.
I won that case by being judged that my material was not neo-Nazi, was not
hate literature. I won my case.
Now, Tom Cherrington (ph), I don't know if you knew the man
from...
MR. MACINTOSH: Hamilton.
PERSON CONCERNED: Hamilton. Did a t.v. show with me and
Sapina Zatron (ph), the Jewish lady who has been after my hide for 25 years
was with me on the Tom Cherrington show and Tom called the German Consul,
Von Hassel (ph) in Toronto, and on that t.v. program and if need be I can
supply the tape, was his voice.
Dr. Von Hassel underneath, German Consul, who said yes,
Zundel was right. He won his case. So, that is one example of where I was
supposed to be made in your eyes to look like some upsetting agitator and I
won my case.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Could you read the
headline there? A: It says German Raids Find Metro Nazi Propaganda.
Q: Now, am I correct that at the previous detention hearing
you asked Mr. Stewart if he knew the disposition of the case? A: That's
right.
Q: And what was his response? A: He didn't know.
Q: So the headline here, German Raids Fine Metro Nazi
Propaganda... A: That's right.
Q: ...and... A: And it also says that my material was
smuggled into Germany. Mr. Murrant, I have never smuggled stuff. I am an
aboveboard publishing company, a corporation, registered with Ontario since
1977. I've been inspected by every inspector that you ever want to know. The
building inspector, the tax inspector. I don't smuggle stuff. I send
legitimate dissident material to my home country and with the exception of
the one case which we'll also discuss in the Constitutional Police's file, I
have never been convicted except that one time and we'll come to the
disposition of that case.
Q: I'd just like to pursue at the end of the fourth
paragraph. "Zundel was believed to become one of the most notorious
distributors of hate material in the world." Have you ever been
convicted under the Canadian criminal law under Section 319, willfully
promoting hate? A: Three separate incidents, Jewish groups, Jewish
individuals tried to charge me and they pressed charges under the Hate Law
319 and every Attorney General in every province in Canada has turned down
any prosecution against me under the Canadian Hate Law.
Now, I've been here for 45 years. I'm supposed to be this
monstrous agitator. I have never been prosecuted under the Hate Law and we
have in our files which I'll bring to you today the reasoning by the
Attorney General for instance of Ontario, why they did drop the charges.
Insufficient evidence.
They say my material is in bad taste, et cetera, but if
you're not running a popularity contest, whether I'm popular or not, legally
I have never been charged. I have at this moment in this country where I
have lived since 1958 no criminal record.
Q: Mr. Zundel, that last sentence claims that you are one of
the most notorious distributors of hate material in the world and it's your
testimony you have never been convicted or charged in Canada for the willful
promotion of hate, is that correct? A: Precisely.
Q: And what about in Germany? Have you ever been charged for
hate in Germany? A: That's right, and it's a very important point and Mr.
Stewart brought these fat volumes with five tabs. Your predecessor, Mr.
Thomson, was given by Mr. Stewart this book which is about the first third
of that fat book, and we'll come to that, where Mr. Justice Dixon (ph),
former Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court and Mrs. Justice
MacLaughlin (ph), the current Chief Justice of Canada, has a number of
definitions of the Canadian Hate Law and Freedom of Expression, and I will
with your indulgence point out what these two Chief Justices have to say to
prove why I was never successfully prosecuted and why these charges were
dropped against me because I fall clearly within the outlines the Chief
Justices have set.
The people in the media, public speakers, writers and so on
are entitled when we are raising socially important issues and the
difference why I was convicted in Germany one time under the Hate Law is
simply this, Mr. Murrant. In Germany truth is not a defense.
Mr. Justice Dixon and Beverly MacLaughlin say in Canada
expressly the most important defense in the Canadian law is the defense of
truth and if I can prove that I am trying to undo a malice in Canadian
society, which I say the anti-German hate mongering having been a member of
the German minority, knowing how it affects our minority, I am trying to
remove by public discussion and by pointing out that our Jewish detractors
keep dumping on us.
I am saying, and I am proving, I'm sitting here living proof
having never been successfully prosecuted under the Hate Law, that the
Canadian state and the Supreme Court of Canada honored my commitment to a)
non- violence, and we'll come to that in a second when I won my case in the
Supreme Court.
I was never charged under the hate law. Never successfully
prosecuted. All the charges were always withdrawn and so, it is because the
finest legal minds in this country have determined that Ernst Zundel is not
your ordinary bigot that shouts racial epitaphs over the fence, that what I
defend in all my heart and soul is my ethnic group from hate mongering, Mr.
Murrant. From hate mongering.
Q: I'd like, just before we leave section 4, peck away at
the term notorious which means very well known. You're identified as
notorious distributor of hate material, one of the most notorious
distributors in the world and you say you've never been convicted in Canada.
A: No. No.
Q: Promoting hate under Section 319. A: No.
Q: Now, you did have a conviction you say in Germany. Have
you ever been tried or convicted in the United States? A: Absolutely not.
Q: Have you ever been tried and convicted in any other
country? A: No. Mr. Murrant, I want to raise that. I'm going to answer that
fully. My radio programs that were broadcast from Radio Moscow, from the
Ivory Coast, from Monaco, from America that went to 38 United States states
and six Canadian provinces, in all the decades that I broadcast, over 100 of
the access stations, on NASA satellite, by short-wave in German and in
English, never led to any charges or any problems with the FCC in the United
States.
We had at KXOL Iowa 95% listener approval rating, four
broadcasts a week. In all the thousands of broadcasts that I did I was never
charged, never hounded by the FCC regulatory agency in the United States,
nor in Canada.
So, the word notorious only come to that..so he leaves me
alone after that. I bought a dictionary in jail in Thorold, $1.59, very
cheap, and I looked under the word notorious. It has two interpretations.
One of them says well known and the other one is a little more shaded, you
know, kind of a less than nice thing.
Now, take your pick. Of course I'm well known. I'm a
household word in Canada, you know. In the index to the CSIS report, the
very first book, Mr. Murrant, that they say is unclassified (inaudible)
index, the Canadian 100. The most influential Canadians of the 20th Century
and guess where I am? Number 44 on the list.
Now, I'm notorious. Well known. To some I'm well known, to
others I'm notorious.
Q: Move on to paragraph 5. This deals with the charges by
the Toronto Mayor's Community Race Relations filed under the Human Rights
Act. A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall these charges? A: I certainly do.
