ZGram - 8/23/2003 - "Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, Absurdistan-Style"

zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Sun Aug 24 00:06:36 EDT 2003


ZGRAM - Where Truth is Destiny

August 23, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

I did not send a ZGram yesterday because I was flooded with bounced 
return SoBig Virus messages - and did not want to aggravate the 
situation by adding to the disaster.  Today's ZGram will make up for 
it in length - if not in clarity.  I pulled it from the David Irving 
website and read it with a very heavy heart. 

This is the first time I even saw this document.  It is an important 
one, though.  I wish I could have helped to write it, for it simply 
screams for clarity and precision.  Unfortunately, that could not be 
- and as you read it, keep in mind that it was written in inhuman 
circumstances by a man pushed to the limits of his endurance while 
being trapped by a political monstrosity that calls itself a 
"democratic" government. 

In simplest words, Ernst Zundel is straining against an injustice 
one can only call demonic.  He has it out with politically 
subservient underling with not an ounce of independent thought who 
blithely ignored the evidence, painstakingly collected, that Germany 
is NOT a democratic government.  This creature, says Ernst Zundel in 
far too many words, thinks nothing of sentencing a man to a lifetime 
of incarceration - by mouthing platitudes!

For what?  For having "missed" a governmental agency interview that 
was never even scheduled?

Watch out how precedents are being set.  Today it is Ernst Zundel. 
Tomorrow it could well be you.

[START]

(Paul Fromm prefacing:)

As one of the many legal works Ernst Zündel has had to research and 
prepare, with only a pencil stub, in his maximum detention cell, is 
the following Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. This is his response to 
the government's argument that he faces no danger should he be 
deported to Germany.

In the preface to this document, you'll notice the horrific prison 
conditions inflicted as punishment by the Canadian state in an 
effort to break Mr. Zündel.

Paul Fromm
Director CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION 
________________________________________________________________



Submissions by the prisoner Ernst Zündel, July 25, 2003

Ernst Zündel
#2218-7604
Toronto West Detention Center
111 Disco Rd.
Box 4950
Rexdale, Ontario M9W 1M3
Tel: (905) 354-2143

	Supervisor, Niagara Falls CIC
PRRA Unit 6080 McLeod Rd.
Niagara Falls,
Ontario
Canada L2G 7T4


July 25, 2003



Observations, Arguments, Submissions and Conclusions.

Re: PRRA Report on me, Ernst Zündel, prepared by pre-removal risk 
assessment officer and dated 8 July 2003.

This document is prepared in my 24-hour maximum security lockup cell 
at the West Toronto Detention Center under the following conditions:

*	I have no access to a photo copier, no pen, only a pencil 
stub, no highlighter, no paper clips, no stapler, no post-it-notes, 
no file folders, no self-adhesive address labels, no plastic tabs to 
mark individual file areas, no color dividers, no color paper, no 
way of binding my presentation or even a rubber band to hold the 
documents together; nor do I have my files at my disposal.

*	All stools have been unbolted and removed from segregation 
cells. I write this response standing up or lying on my bed.

*	My access to the telephone is tightly controlled and sporadic 
at best. I can call only a very limited number of people like my 
lawyers, my wife, my children, and some friends, if and when the 
guards consent to fetch the phone, slide it into the feeding hatch 
of my cell for an arbitrarily determined period of time. Since I 
have no watch and there is no clock, I never do know when my time is 
nearing its end or is up. Thus, I often have to terminate my 
conversations in mid sentence because the guards demand thephone 
back NOW! I can make only collect calls out which means if no one is 
at the number I have called because I only got access to the 
telephone after business hours, I am out of luck because answering 
machines cannot take collect calls. If I reach a secretary, he or 
she often is not authorized to take collect calls. Thus, I have no 
opportunity to leave a message even with my lawyers, my legal 
representative, family, friends, businesses, etc.

*	I cannot make collect calls to cell phones from prison, 
neither to my lawyers or friends. This is a huge hurdle impossible 
to overcome.

This makes any communication with lawyers or friends uncertain, with 
the result that it has taken my sometimes a week before I was able 
to track down my lawyers, one of whom, Mr. Christie, lives and works 
in Victoria, B.C., 5,000 km away from where this jail is located, a 
three-hour time zone difference.

My lawyers do not speak German, a handicap in this case because the 
subject deals with a possible deportation to Germany and many of the 
documents, laws, newspaper articles, etc., I needed to draw in, 
would be in German.

I submitted all scraps of information I have been able to marshal 
via letters from prison to friends on the outside in my original 
PRE-REMOVAL RISK ASSESSMENT submissions. Since I have no access to a 
photo copier or carbon paper, I am criticizing Mr. Somerville's 
report, therefore, without access to the actual documents which I 
submitted in the original, as I had no chance of making copies of my 
submission.

Finally, to complete the listing of difficulties encountered by me 
in preparing this commentary on Mr. Somerville's PRRA report, I have 
not been able to speak to Mr. Christie for over a week because the 
Bell telephone conference call he had booked did not take place due 
to technical problems beyond my or the prison's control.

