ZGram - 8/4/2003 - "How media treats Zundel"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

August 4, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Paul Fromm, who is the on-location legal representative for Ernst, 
sent me the following, to which I would like to add a brief comment:

[START]

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

	Most people rely on the media for their news and information. 
The following news story is an excellent example of how our mass 
media keep us ignorant of essential facts.

	Sometimes, they outright lie and slander, especially those 
set up by the enemies of free speech for defamation and destruction. 
Sometimes, it's more subtle.

I'd like you to examine Adrian Humphreys' report in the NATIONAL POST 
(July 31, 2003). Humphreys was present through most of the three days 
of the Zundel hearings this week. His is the most extensive report in 
the mainline press. Unlike the CSIS rant against Zundel, it is 
relatively free -- not entirely -- of loaded phrases "holocaust 
denier", to be sure. It presents the facts in a reasonably balanced 
manner.

On the surface, it appears complete and fair, but it isn't! I've 
included my own report on the last day of the Zundel hearing. Three 
important things happened: 1. Doug Christie asked the judge to recuse 
himself for bias; 2. the judge granted the government's request for 
yet another secret hearing, where the accused will be kept in the 
dark as to the witnesses and evidence presented against him; and 3. 
there was extensive discussion of Ernst Zundel's deteriorating 
medical condition and the judge promised action to improve conditions 
in prison where he's denied a pillow, herbal medication, a pen, a 
chair, highlighters and post-it notes.

Is the light beginning to dawn?

The apparently fair report left the last two items out. These items 
would enrage most people and make even many anti-Zundelites feel 
sympathy toward him. However, the reader, unless he's on the 
Internet, will never know these shocking facts.

Is Humphreys a slick propagandist? It's hard to say. We don't know 
what he wrote. Perhaps, he wrote a full report and his editor trimmed 
it.

Regardless, the power to select, the power to omit, can sometimes be 
an even more potent weapon for deceit than outright lies.

[END]

Next follows Adrian Humphrey's July 31, 2003 National Post write-up:

[START]      

TORONTO - Ernst Zundel's lawyer yesterday asked the judge hearing the 
national security case against the prominent Holocaust denier to step 
down for  showing "open hostility" toward his client.

Douglas Christie accused Mr. Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal 
Court of  Canada of "badgering and accusing the witness of lying" and 
intervening during  Mr. Zundel's testimony in a manner "more 
aggressive than the prosecutors.''

"You have entered into the arena and expressed hostility to the 
accused," Mr.  Christie said at the start of yesterday's hearing, a 
continuation of the lengthy  detention review of Mr. Zundel. The 
federal government has declared him a threat  to national security as 
the alleged patriarch of the violent white supremacist  movement.

Mr. Christie gave as examples comments he said Judge Blais made 
during  Tuesday's cross-examination of Mr. Zundel, including telling 
him to stop  "snaking around" the facts; that he does not believe his 
testimony about who  runs the Zundel Web site; and that the more Mr. 
Zundel talks, the less the judge  believes him.

Judge Blais' reported remarks suggest he has made up his mind on the 
matter  prior to hearing all the evidence, Mr. Christie said in 
making a formal motion  for the judge to stand down.

He said a new judge should replace him, one who has not demonstrated 
"open  hostility" toward Mr. Zundel.

The issue of Judge Blais' impartiality is more crucial here than in 
most  court proceedings. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection 
Act governing  national security certificate cases -- when the 
government declares a  non-citizen a threat to the nation and orders 
him deported -- there is no appeal  of the sole judge's decision.

"Without the means of other judicial supervision, it is all the more 
reason  to ensure that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias," 
Mr. Christie said.  "You are, therefore, a court of last resort."

Donald MacIntosh, the lead lawyer for the government, rejected Mr. 
Christie's  claims, calling them "specious."

"No reasonable observer would draw those conclusions," he told Judge 
Blais.  "You were merely alerting the witness ... that you have some 
doubts."

He said Judge Blais has "demonstrated even-handedness" because the 
judge has  also interjected to redirect government lawyers during 
their questioning.

Judge Blais said the issue was extremely serious and charted new 
territory  for the national security certificate process. As such, he 
would need time to  think about the motion. "It is very interesting," 
he said. "Interesting enough  to think about."

After close to an hour deliberating in private, Judge Blais returned 
to say  he would continue with the bail portion of the review and 
rule on the motion for  him to step down after a transcript of the 
previous day's hearing was available  for review. He said he would 
deliver a decision when the hearing resumes in  September.

Outside of court, representatives of Canadian Jewish groups who are 
monitoring the hearing expressed confidence in Judge Blais' 
impartiality.

Anita Bromberg, in-house counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, said Judge 
Blais is  fair and astute. "I agreed with the judge's comments that 
Zundel's attempts at  avoidance on the issue of whether he exerts 
control over the content of the  Zundel Web site were simply not 
believable."

Ms. Bromberg expressed dismay at Mr. Christie's motion, saying: 
"Fairness is  not only owed to Mr. Zundel but to all Canadians."