Q: And it says at the end of that paragraph, "And also
the Zundel site was the subject of legal proceedings of Germany, several
mirror sites were established." Were you responsible for the
establishment of these mirror sites? A: Well, this is a big paragraph and
I'll answer your last question first. They were not legal proceedings, Mr.
Murrant, that the Zundel site was subject to. The German state without court
approval, the German Interior Ministry, blocked 1,500 United States web
sites on Webcom who was then the third largest American ISP and they did
block it for two or three weeks and there was a huge international uproar
over that and eventually American university students from Georgia State,
MIT, Melon University and a number of others, all told, 13 mirror sites were
established. I did not establish a single mirror site. Did not need to.
My wife, who is now my wife, the lady who was then the web
master and still is the owner of the Zundel site...
MEMBER: Just one moment.
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, okay.
MEMBER: Sorry, carry on, Mr. Zundel.
PERSON CONCERNED: Yes. Where were we? Oh yes, the web sites.
I forgot to mention Stanford University was one of them. Now, there were 13
mirrors that were established spontaneously by American free speech
advocates, mainly students.
One of them was a man called Dick Lamakulaku (ph) who is now
a very famous columnist for Wyart (ph) magazine. He was a student at his
university. There were mirror sites in Australia, in Europe and if CSIS was
as conscientious in bringing, what is it called in lawyer talk? Exculpatory
evidence.
In other words, if they had brought you an article from The
London Free Press what it said in there, it's where these mirrors were, why
they were established and it said Zundel clear winner in internet fight
because the German government had to back down because, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Murrant, in America the President of the United States claimed..the
President of the United States, Bush, the 9th Circuit Court and also the
Supreme Court has declared the internet sacrosanct, inviolable by
censorship.
So, for the Germans to block 1,500 web sites, for instance
like the Tourist Board of Melbourne, the Deutscha Bank (ph) in Frankfort,
all these people lost one and a half weeks prime..before Christmas, prime
business period because the Germans simply closed down by an international
act of terrorism against these United States ISP's, these web sites, and in
the end the international community made them back down.
So, I didn't have to set up mirrors. CSIS is telling an
untruth. It is trying to poison the waters for me.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: In paragraph 6, I
guess relates in a way to 5, you told Sapina Zatrom, who identifies herself
as a survivor of the Holocaust, lodged a parallel complaint indicating the
messages posted on the internet by Ernst Zundel were likely to expose her
and others to hate and contempt. Was this your first run-in with Sapina
Zatrom? A: Sapina Zatrom is a wealthy Jewish woman from Toronto multi-milliionaire,
has pursued me since 1980. Was responsible for banning my company from the
mail for the year which I won and we will come to that, the disposition of
that case, but you know, you went ahead of yourself for a very important
point that I think Mr. Murrant is entitled to understand what went down and
that is a very top paragraph 5, about this Human Rights Commission hearing
that lasted five obscene years and I would like to come to the decision.
I think the lawyers from the Justice Department, sir, you
gave the first page of the decision. Well, I have the entire decision here
which was delivered to me thanks to the Human Rights Commission to my jail
cell and serves as my reading matter since I'm not allowed books or
anything, and here it is.
What Mr. Penza (ph) says on page 9 of the ruling of the...
Q: Can we identify who he is? A: Mr. Penza was the Chairman
of that hearing into the Zundel site and on page 9 for the reasons for
background and so on for this thing here is what he said. On paragraph 14,
"At the outset of the hearing the respondent applied for a stay
alleging for a variety of reasons complaints were not properly before us.
Leave was sought to lay the foundation for the Motion by colleague Ingrid
Rimland (ph) of California who it was said was the creator, comptroller,
editor, publisher and author of the materials on the Zundel site.
The purpose of calling this witness presumably was to boast
for the affidavit evidence filed in support in the Motion to support the
argument that control of the Zundel site was solely in her hands."
That's Mr. Penza writing in paragraph 14 and then we go to
paragraph 15. "In effect, the application if acceded to would have
constituted a summary dismissal of these proceedings," and then he goes
down to..the paragraph goes on and then he goes down to paragraph 16 and he
says, "The affidavit materials filed in support of the preliminary
Motion do not form part of the record on the merits of these
complaints."
Mr. Murrant, here is what is going down. I'm married to
Ingrid Rimland now, have been for three years. Ingrid set up this web site
in 1995. She ran that web site. She decided to call it that name. It has
forever continuously been located in the United States where it is
sacrosanct from censorship, and this Canadian tribunal, unto itself, the
power to regulate apparently an American owned and operated web site and in
order not to have to dismiss the complaint refuses to hear Ingrid Rimland
who was sitting right in the courtroom ready go testify and then hides from
any Appeal Court judges the affidavit that my wife submitted, my current
wife, then the lady that did this web site so that no judicial review person
will see the affidavit.
Well, I have the affidavit here and we can submit that into
evidence because this is a real troubling situation for me. It comes up here
and one time I have to give CSIS credit. A little bit down they admit that
the ruling by the court, by the Human Rights tribunal couldn't be enforced
because it was an American ISP.
So, this is the background to this web site controversy that
went for five long years and cost the Canadian taxpayers $500,000 and Mr.
Penza could have, had he been decent, stopped it the very first day of the
hearings summary, right then and there, because the poof that Ingrid Rimland
owned it was right there and he had the affidavit in front of him.
Q: In paragraph 7 can you indicate the disposition of those
charges under the Canadian Human Rights Act? A: Yes. The hearings went on
for another year and a half. I left Canada May 21st. May 21st in the year
2000. So, I applied for landed immigrant status in the United States to be
with my wife. I got married January 19th, 2000 and we have been together
since that time in the United States until my unfortunate deportation.
So, I was not subject, like my wife was not subject, to
whatever ruling Mr. Penza fancied himself he could make. It was an American
web site run by an American citizen protected by the American Constitution.
The first amendment to that Constitution. Mr. Penza knew it and CSIS knows
it. They had no judicial control because clearly in his ruling at the end,
sir, you will see that the Canadian Human Rights Commission only speaks what
is in the confines or under the control of Canadian Parliament.
California is not. America is not. So, the decision that Mr.
Penza rendered he says himself was symbolic. Symbolic. It was in effect
moot. I was no longer here. I did not intend to come back here for that but
I'm here now and so I will do the responsible thing. When this comes up I
will do what I have done with all other Canadian judicial proceedings. I
will appear. I will fight it and fight it and fight it some more and I will
let the Supreme Court of Canada with some luck look at this travesty that
went down here and then we can tell who's guilty and who is not guilty, not
before.