Mr. Christie seems to be traveling.

Thus, this report does not have the benefit of any lawyer's input.

There are several other difficulties which need to be recorded for 
history and the shameful treatment I have had to endure since 
February 19, 2003.

*	Before I meet with my lawyers or visitors (segregated totally 
behind glass sometimes), outside of regular visiting hours, I am 
padded down, having to lean against the wall like in Hollywood 
movies.

*	My pockets are searched, although I have had no contact with anyone.

*	{More often than not], I have not been allowed by the guards 
to take along a pencil stub or a piece of paper to make notes of 
things I might have to do or write away for.

*	When I am taken to the visitor's area, a Captain and two 
guards have to accompany me at all times. They sit in an adjoining 
room, observing me even when I meet visitors behind thick pains of 
bullet-proof glass! I am not able to take any notes.  Not even 
toilet paper is allowed to blow my nose dripping from allergies.

*	When visiting time is over, I am once again searched, leaning 
against the wall before I enter my cell, always minus running shoes 
which have to be left outside my cell in the hall, with my toilet 
paper, toothpaste, toothbrush, soap, and towel.

On Friday, the July 25, 2003, after meeting with Legal Agent, Paul 
Fromm - in an interview room, and under the watchful eye of a guard 
posted there the entire time, once again, without a pencil stub or a 
scrap of paper -  when I came back from this totally observed visit 
by guards and a Captain, I was ordered to take off all my clothes 
one item at a time, hand it to the guard for thorough examination 
and, when I was stark naked, I was ordered to stick out my tongue, 
stretch up my arms, show the guard the soles of my feet, and bend 
down to touch my toes, showing him my rear end, I suppose, so he 
could see my anus, if I was hiding something.

Since I had nothing on me, he left me there standing stark naked in 
my cell, wondering about what had become the Canada of my boyhood 
dreams!

My response to Mr. Somerville's report takes place against this 
background and I want the Reviewing Assessment Officer and 
especially the Canadian public to know what my new reality in Canada 
is in 2003. Maybe, this is what Coderre, the immigration minister 
meant, "Just watch me" when asked [what] he and the government of 
Mr. Chretian intended to do with me. Actually, it should be what 
they intended to do TO ME!

Here then are my criticisms, observations, arguments, submissions 
and conclusions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report produced by Mr. C. Somerville, 
and handed to me in prison by an Immigration Officer on July 8, 2003.

I do not know what educational or legal training or political 
science or history background or human rights legislation studies a 
PRRA Officer has to have to qualify him to hold such an important 
office in this area of Canada's immigration and refugee processes.

I raise this question because I am astonished - actually, alarmed 
would be a more appropriate word - when I read Mr. Somerville's 
superficial, perfunctory, casual, and callous treatment that he has 
given to my submissions and documents supplied to him in my initial 
submissions to the PRRA Unit on May 29, 2003.

The assessment he arrives at could only be the result of poor job 
performance, laziness or, what is far more likely, a 
politically-correct report about a well-known, albeit 
media-demonized, therefore unpopular dissident. The government in 
Ottawa, as Mr. Somerville's indirect employers, wants to be rid of 
[me] by one way or another, preferably under the guise of legality. 
This means is a National Security Certificate railroading me, making 
use of secret evidence, secret witnesses, in camera hearings with 
unidentified people where [the accused and his] attorney are not 
allowed to be present. We will not be told the names of these people 
nor shown any documents they submitted. We will not be given any 
transcripts of these proceedings - Possibly, if we are lucky, 
censored summaries only.

To my knowledge, no Security Intelligence Review Committee members - 
the watchdog of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 
appointed by parliament, specifically to keep an eye on the 
activities of the spy service - is present to monitor these secret 
proceedings before a presiding judge. The accused has no effective 
way of probing, testing, or shaking this evidence or the witnesses 
because it is secret. The special Federal Court Judge appointed to 
hear a National Security Certificate case is the final arbiter of 
the evidence. There is no appeal allowed of this judge's decision 
which turns automatically into a deportation or removal order once 
issued.

This is why The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report assumes such a 
crucial role in these types of proceedings, unprecedented in 
Canadian judicial history. The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment report 
can mean the difference to a slated deportee of a lifetime behind 
bars in some foreign land without Canada's Charter of Rights 
protection - or even a death sentence, either by torture, 
deprivation of freedom, inadequate health care or murder or 
execution - while in prison in some foreign land. This includes 
Germany!

Thus, these Assessment Reports should look very carefully at each 
individual's case, especially so in the case of political dissidents 
or human rights activists who have been a thorn in the side of 
repressive regimes where the deportee is being sent, as is the case 
with me with Germany.

That clearly must have been the intention of the Canadian Parliament 
when it drafted this important last-ditch review and assessment 
process.

It is for this reason above all that I find Mr. Somerville's report 
to be galling, for he displays not a hint of sensitivity or 
understanding of a human rights drama being played out and being 
[laid] bare to him by the documents and evidence supplied to him for 
study and reflection while preparing his report.

