ZGram - 2/28/2003 - "Deported on the flimsiest pretense: The Zundel Saga continues"

irimland@zundelsite.org irimland@zundelsite.org
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:10:31 -0800


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

=46ebruary 28, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

When I talked to Ernst yesterday, he told me that he was scheduled 
for a "bail hearing" - and that he felt he could handle it himself. 
He did not expect that bail would be granted, but he felt that it was 
necessary to go through the motion to document the record of his 
human rights abuses by the Canadian government.

I haven't been able to talk to him today, and now I fear that 
something far more sinister is going on.  For background information, 
read what the National Post has to say - and remember that Ernst was 
six years old when World War II came to an end:

http://www.canada.com/hamilton/story.asp?id=3D{99D7C1B1-3E34-4D43-87A3-DFD76=
7CC403F}

Here is the first syndicated American commentator telling this 
country what might be in store - if the Zundel precedent is allowed 
to go unchallenged:

[START]

EUROPEAN THOUGHT POLICE COULD REACH INTO U.S.

By Samuel Francis (nationally syndicated columnist)

=46riday, February 28, 2003

Great Britain and the United States may not be quite prepared to crack
down on dangerous thinkers, but where those guardians of Anglo-Saxon
liberties fear to tread, the European Union is ready to gallop.  This
week the London Daily Telegraph reported that the Union is even now
sprucing up new laws against "xenophobia and racism" to make sure no one
has any unusual thoughts at all -- and that British subjects will be 
extradited to the
continent if they violate them.

The recent Scotland Yard investigation of journalist Taki
Theodoracopulos for violating British laws against inciting "racial
hatred" seems to have gone nowhere, but Taki, as the wealthy jetsetter
journalist is known, may still not be safe.  Thought crimes that the
British won't prosecute could still be punished if the EU bureaucracy
can get its claws on the culprits through the extradition process.
Moreover, of it works for British Thought Criminals, it may also work
for those in this country.

In an article in the Telegraph last week, Home Affairs editor Philip
Johnston reported that the British government "has undertaken that if
such 'offences' take place in Britain the perpetrators would not be
extradited -- but it will be for the courts to decide the location of
the crime. This opens up the prospect of a judge agreeing to extradite
someone whose observations, though made in Britain, were broadcast
exclusively in a country where they constitute a crime. Legislation now
before Parliament will make 'xenophobia and racism' one of 32 crimes for
which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing
safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable 
offence must also be a
crime in the UK. Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are
negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to
criminalise xenophobia and racism."

Under current law, "Holocaust denial," for example, is a criminal
offense in some European countries like Germany and Austria. A British
citizen who committed that "crime" in Germany and then returned to Great
Britain could not be extradited back to Germany to stand trial. But
under the proposed new laws and directives, he could be -- if British
judges so ruled.

What that means, presumably, is not just that Britons who committed such
offenses while physically on the continent could be prosecuted. Also
subject to the new laws would be those who merely broadcast or published
their criminal thoughts, including through the  Internet. "Holocaust
denial" is one offense, but new legislation against "xenophobia and
racism" could broaden state control over thought and expression far
more, even when those expressing verboten ideas never left their own
living rooms.

The Telegraph article quotes Lord Filkin, a minister with the Home
Office, as saying that no British citizen would be extradited to the
continent "in respect of conduct which has occurred here and which is
legal here". But, asked whether "comments originating in Britain but
carried abroad on television or through an internet chatroom would be
extraditable," he said, "It will be for the courts to decide."  In other
words, neither British law as written nor constitutional tradition will
protect the British citizen from being hauled out of his own country to
face trial in a foreign state under laws to which he never consented and
possibly jailed merely for expressing unconventional thoughts that are
  legal in his own country.

Given the broad scope of existing European laws that punish "Holocaust
denial," there's no telling how far the new laws could reach, but
clearly they reach well beyond merely inciting racial violence.
Scientists who study racial differences and come up with the wrong
answers, clergymen who criticize Islam and other non-Western religions,
political  leaders who object to mass immigration, and journalists who
merely criticize political correctness and double standards may all have
good reason to shut up and get jobs selling cars.

Could the laws reach into the United States? This country recognizes the
European Union and generally extradites European criminals wanted in its
member states, as they do Americans wanted for trial in this country.
Just this month immigration authorities expelled alleged "Holocaust
denier" Ernst Z=FCndel to Canada, giving only the thinnest technical
rationale for kicking him out. Mr. Z=FCndel, who broke no laws while
living in this country, may eventually wind up back in his native
Germany, where he could go to jail for what he has written about Nazi
policies toward the Jews.

Mr. Z=FCndel, of course, is not an American citizen, but the parallel with
what may well be in the works is clear enough. Any thought, any idea,
any statement that challenges the official egalitarian ideology faces
repression by the emerging global state, and neither constitutions nor
national borders will protect those who question that ideology or the
global power it serves.

[END]