Q: So just to clarify about paragraph 7. Now that you are
back in Canada and apparently subject to the ruling of the Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal have you taken any steps in that matter? A: I have.
Q: And what? A: I've contacted the Federal Court and am
working on getting a delayed judicial review of this particular matter and
until that time I consider that still open and it is before the courts.
Q: So, in layman terms you're appealing... A: It is.
Q: ...the Human Rights Tribunal? A: I have already written
to the Registrar of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. It is my
intention since this is a matter of national importance, who controls the
internet and the technology and so on, it's important for the media, I will
appeal that if the court permits me, and if not then we'll have to talk
about contempt charges, but so far there are no contempt charges because I
intend to appeal that.
Q: Paragraph 8 talks about some of the material on the
Zundel site and towards the end of the paragraph if we read, "The
Zundel site also posts discussions from other extremist groups such as the
British National Party. The BNP is a neo-Nazi political party and espouses
rightwing anti-Semitic and White Supremacist ideology." To your
knowledge, from what's on the Zundel site, is the BNP a neo-Nazi political
party? A: Number one, I am computer illiterate and I am computer-phobic. I
hate to admit it, but my worst weapon is the fountain pen. That's about as
far as I got. My wife bought me a very nice modern computer $4,000, I sat
down in front of that damn machine and in less than half an hour I had it so
screwed up that it cost us $500.00 to repair it. So I haven't gone back
since.
I have not been and visited the Zundel site in years. In
years. I have never personally had the passport. I've never uploaded,
downloaded, reloaded, whatever else they call it. So I don't know if this is
true. I would actually have hoped that Mr. Stewart had a laptop computer and
we could ask your indulgence if he could go on there and check some of those
things. I was desperately wondering if we could put in the words White
Supremacist, sir, so that you could see for yourself that in my 45 years if
I have ever used the word approvingly or positively. Maybe at some other
venue, but not this one.
Q: In paragraph 9, now dealing with your activities in
Germany, the report, the CSIS Report, cites Graham Matheson (ph) some German
correspondent for Search Light (ph) and attributes certain statements to
him. Are you aware of this publication, Search Light? A: Search Light is a
British Marxist publication and it is to political commentary what the
National Enquirer is to the New York Times. It's basically an ideologically
oriented agitational rag. It has no standing in the international community
and in the Canadian government document by the country's top spy agency they
should seek as low as quoting some.. they would not quote the National
Enquirer, but quote the political equivalent to the National Enquirer. This
document, it's disgusting.
Q: On the next page at paragraph 10, "In addition to
publishing volumes of material to support his political ideas Zundel
continues to contribute financially to the neo-Nazi movement in
Germany." Is that true? Continues to contribute financially to some
movement in Germany? A: Mr. Murrant, that is the one thing talking about
this document, as I said. This was imported in this new report.
"Continues to contribute." Now, the man that they mention in this
paragraph, Abald Altans, has been out of any political activity since 1995
and in his court case he admitted to having been a government informant and
the Chief of German...
Q: For which government? A: The West German. Yes, for the
police. The Constitutional Police. Now, as it turns out, Abald Altans got
into a tight fix and like so many people one inch away from the jail door
closing they make deals. They make deals with whomever. The devil if
necessary and apparently Altans offered the German Constitutional police,
odd but we have that in Germany, 14,000 addresses of people, rightwing
people, and he wanted the handsome sum of 300,000 Deutsche marks which is
about $240,000 and it didn't take long for the German Constitutional police
with their computers to run some names through it. Anyway they found that
Altans was feeding them a garbage list and so they nailed him, charged him,
arrested, convicted him in Berlin and he has never been heard from since
politically.
I certainly do not continue to contribute to him because he
was convicted in 1995 and got three and a half years in jail and the Chief
of the German Constitution police testified against him and he said he was
an unreliable informant. Naturally if you give somebody 14,000 bum names you
would be unreliable.
And so, for CSIS from last month to this month, import to
make me look like I'm still financing that man, now I consider that not only
underhanded, I consider that downright sneaky, you know. Amazing to me that
this should be done in the government and handed to you, sir. A government
report handed to you.
Now, and I still..last sentence, "As Altans is expected
to do something for him." Altans works today with his homosexual lover
in Antwerp, Belgium. I have not heard from Altans in seven years and they
say "is expected to do something." It's unfair and the new import
money, is not donated to the German neo-Nazi cause.
It makes me sound, Mr. Murrant, as if I am the money bags
and I'm handing out money, you know, hand over fist to finance all these
people in Germany. I was the President of a corporation. My books were
inspected by Canadian government, tax inspectors, Federal, Provincial,
income tax, sales tax, GST. For every single dollar that I had to spend as
President of this corporation I was responsible for and when Altans says he
was expected to do something, darn right. I don't hand money out for
ne'er-do-wells that they can go and booze it away. He had to do something
and that was be a P.R. man, be an advance man for me.
For instance, when I did a whole series of interviews with
Russian Parliamentarians, amongst them Parliamentarian Cherynoski (ph), very
famous, Altans went to Moscow and to Leningrad to be what P.R. people do and
advance people do, he set up these interviews for me and I paid him for that
and he had to give me receipts for that. That's what it is.
Now, they make it a big deal about these demonstrations for
Rudolph Hess in the W-5 program and Mr..the attorney for the Justice
Ministry, Mr. MacIntosh, got really exercised last time because of Rudolph
Hess marches.
Now, Mr. MacIntosh is entitled to his likes and dislikes of
figures in German history. I am German. This man, sir, flew to England as
the Deputy Leader of Germany in an unarmed plane because he wanted to make
peace between Germany and England before the European civil war ended into a
world war. He parachuted at almost 50 or some years old at night into
England because he was so desperate with wanting to make peace between
Germany and Holland..between Germany and England and he for the rest of his
life sat in Schvundau (ph) prison and most German people, regardless of
their politics, Mr. Murrant, have a soft part in their hearts for this man
who spent over 40 years, almost 50 years, in solitary confinement because he
wanted to make peace between the two nations, England and Germany.
And yes, I help young people make up demonstrations to bring
his plight to the attention of the public and my t.v. crew was there to film
these demonstrations and to broadcast it all over Canada and the United
States by satellite and on 100 public
access stations. I am not ashamed, sir, that this money was
spent for that purpose.
Q: Were these peaceful demonstrations? A: They were
absolutely peaceful demonstrations. They were approved by the German
government. In Germany you cannot just have a demonstration, you have to get
approval from the authorities and virtually every year Rudolph Hess marches
have been approved by the German government because they know it's a
sentiment of the public in that corner.