Len Rudner, a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the 
judge's  comments were focused and qualified. "I do not believe these 
comments represent  bias on the part of the justice. Just because the 
motion was put forward in no  way means that there was bias and in no 
way means that Zundel will not get a  fair trial."

Paul Fromm, a long-time activist with the far right who acts as a 
legal  representative for Mr. Zundel in Mr. Christie's absence, said 
the judge's words  call the process into question. "The comments made 
to Mr. Zundel that the judge  didn't believe him tainted the rest of 
the trial. I don't think Ernst Zundel can  be confident that he is 
being given an impartial or unbiased hearing," he  said.

Mr. Zundel was certified as a security threat and has been held in 
solitary  confinement while Judge Blais reviews the reasonableness of 
the government's  declaration. Mr. Zundel is slated for deportation 
to his native Germany, where  he faces a charge of inciting hatred.

[END]

Ingrid's comments:

Here I would like to put in a word for Adrian Humphreys.  I 
personally don't know this reporter, but I have in the past been 
embarrassed by criticism from our own people about his write-ups. I 
considered that criticism poorly focused and insulting, and I have 
been impressed by his calm and rational replies. 

Humphreys works for the National Post, a paper that has been anything 
but fair in its coverage of the Zundel struggle.  He has no editorial 
control and certainly can't choose the headlines.  That he got the 
"snaking around" comment in by the judge is a feat.  How would a Jew 
feel if a judge told him in a hearing that the more he talked, the 
less was he believable, that he was "snaking around"?  You'd never 
hear the end of it from B'nai Brith!  And Paul Fromm is right - we 
don't know how much might have been written about the request for 
another hearing in camera, and about Ernst's very serious health 
concerns, of which I only learned a few days ago.  We cannot have the 
Canadian public feel even a twinge of guilt, can we, for holding this 
man in inhuman detention, now for six months already - when all he 
"missed" was an "immigration interview" that was never scheduled to 
begin with, and of which he was never aware?  I thought this 
write-up, truncated though it might have been, at least refrained 
from calling him names!

And speaking of health concerns, here I want to add something else 
that Ernst might be upset about that I am putting it out on the air, 
but I have been sufficiently troubled that I feel I simply have to do 
it.  And it is this:

A supporter sent me a greatly enlarged color photo as part of one of 
the media write-ups, and I don't like at all what it reveals.  Ernst 
has a look on his face I have never seen before.  I don't know how to 
describe it.  There is a big red bruise on his face near his left ear 
that even shows up on his ear itself, and there is a very noticeable 
swelling protruding from out of his ear.  There is also some blood 
and a large blister on his lips.  I asked him twice if he has been 
physically abused.  He denied it.  He did not sound convincing to me. 
He has repeatedly said in letters to supporters, "I am being treated 
correctly."  In my opinion, he is saying that too much, with too much 
emphasis, over and over again.  I have at least ten copies of such 
letters with that statement. 

He said to me when I pressed him about what I see in that picture, 
"When that picture was taken, I was very disturbed."  I should also 
state, for the sake of fairness, that the photo was taken, as far as 
I know, while he was still in Thorold, right after he asked SIRC to 
look into the revelations in Covert Entry, the book that documents 
CSIS knowledge of the 1995 parcel bomb that was sent to the 
Zundel-Haus from Vancouver.  Ernst came to that Thorold/Niagara Falls 
hearing, not looking at anyone, not greeting anyone.  His supporters, 
some of them near tears, were very upset that he did not acknowledge 
their presence.  Immediately after the hearing, he was transferred to 
Rexdale, one of Canada's most notorious and unpleasant prisons.  The 
first time he was allowed to call out, he said to me, with three 
guards standing at his elbow,  "Hess had it easy...", referring to 
Rudolf Hess's lifelong incarceration at Spandau that ended in his 
murder - at age 93, if I remember right.

When I pressed Ernst about the strange look on his face in that 
picture and what looks like a large bruise on his face, in connection 
with his odd behavior during that hearing, he avoided giving me a 
direct answer but only said:  "I have to obey rules.  I was told not 
to 'signal' to anyone.  I was not allowed to wave or shake hands.  If 
prison rules are broken, it could mean weeks of no telephone or no 
access to canteen materials.  It would mean I could not write or draw 
or call collect.  These guards have strict rules,  they are dealing 
with violent criminals.  I am probably the only dissident in all of 
Canada." 

He added, but not energetically the way he often speaks, that I 
should not "imagine" something that wasn't there, and he said 
specifically, "I am not being beaten.  I would tell you."

I'm not so sure. 

You make of it what you will.  I am so upset about this picture, I 
feel like offering myself as a hostage so Ernst can get out and have 
an honest doctor look at his condition and get a good feel for what 
is going on.  Or should we do what some Zundel supporters have 
already offered - to alternately offer themselves as Prisoners of 
Conscience Substitutes to register a public protest that WOULD get 
adequate media attention?!

How many of you would be willing to volunteer to spend a week in the 
slammer to know what it feels like, and to give Ernst Zundel some 
relief?  I would.  I already know what it's like, since I did part of 
my internship working with juveniles in detention.  I can tell you, 
jail is not a pleasant place - and what is happening inside does not 
often get told on the outside.