It's been gloriously quiet, as you know, since April of last year when the Zundel legal team drove Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress into hiding from a dreaded cross-examination.
Bernie must have been really licking his wounds after having had a taste of defense attorney Doug Christie's verbal rapier during the beind-closed-doors SIRC hearings, way back in 1996. Since then, a lot of important additional information has been gathered about the CJC's corporate set-up and non-profit status of some of these intervenors and parties arrayed against Zundel - and once the Human Rights Tribunal hearings start again, there might yet be a chance.
The mire of those Zundelsite Tribunal hearings, meanwhile, has spread to other hearings, who will be potentially affected by how the Zundel hearings go because if Zundel wins - as well he might, you never know! :) - some 30 other sitting tribunals could easily collapse.
Why, the entire industry could turn into small shards of glass! (Pray hard out there so it happens...!) Ontario attorney Selick said it nicely in a Letter to the Editor in the National Post, April 18, 2000, quoted before - but well worth repeating:
As one who is sometimes dubbed a "court basher", my complaint with both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the courts is that both purport to grant, under the name of "rights", various benefits and advantages that actually have nothing to do with rights. The Charter, the courts and the legislatures have distorted and perverted the meaning of the word "rights" beyond all recognition. (...)
The most fundamental characteristic of those things we define as rights is that they must be universal. If they aren't - if they are granted to certain people or groups but not to others - then the proper description for them is privileges or preferences, not rights. (...)
In short, our so-called human rights codes and equality rights laws are nothing more than a devious method of imposing wealth redistribution under the honourable name of "rights", instead of the more accurate but unfashionable name of "socialism."
The Charter of Rights also contains guarantees of life and liberty, but readers should not hold their breath waiting for any Canadian court to rule that the human rights codes just might not be entirely consistent with these concepts.
It is not disdain for genuine rights . . . among critics of the court. Rather, it is ***the complicity of Canada's courts in applying, endorsing and expanding false rights*** that has earned them the disrespect of so many commentators. (Emphasis added)
In the Zundel Tribunal hearings, false rights have permitted self-serving Jewish factions to torment Mr. Zundel for four years by now - and have denied him his right, fought hard for in a decade's worth of struggles and culminating in a Supreme Court decision in his favor, to have his say his way about his own people's history.
If he should win in yet another case before the Supreme Court - and no one holds their breath, but wonders never cease! - it could collapse the predatory industry parading in naked aggression against all those whom the leftists who inhabit these bodies so furiously hate.
We are still waiting for Judge Isaac's decision in the latest round. This judge is taking his time - so Ernst's attorneys were right when they told him: "We handed these judges a very hard nut to crack!"
Here, to refresh your memory, the Zundel case was summarized in "Friends of Freedom", issue March/April 2000.
Zundel Internet Case
This case just goes on forever.
The strategy of the enemies of freedom is what it always was: They use public funds to wear out their opponent's funds and energy and will to fight. The media are accomplices because they say and do nothing while the process is going on. Largely, the media ignore free speech attacks unless directed at "mainstream" media - meaning liberal media.
On April 13, 1999, Justice Douglas Campbell allowed 3 appeals on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Reva Devins who sat on the Ontario Human Rights Commission which issued a statement applauding the conviction of Ernst Zundel in 1988 for publishing the same book ("Did Six Million Really Die?") inter alia which was before her on the 1999 Human Rights Tribunal hearing.
Obviously if she thought it promoted hatred against Jews because it questioned the extent of the Holocaust, she is certain to hold it "exposes Jews to hatred, contempt and ridicule" as required by section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
She now sits as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Clearly her career demonstrates the close network of human rights experts and tribunal members. The political nature of the process is further demonstrated by the presence of Claude Pensa, the sole remaining member of the Tribunal, who - along with being a prominent London, Ontario lawyer - is rumoured to occasionally raise funds for the liberal party of Canada to which belongs Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister who appoints members to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
But as readers of this private newsletter will know, the Commissioner of Human Rights, the B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, Simon Wiesenthal, all inter alia appealed this April 13, 1999 ruling of Justice Campbell and it was heard before Justices Robertson, Sexton and Chief Justice Julius Isaac on April 4, 2000.
Justice Isaac offered the opinion during the hearing that evidence of bias is thin. He is the same judge who met privately with a prosecutor in a war crimes case to discuss the case while it was before the court.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed this to occur. We are not optimistic of the result of deliberations in which Justice Isaac will be involved on the issue of appearance of bias. The decision is reserved.
Meanwhile, across the Great Waters - as my ancestors said in their times - an interesting German survey spells out why the Holocaust Industry fights globally with such ferocity. Their grip is slipping. Badly. Especially among the young. Ernst keeps on telling me that he has observed a curious phenomenon for quite some years: that grandsons and granddaughters of politically ever-so-correct post-war folks and early 1960s' baby boomers are coming of age, and are showing an amazing healthy political instinct - and a strong willingness to act on this instinct, especially in Europe.
For instance, in an opinion poll conducted during the week of February 7-12, 2000 in the small town of Königswusterhausen in Germany, young people in the 16-25 age bracket answered four questions about the forced labor (falsely claimed to have been "slave labor") issue and reparations claims with a scalpel-like logic and enormous courage in that censorious country. These youngsters have had it with Holocaust extortion. They strongly reject the financial burdens imposed on them by their own vassal government.
Here are excerpts of the results:
Q: Do you think it is right that forced labor of foreigners ought to receive compensation, but forced labor of Germans should not?
Yes - 13.58 %
No - 74.75%
Don't know - 11.69%
Q: Are you willing to compensate former forced laborers from foreign countries from your private sources?
Yes - 4.15 %
No - 84.90 %
Don't know - 10.94 %
Q: Do you agree that tax money should be used to compensate foreign forced labor?
Yes - 13.96 %
No - 70.18 %
Don't know - 15.85 %
Q: Do you hold the reporting of forced labor stories to be objective?
Yes - 15.85 %
No - 56.98 %
Don't know - 27.17 %
While the general trend reflected in these statistics holds true across all age spans, the very young reject their own financial victimhood even more than the generation supposedly responsible for the "abuses" of forced labor in the Third Reich.
Just think about it! The 25-year-olds were born in 1975. The 16-year-olds were born in 1984 - at the time of the First Great Holocaust Zundel Trial when Sabina complained about Ernst! These German youngsters were exposed to nothing but liberal brain-washing since kindergarten, through school texts, media, movies etc. And yet they have retained their common sense. They have the courage to state their viewpoints publicly - even more strongly than their parents or wartime generation grandparents. In German we speak of "Erbgut" - loosely translated as "hereditary mass". Their genes obviously helped in rejecting and negating the brain-washing process! :) They never read or heard any national-socialist explanation or reasons for Germany's policy of "forced labor" during wartime! Because in Germany it is illegal to discuss and explain, much less defend, national-socialist ideas or policies, these youngsters simply "thought with their blood"! Those who agreed with their brain-washing masters were a measly 15% or less!
What fools these Holocaust Promoters are to keep on dragging Zundel through the courts! Sabina should have kept her mouth shut in her own and her people's interest - and none of this would have happened. But the Germans have a saying ". . . die Katze kann's Mausen nicht lassen." (A cat can't leave a mouse alone.)
Not that I need to give the Lobby good advice - but if I were to travel in their vehicle, I would shift gears. I would.
Ingrid
=====
Thought for the Day:
"As the Jewish state enters a new century, Israel grapples with what to remember."
(Dina Kraft in an AP article, "Israel Re-Examines Holocaust Story", April 29, 2000)