Q: In paragraph 11, about halfway down, "Nonetheless,
Zundel's material ends up in the hands of Germany's violent rightwing
militants and neo-Nazi organizers. Zundel is well respected in the German
neo-Nazi scene." Do you in presenting this material to people in
Germany advocate any sort of actions? There's a connection being made in
this report between violent rightwing militants having this material. What
exactly does your material ask people to do or tell people to do? A: I have
never, ever advocated any act of violence. I have always written against
violence. I am known as the Gandhi of the Right. What I advocate is public
education campaigns, like democratic meets, letters to the editors,
demonstrations, an expression..and Beverly MacLaughlin, we wil lcome to
that, all these things that I advocate are legal in Germany and legal in
Canada. More legal in Canada of course than in Germany because Germany has
an occupational regime and the reason why I'm fighting so hard to be allowed
to stay here is for that reason. I respect for the Anglo-Saxon legal
tradition and in the end after everything was said and done the newspapers
dumped on me for the last 20 years. The Supreme Court of Canada in spite of
all that set me free with a wonderful decision by majority of the judges
when they said that Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights protects people
like me because members of minorities must have a right to their thoughts
and their history, as long, says Beverly MacLaughlin in the ruling, as long
as they are presented non-violently.
So, where does CSIS get off to paint me into this violent
freak? If the Supreme Court of Canada in a majority decision as late as 1992
and since there were no other criminal charges since then my record stands
as a non-violent man and advocate of peaceful, democratic change and
evolution and this is why I think Mr. Fromm raised the point to the
dissident exemption in the CSIS Act, Mr. Murrant.
I am your classic unloved maybe unpopular dissident. I know
I'm not popular with my viewpoint. The bombs prove it and the arson on my
house prove it and the beatings that I got outside the courtroom steps, the
11 jailings I got in Canada, but popular, but I am a member of a minority as
the Supreme Court ruled entitled to my opinion and then I went on and they
said..unfortunately I don't have the decision here. It burned in the fire in
1995.
That members of minorities in Canada have to have a right to
be wrong. Even if the majority thinks we are out to lunch we have to have a
right to say it as long as we say it peacefully.
Q: Paragraph 12 highlights a phrase you used in The Fifth
Estate interview. It says, "Nonetheless, in that interview Zundel
stated that he sows the seeds and other people build on those ideas."
Now, this is embedded in writing the deals with violence. Can you clearly
what you meant? You sow the seeds and other people build on those ideas. A:
Mr. Stewart was asked this very question from the transcript of The Fifth
Estate and that all that I ever advocated, and I have a two hour tape with
Mallorick being filmed, so we have Fifth Estate. It is a version, and we
have a two hour version of what I said, all what I ever promoted and what
you will find, sir, in the transcript, you were given the copy today, is
books, videos, speeches, marches, demonstrations. Everything especially
mentioned by Beverly MacLaughlin in the (inaudible) thing, in that book, the
first page you come to, guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, guaranteed by most democratic countries in the world, even in poor
Germany. That's why they can hold Rudolph Hess marches.
So, what I advocate, what I send to Germany, is legal
material. Legal material. No swastika adorned for the German market because
I do not want to get my supporters five years in jail. That's what you get
in Germany for showing, for displaying a swastika or anything like that. I
am a responsible person to friend and foe. Thank you.
Q: Paragraph 13 deals with or alleges you're promoting..
"His racist views in Germany have resulted in him being convicted of
anti-state activities." Were the views expressed in Germany, your views
expressed, racist? A: Germany has the most stringent suppression of free
speech laws next to Regina. I kid nobody. Germany, when it comes to these
democratic freedoms, the German people, since Kaiser Wilhelm's time in the
1880's under Bismark until today, never knew what freedom was in the
Anglo-Saxon tradition.
The German people don't know freedom of speech. They haven't
got a concept of what freedom of speech is. They've been governed by a
succession of dictators from the Kaiser to (inaudible) Republic who had very
strong hate law restrictions and so on, right down to today.
The reason why I have fought so hard to stay in Canada after
being deported April 29th, 1985 already and it was overturned because it was
illegally issued. I fought so hard for this country, many segments of which
have given me a hard time, but ultimately I believe in law and order and in
the traditions of this country and to impugn to me that I'm a threat to this
country, I have worked for 45 years, raised two sons and four grandchildren
and gave employment to dozens of people, all races, colors, is disgusting.
It's disgusting.
Now, anti-state. I'm sorry I got carried away there. There
is this rule by the German Constitutional police. Let's find it. Have you
got maybe that?
Q: We'll get into that. A: No. Well, the important thing is
that they accused me of anti-state activities. Where is that document? Let's
see if we can find that. Yes, I think that's the one because..yes, yours.
You see, Mr. Murrant, this is one of the things that
troubled me about the CSIS Report because they for instance say that I was
found guilty of anti-state activities, but in effect a report by the German
Constitution police based on the Interior Ministry of Bavaria where my trial
took place, says that the judge at the end of this long trial for German
trial, said that, "Germany had number one decided not to give me a jail
term," because they say, "They did not want to make me more
important than I was," and the judge answered by saying, "That
from this accused no serious danger emanates."
The judge says, and yet CSIS with a bold face to you, sir,
says that I was, what is it? Charged with anti-state activities? Where are
we here? Yes, convicted of anti-state activities and the judge in here
backed up by the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior, now I have no
translation for you, but we can certainly ask Mr. Reid to make photocopies
of it...
Q: We'll be presenting this. A: Yes, okay.
Q: Just going to the conclusion of this report that was
presented to us today, paragraph 17 says, "That you are unlikely to
resort to violence yourself, however you financially and ideologically
support militant right White Supremacists and neo-Nazi groups and there are
reasonable grounds to believe he has supported groups who advocate and use
violence to achieve their objectives." Is that true? That you support
militant White Supremacist groups? A: I categorically reject both of the
conclusions of CSIS. I object to the language, the intempered (sic) language
that has no business in a government report and I totally reject that I've
ever advocated violence. I have not.
Q: Mr. Zundel... A: You got ahead of yourself on one point
here that is important for Mr. Murrant to know and that is paragraph 14,
sir. We're talking about the internet where the real battle for freedom
takes place. The German government tried to force, threatened, bludgeoned,
cajoled, whatever, manipulated four American internet service providers to
block or throw out or terminate several web sites on their ISP's.
Now, here we have a government in Germany that has
absolutely no jurisdiction within the United States asking four internet
service providers to do something unconstitutional. They actually were
committing a crime. In plain English, the German government was committing
the crime preventing American citizens from doing something which they have
a constitutionally protected right from doing, which is to express
themselves freely, unhindered, unfettered, uncensored on the American
internet and, to no one's surprise, certainly not to my surprise, they got
the cold shoulder.
Now, it is really something, it is tantamount to Red China
coming to Canada and asking Canadians or Americans to not allow information
that free Chinese want to spread. Of course the United Stated internet
providers turned them down, but in the CSIS thing how does that read? That
whole compilation of these four sheets in front of you make me out as if I'm
some irresponsible wild-eyed, violence supporting crackpot or revolutionary
in effect.
I have the longest record of being examined in Canada. I am
the most X-rayed person in this whole country. I've spent 20 years in
litigation. So I reject CSIS's conclusion absolutely and totally.
Q: I'd like to explore if I might that conclusion in
paragraph 18. The conclusion is, "There are reasonable grounds to
believe that Zundel has been and would be in a position to influence his
followers to commit acts of serious violence in Canada or abroad." As
you indicated you've had a long experience with Canadian courts. Were you at
some point put in jail? A: Eleven times.
Q: Prior to this one? A: To this one, yes.
Q: Now, at the time that you were about to go to jail what
did you instruct your supporters to do? A: Write letters to the editors, to
be perfectly peaceful, not to take any vengeance. Mr. Murrant, when my house
was torched 5,000 books in my library that I had accumulated in Canada for
over 40 years were burned. Thirty years of my research writing, files,
dozens and dozens of my paintings because I'm an artist, burned.
You should think that at that very moment a guy could snap
and at least at that moment I might be tempted to advocate something or do
something. What did Ernst do? I counseled all my supporters to be calm, to
be controlled. The police would find these people. They would be prosecuted,
due process would take place. In the meantime we are going to rebuild
stronger, better, safer and that's what we did and the day I remember it,
August 2nd, 1995, I was standing up on the fourth floor of my house
rebuilding when that CSIS agent came to deliver Marchi's letter declaring me
a security threat. I had just been burned out and had been sent the most
powerful pipe bomb Metro Toronto Police ever got and I did not advocate to a
single person to strike back in any other way than to call their
Congressman, write to their M.P., so that we could get a proper
investigation going. Eventually, unfortunately they never did catch the
arsonist, but they did catch the people who sent me the bomb.
Q: After your 11 trips to jail, after the firebombing of
your house, to your knowledge did any of your supporters break the law? Did
any of them commit serious acts of violence that you know of? A: I have not
a single report or article or personal knowledge of any one of..anyone
associated with me, receiving my newsletters or listening to my radio
broadcasts or t.v. broadcasts that was ever charged or convicted for
committing any violence crime. Not one.
We kept pressing CSIS to deliver..this is why I was..
sometimes I sounded a little bit cruel to Mr. Stewart. We were asking for
facts because, Mr. Murrant, I'm in a high security trial. I'm wearing the
garment of ex-murderers and serial killers. I get no radio, no television.
The last newspaper I saw was lying on the floor, it was dated February 14th.
I'm a writer, publisher, artists. I see no daylight except when I'm taken
for my ten minute walk in the fresh air. That's the reality.
But what this smear sheet has done to me, if that smear
sheet did not exist, Mr. Murrant, the Canadian Immigration Officer would
have done what other Canadian Immigration Officers have done in the past,
Ernst, you're back, oh you overstayed your time. Well, let me investigate
that. Have a nice day.
Instead within hours I was in handcuffs and here I am in
front of you, sir, and you're asking the government, you're saying, is the
government investigating you? Well, the government has been investigating me
certainly. They've even updated me to be this nasty guy that still supports
Abald Altans who's been out of the movement for eight years.
It's not fair what is going down here, Mr. Murrant. A
dissident in front of your eyes is being railroaded. That's what it is in my
opinion and as Mrs. Justice MacLaughlin said people in Canada have a right
to their opinions. I don't know at what time Mr. Fromm wants me to introduce
the Chief Justice's definition of truth, definition of violence, definition
of hate. It's right in the document that Mr. MacIntosh gave to you in the
very first tab. I don't know at what moment in the proceedings we're going
to do that, but I think you should have the benefit of two Chief Justices
talking about these very important things to explain to you why I, with all
this terrible reputation given in the media, have never been charged under
Canada's Hate Law, I mean never been convicted. Charged three times. The
Attorney General has dropped the charges.
There has to be some forum in Canada that gives me a fair
hearing and I believe you're giving me a fair hearing.
Q: Can we have a brief recess?
MEMBER: Recess.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is now resumed. Mr. Fromm?
COUNSEL: Mr. Murrant, I'd like to show Mr. Zundel copy of a
photocopy, portions of a book called Covert Entry, Spies, Lies and Crimes
Inside Canada's Secret Service by Andrew Mitrovika (ph). I've given copies
to the lawyers from the Department of Justice and I'm sending a copy up to
you and this is a couple of pages selected from this book here which is
published last year by Random House Canada and it's called Covert Entry,
Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service by investigative
journalist Andrew Mitrovika.
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: Mr. Zundel, do you
recognize this document? A: Yes, I do.
Q: Have you read the book, Covert Entries? A: Only the
sections pertaining to me.
Q: So there's a section pertaining to you? A: Yes, there is.
Q: And that would be a chapter? A: Yes, from page 13..maybe
not a chapter. From page 136 to page 140.
Q: Might that chapter be Friends, Neo-Nazis and Enemies? A:
Yes, but I concentrated on what was Ernst Zundel.
Q: Yes. A: Being an egotist.
Q: Well, if we dealt with the rest of it we would be here
all month. So you have read the chapter... A: Yes.
Q: ...of the book that deals with you? A: Yes, I have.
Q: And can you in your own words summarize what the chapter
of the book that does deal with you has to say? A: Andrew Mitrovika has
interviewed me many times over his career over the last 20 years and I find
it interesting on page 136, Mr. Murrant, that he says, "Ernst Zundel
was another prime target of CSIS, CSIS's allegedly covert campaign against
White Supremacists." White Supremacists.
Q: Did you have any knowledge that you were a target of CSIS...
A: Yes, I know. I knew. My mail was being tampered with not only by CSIS,
but by people who were convicted of taking money from my mail and so on and
important documents were missing and when I complained they magically
reappeared, like registered letters, and then later on I found in this book
by Andrew Mitrovika that's exactly what the were doing, but the interesting
thing is page 136 to page 140 I'm never once referred to by this man who has
known me for 20 years as an investigative reporter as a White Supremacist.
Q: Perhaps we could move more expeditiously if you could
just read a couple of passages and I direct you to page 136 near the bottom
and I'm just wondering if you would read the first couple sentences of that
last paragraph, "The Service." A: "The Service was busy
intercepting mail destined for Zundel's home from a postal station at 1
Yonge Street. Farrell (ph) says," he was one of the postal people
involved in stealing my mail, "was also watched by the Service."
"Farrell says Zundel was also watched by the Service. The API's were
called when Hitler's admirer was seen posting mail. The Canada Post driver
would then be summoned to open the mailbox and allow and API," which is
one of their mail people who open the mailbox, "to retrieve the mail in
the presence of a CSIS person. Who was this API? Frank Pilote (ph), though
Farrell was often enlisted to help. Letters and packages for Zundel arrived
from all over the world. On some days he received as many as 20 pieces of
registered mail. CSIS was keen to establish a list of Zundel's worldwide
supporters by noting the return addresses attached to each piece of
correspondence. To Farrell's surprise Zundel often received letters of
encouragement and support from doctors, lawyers, university professors and
other professional as well as prison inmates."
Q: I just want to stop you there for a moment. During this
period, which would be the middle 1990's, did you have any inkling that your
mail was being intercepted? A: Yes, I did because my divorce papers were
suddenly disappearing. My income tax papers were disappearing. My American
Express bills were disappearing which means every time a bill like American
Express disappeared and I didn't pay on time I was penalized hundreds of
dollars because my bills would run $3,000, $4,000.
And so I began to go to the Postmaster and explain and ring
the alarm bells and as Andrew Mitrovika points out they got a little panicky
because they realized I was on to them and so we'll come down in the book..I
knew that they were stealing my mail and the idea, I ask you, that they were
only looking at the return addresses? The return addresses didn't reveal all
the professions of these people. They were reading my mail. They knew my
telephone bills, who I called, they knew what I paid with my credit card,
how many flights I booked.
When I say I'm the most X-rayed and examined person most
likely of this generation in Canadian history I am not exaggerating. I'm not
on some ego trip. That's what they did and in spite of all this searching
and illegal activity of stealing and reading my mail no charges resulted.
As long as I've lived in Canada for 42 years, no sabotage,
no counseling, no conspiracy charges, not even a hate charge. Yet I sit here
in an orange suit? Disgusting.
Q: In terms of your American Express card it became a
problem of not leaving home without it? A: Well, there you go.
Q: I'd like to move ahead to page 138 and I was wondering if
you could begin reading paragraph beginning, "Handling Zundel's
mail." This operation according this book was called Operation Volva
(ph) for whatever reasons. A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Beginning with "Handling Zundel's mail."
A: No, I think...
MR. MACINTOSH: Sorry, I missed the page?
COUNSEL: Page 138.
MR. MACINTOSH: Thank you.
PERSON CONCERNED: I think you should start up higher because
it explains how they did this operation on my mail.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL Q: All right? A: They'd
steal my mail, open it, read it, mine it for information and then they'd
dump it back into the mail stream. "The sooner Farrell dumped Zundel's
letters back into the mail stream the less likely would..the less likely
Zundel would complain how tardy the postal service was."
I was on to them. They knew it and so they tried to devise a
new method of stealing my mail and mining it for information.
Now, here we are. "Farrell reached into the mailbag and
pulled out a small box. Later he learned that he had just laid his hands on
a Heritage Front complete membership list and the names of addresses of
every individual in Canada and overseas who received Zundel's anti-Semitic
literature."
Now that's impressive. To my knowledge I never had the
Heritage Front mailing list. Besides they didn't have to mail it to me. They
lived around the corner from me. Why would they mail it to me? So I have no
idea what this thing is all about. I never had the list. I didn't need the
list and if I needed the list, if I asked for the list, they could have
given me the list. That's ridiculous.
So it was an extraordinary stroke of luck. So maybe it makes
good writing, I don't know. You want me to go down to...
Q: "Handling Zundel's mail." A: "Handling
Zundel's mail was risky business. Violence gravitated to the Holocaust
denier." Now, please pay attention. Violence gravitated to, not from.
Not from me. Towards me. That's why I'm the victim of two bombs and arson
plus beatings and stealing of my mail. A pipe bomb, and so we heard,
"Handling Zundel's mail was risky business. Violence gravitated to the
Holocaust denier. A pipe bomb was exploded behind his Carlton Street home
causing extensive damage," which by the way an investigative reporter
for The Toronto Sun traced the call they got from New York City that they
claimed responsibility for that first pipe bomb and it was the Jewish
Defense Organization and the article about this was published in The Toronto
Sun, not by Ernst, by investigative reporter for The Toronto Sun.
So here we have the pipe bomb that once exploded in Carlton
Street home causing extensive damage. "Farrell was always concerned
when he intercepted Zundel's mail. He knew the self-promoting propagandist
had enemies and that one day one of them might use the mail to deliver an
unmistakable and violent message to his front door. Farrell likes his hands
and wanted to keep them."
The next paragraph, "Luna (ph) warned the
API's"...
Q: If I could just interrupt you there. Can we identify who
Luna was? A: He was one of the postal..one of the postal's highest. He was
like a supervisor, okay?
Q: Yes, okay. A: Like a handler you would call him.
Q: Yes. A: CSIS handler.
Q: CSIS handler, yes. A: So, "Luna warned the
API's," whatever the proper translations may be. Mr. MacIntosh can help
us with that later. "To be especially careful when handling any mail
addressed to Zundel from a post office box from Vancouver."
Now, here is the CSIS handling warning his local fellow who
is stealing my mail to watch out for the address from Vancouver and he says,
"He refused to explain why the Vancouver address was on a watch list,
but it was clear that he was worried that mail from that address might be
used to conceal a bomb. Farrell's own nervousness peaked when Luna ordered
him to temporarily stopped intercepting parcels destined for Zundel's home.
I got a call from Luna and he said stopped checking the
parcels, just check the registered letters, Farrell recalls. Luna wasn't
kidding. Farrell could hear the urgency in his voice."
Now, here we have Canada's spy service warning one of it
spies, the guy on the spot, to not handle my mail and now we'll come to
point. I have people sitting here by that service testifying that me being
violent? "In 1995 a package arrived at Zundel's door apparently from
the Vancouver post office, like magic." The one they had warned him
about?
"Zundel let the package sit unopened in his home for
nearly a week before claiming to notice that it made a funny noise when he
shook it. He drove the suspicious package cautioned by a bag of birdseed in
the trunk of his car, drove to the police station, where bomb experts
discovered that it contained a powerful pipe bomb filled with large nails.
Police cordoned off a block around 51 Division Police Station downtown
Toronto," and they don't say that here, three different police forces
from Toronto interrogated me for almost two hours because at first they
thought I had sent myself a bomb.
Now, they are speculating why I waited for five days before
I took that parcel in my car, scared to hell, like hell, driving it down to
the police station, parked way out of range, that nothing could happen to
these poor cops, bedding it on the birdseed in the trunk of my car. Because
my house had been burned to the ground. There was not a window in it. Not a
door in it. The firemen had pumped so much water in it that even after five
days water was squishing up from the carpets and the roof of the ceilings.
Mr. Murrant, I had other worries than wondering about that
damn parcel, but I had a hunch that something was wrong with it and I warned
my staff to not touch that thing. I remember a mother of three children
said, why don't we open it? Shaking it, right next to me. No, I said. I will
look at that. We had a special thing to open parcels and letters by long
distance and only by this fluke of a call to Vancouver did we find out that
it was indeed some CSIS drop or CSIS operative that mailed it from
Vancouver. So here we have it.
I drove it down and police did cordon off the whole
neighborhood of 51 Station, pulled all these people out of the neighborhood,
dragged me firstly to a bomb-proof cell to interrogate me, yanked me out of
Station 51 to a local fire station nearby for some more interrogation and
then they called the Bomb Squad and at 11:00 in the evening I saw sitting on
my bed the bomb being exploded by the Toronto Bomb Squad that was supposed
to kill me and the Sergeant told me, Ernst, anybody within 300 feet range of
that bomb would have been killed.
"So, a remote controlled robot eventually placed the
package in a blast-proof box, later the bomb was detonated at a nearby
street, leaving behind a large crater. Zundel said the parcel camouflaged to
look like a book, bore an outdated return address of the post office box of
his friend." He was not my friend. "Tony MacAleer (ph), a B.C.
based White Supremacist. Police said the bomb was packed with enough
explosives to seriously maim or kill anyone within 90 meters of the
blast." Ninety meters, that 270 feet of the blast. The whole
neighborhood would have been leveled.
"Zundel was sure that Jewish groups were behind a plot
to kill him. Initially police investigated the phone call to The Toronto Sun
by someone claiming responsibility," and so on, "but the police
weren't convinced that the Holocaust denier was telling the truth about the
circumstances leading up to the discovery of the mail bomb. Why had Zundel
waited five days for the package."
Only after other bombs were going off did the cops believe
me. Up until that point I was their prime suspect the Sergeant told me.
"By late summer, however, the skeptics evaporated. Several police
forces launched a joint probe after mail bombs were sent to five different
targets to another B.C. based White Supremacist, Charles Scott, Mackenzie
Institute in Toronto, based on terrorism security link, the policy think
tank, Kay Gardner, Toronto City Councilor and (inaudible), the Calgary
Cattle Breeding Center. Mounties believe that four of the bombs originated
in Vancouver."
Q: Now, some of this would be beyond your knowledge at the
time but is this an accurate account of the part of the story that you know?
Of receipt of the bomb and... A: Of course the police came. I mean it was an
active police investigation by Metro Police, Metro Intelligence. They came
in and out. By the RCMP at the time who was investigating this. Finally when
the other bombs went off they went into high gear and began to investigate
seriously and then, excuse me, a Vancouver Sun reporter, I think it was The
Sun or The Province, sent me a 64 page search warrant, a Royal warrant,
sworn out by one judge. In each province they have one judge that is allowed
to swear out Royal warrants because they can renew it and the victim of
surveillance is not going to be told about it, that he's being surveilled
(sic).
And that went on for a long time until finally 17,000 phone
calls were tapped by the Mounties for that investigation and they did find
who sent the bomb and then they dropped the charges because they didn't want
to reveal how they caught these people. It was I, plus these four men, plus
the passengers on the Canadian planes that carried these bombs, we were all
left hung out to dry while CSIS who comes here and calls me violent and a
threat to the Canadian society threatened these passengers on those planes
and you'll come to that on the next page.
They mystery surrounding..and I went out to talk to All-Tech
Genetics (ph), the man who was bombed, where the bomb actually went off and
whose life was only saved because some cattle breeder in Brazil had given
him this huge, thick cowhide cover attaché case that he had sitting in
front of him and all the nails were embedded in that and his writing desk,
otherwise that man would have been dead meat.
And so, we are here talking about serious violence, not
initiated by me, but directed against me and others in Canada and CSIS knew
where it was coming from
Q: Were you ever advised by CSIS or anybody else to be aware
of packages coming in the mail? A: Metro Toronto Police were actually very
good about making sure that I was getting a fair shake. CSIS, I never saw a
CSIS agent knowingly in my whole life except I suspect Grant Bristol, but
anybody else, no CSIS person ever came to talk to me. They didn't need to,
they were reading and stealing my mail, why should they come and talk to me?
So now let's go down to page 139, "The mystery
surrounding the mail was resolved when a shadowy group of anarchists called
the Military Right Action Task Force sent communiqués to several media
outlets claiming responsibility for the potentially lethal letters,"
lethal letters, Mr. Murrant, because before the bomb came letter were sent
to radio stations announcing they didn't like people whose lumbering they
didn't like and so on. They were anarchists and so the letters that they
sent were letters with a threat saying you're lucky that you opened this one
and it didn't go boom. The next one will go, you know.
So what was in it? A mousetrap. I thought at the time what
the heck is this sending me a mousetrap? Ridiculous. Only turns out later on
what they had done was there a little like razor blade attached to it and
dipped in eight contaminated blood. So if I or my secretary had reached into
that envelope, cut himself, would have been dead. Been infected by eight.
So, "They communiqued to several media outlets claiming
responsibility for all potentially legal letters, save to Kay Gardner. In
its letters which provided compelling evidence that the group was behind the
mail bombs the anarchists responded to the media reports for the grave
danger to postal workers who had unwittingly handled the mail, the mail
bombs. We have tested our devices and found that only extremely rough
handling or opening them cause them to detonate. All packages have been
marked personal to keep unauthorized people from opening them," the
group wrote.
"Farrell, the CSIS man, is convinced that the package
containing the pipe bomb delivered to Zundel was intercepted by either
himself or Pilote, another CSIS agent. This raises the possibility that the
Intelligence Service was aware of the packages potentially lethal cargo
before Zundel could see it. Farrell says Luna's warning to temporarily stop
intercepting packages addressed to Zundel's home came only after police had
detonated the first pipe bomb. What CSIS might have done to alert either
Canada Post, Toronto Police or Zundel himself remains a mystery."
They did exactly nothing, Mr. Murrant. Nothing. They did not
notify my wife, my kids who were still living with me, my staff or me. They
did not tell the Toronto Police. The Toronto Police drove up and down. CSIS
never warned them. "But what is clear is that the rash of letter bombs
prompted police to issue an extraordinary warning to Canadians to be
extremely cautious when receiving unexpected packages or letters.
Regrettably Farrell says Canada's spy service failed to heed the warning and
as a result unnecessarily put the lives of Canadians at risk," and I am
at the receiving end of their smear sheet making me a violent criminal
undeserving of being allowed to stay in Canada. It's obscene.
"That's because when CSIS resumed the interception of
Zundel's mail it continued to shift hard to open packages by a passenger
plane to Ottawa for inspection even though a pipe bomb had already been
discovered. My concern was that there could always be a bomb in Zundel's
mail, Farrell says, and how are we sending that stuff to Ottawa? It was
being shipped by Air Canada. So what do you think was likely to happen if a
bomb went off while we were transporting his mail," my mail, "by
commercial jet?
Farrell repeatedly raised this issue with Luna, the CSIS
handler. I was concerned about my own safety and the crew and passengers on
the plane." Not me, poor citizen slob, Ernst, the target. "I told
Donny many times that I didn't think it wise to send Zundel's packages to
Ottawa by plane, but he didn't seemed that concern. I would say Don, for the
record, we shouldn't be doing this. Luna would say, okay, noted. Farrell
rang the alarm but no one at CSIS bothered to listen in spite of the
bungling of Berg (ph) and Zundel's files..."
Q: Hold on. Hold on. A: No, no it goes on to something
important. "CSIS still had an ace in the hole in its covert war against
White Supremacists whose name was Grant Bristol." That's why it is
important, Mr. Murrant, that you understand. Grant Bristol was a CSIS agent.
He was a part of that deal. The only successful White Supremacist
organization that ever got its name in the media was started, financed,
directed by a CSIS agent called Grant Bristol and now they're trying to make
me the fall guy.
Now, I have every reason to say this service means to do me
deadly harm. They knew there was a post office box in Vancouver, Mr. Murrant.
They knew it. They told the agent, don't handle it. These unconscionable
public officials allowed these parcels to be sent from that Vancouver box by
Air Canada jet from Vancouver to Toronto, handled by people at the post
office, put on a commercial jet, brought back from Ottawa. They are the
danger to Canada, not Ernst Zundel.
I've never sent a bomb to anybody. Knowingly these people
did allow a bomb to jeopardize my whole staff, my whole neighborhood, 350
people on Canadian planes three times over and I sit here and I lie in jail
here?
Q: I was wondering if I could have this marked as an
Exhibit?
MEMBER: Mark it as DR number 5.
--- ATTACHMENT DR-5: Book Entitled, Covert Entry by Andrew
Mitrovika
CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY: COUNSEL: Q: Okay. I'd like to
show you, Mr. Zundel, this document. It's German legal proceedings 1981 to
2003. I've provided copies to the Department of Justice lawyers and here's a
copy for the Chairman. If you open this up, Mr. Zundel...
MR. MACINTOSH: Just a moment, just before we do that. I just
want to look at the translation here.
COUNSEL: Sure.
MR. MACINTOSH: If I could just have a minute.
--- PROCEEDINGS RECESSED
--- PROCEEDINGS RESUMED
MEMBER: This hearing is resumed.
MR. MACINTOSH: Maybe counsel can indicate, it appears from
this affidavit which is prepared by a translator, Maya, M A Y A, surname A N
Y A S, for all languages, but I could be wrong, what she's translated is the
two pages that is appended to her affidavit at the very end of the document,
but there is some additional material in German that has not been translated
that's at the front?
PERSON CONCERNED: That should not be in there.
COUNSEL: That is correct. There are three things in this
package. There's a letter from Ernst Zundel to Alan Bolanboy (ph), Canadian
Civil Liberties Association, dated November 1982. There is a document that
is only in German called Revisionismis (ph) and then there is an...
MEMBER: He doesn't have it.
COUNSEL: And then there is an affidavit from..about the
legal proceedings against Ernst Zundel from Yurgen Reiger (ph) who is a
lawyer in Germany and there is a translation of that and it is a notarized
translation and if accepted I'll be presenting the original to the tribunal
here.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, you know, it's our position that to the
extend that the document contains three pages that are in German that have
not been translated those there pages can't be admitted into evidence of
this hearing unless a translation is provided because I mean otherwise I
don't..otherwise how are you going to understand what's been tendered and
furthermore we have to be able to understand. Speaking for myself personally
I don't have sufficient knowledge of German to read this document.
COUNSEL: I can provide a translation of the relevant parts
of Revionismis tomorrow. The relevant part is basically two paragraphs.
MR. MACINTOSH: Well, how are we to know whether or not
that's been taken out of context or what the context is. If you're going to
provide a translation and you intend to submit the entire document you
should provide a translation for the entire document otherwise you should
only the portions that have been translated could possibly be tendered.
I mean, I don't know how we can possibly know the context
unless we see the translation of the entire document.
COUNSEL: I can provide a translation of that tomorrow.
MEMBER: So, you're going to bring in a translation of the
entire document?
COUNSEL: Yes.
MEMBER: Okay. Well, we were going to stop in the near future
anyway, so maybe what I'll do is I'll stop before we get into this and you
can bring the entire document in tomorrow and we'll have a look at it.
COUNSEL: Okay.
MEMBER: Is there anything else...
COUNSEL: No.
MEMBER: ...that you want to bring out today?
COUNSEL: No, that's fine.
MEMBER: So, obviously we're unable to finish today and we'd
already agreed that we'll come back tomorrow. We'll come back at 9:30
tomorrow, all the same parties. Thank you.
--- PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS IS A TRUE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE
AND THAT I HAVE SWORN THE OATH OF SECRECY
______________________________________ Barb Strachan
94031539
FOR XL TRANSCRIBING
April 6, 2003
|
Write to Canada's Immigration Minister and complain
over the unfair treatment Ernst Zündel has received.
Immigration Minister Denis Coderre
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Telephone: (613) 995-6108
Fax: (613) 995-9755
Email: Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca |
|