This is not some general overview of the political, judicial 
situation in a country allied to Canada in a military alliance. It 
is supposed to be a specific investigation and detailed report about 
an individual person - in this case me, Ernst Zündel - a vocal 
dissident against Germany's repressive regime for decades.

I have excoriated the current German's government's dismal human 
rights records when it comes to specific areas of German politics, 
history, and when it comes to the origins and foundations of 
Germany's current regime. I have made it amply clear and buttressed 
my claim with numerous documents, some exhaustive in nature and 
detail, that it is the State and its organs I have to fear because 
of the way the German State is constituted and the ideological 
foundations it rests on which are hostile to me.

Thus, the entire premise of Mr. Somerville's report, either 
intentionally or unintentionally, is flawed. His conclusions are in 
glaring error and dangerous to me!

I cannot turn to the police, the judiciary or any other agency of 
the German regime for protection - as was made logically and 
perfectly clear in the material supplied to Mr. Somerville at the 
PRRA Unit. This is what makes the wording and the glib reasoning of 
his assessment so shocking and also galling to me.

I will give just a few examples of this method used by Mr. 
Somerville. These include not focusing on the very real fears of 
persecution and mistreatment, buttressed by documents he and his 
office were supplied with by me. His conclusions when looking at the 
German situation are based, it seems, not on primary research but on 
official German government press releases, handouts and publications 
-- in other words German propaganda.

He uses a U.S. Senate Publication on the German human rights 
situation. Note how often it is used by Mr. Somerville in his 
footnotes, as compared to the sparsely used or referred-to documents 
I supplied based on the actual experiences of dissidents like myself 
before German courts, appeal courts or even the highest German 
Court, the Constitutional Court. The latest reference to these U.S. 
Senate documents is 2003.

I want to draw the attention of the reviewer to the fact that the 
United States Government has, since the attacks on New York and 
Washington, September 11, 2001, passed legislation in the form of 
its Patriot Act and adopted repressive measures; such as keeping 
thousands of people in prisons whose names are not divulged, who 
have no access to lawyers, whose families do not know where they are 
or whether they are alive or dead.

The United States has also re-activated the notorious Military 
Courts, staffed entirely by military personnel against whose 
decisions there are no appeals. The U.S. holds prisoners incognito 
in open-air, special camps in Guantanamo Bay - off limits to 
inspection by human rights bodies and, to my knowledge, even the Red 
Cross.

I find that Mr. Somerville's reliance almost exclusively on U.S. 
Government publications without serious investigation of his own on 
the ground unconscionable and questionable, given the dramatic 
changes in U.S. law.  Of course, the German system is beginning to 
look "reasonable" when one compares it to what has happened to the 
human rights of hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S.A. 
like myself and others in the hysteria of the post-911 attack era. 
I have personally experienced the treatment meted out to dissidents 
as revealed in the ongoing litigation in the U.S.A. at present in my 
recent deportation from there.

Mr. Somerville says about the German situation:

*	"The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens."

*	"Prison conditions generally met international standards."

*	"The Basic Law prohibits arbitrary arrests and detention, and 
the government generally observed these prohibitions."

*	"Bail exists but is seldom employed."

*	"The Basic Law provides for an independent judiciary, and the 
Government generally respected this provision in practice."

*	"The Basic Law provides for freedom of the press and the 
Government generally respected this right in practice."

*	"The Law provides for freedom of assembly, and the Government 
generally respected this right in practice."

*	"The law provides for freedom of association, and the 
Government generally respected this right in practice."

*	"A wide variety of international and domestic human rights 
groups generally operated without government restrictions."

I count nine laws affecting the most important human rights of a 
population. The Assessment Officer takes refuge in the 
nonissue-specific word "generally". Not once does he mention the 
very specific documentation I was able to supply him with from 
inside my maximum security prison cell. This material shows in case 
after case how the German system grossly ignores and thus violates 
the political opinions, civil and human rights of its citizens, and 
especially those of dissident writers, broadcasters, and 
commentators like myself. He was supplied the evidence of this.

This, therefore, is not an oversight! Mr. Somerville had hundreds of 
pages of documents by researchers, mostly academic, peer review and 
heavily, meticulously footnoted, mostly in English. Thus, there can 
only be one explanation - which is that the very real evidence of 
anti-Democratic behaviour and tactics and the set-up of the post-war 
German vassal state (created by the Allied conquerors of Germany to 
suit their occupational goals and policies) did not fit either Mr. 
Somerville's private prejudices or what seems eminently more likely, 
it does not fit the Canadian liberal government's political agenda, 
which has, for several decades, been to criminalize me, their 
domestic German/Canadian human rights advocate, and have me deported 
to their NATO ally, Germany, for further persecution by prosecution.

More Evidence Ignored.

The Assessment Officer was supplied with explanations about the 
substance and, therefore, the differences between the Canadian and 
German anti-hate legislation, and also its comparison to 
international standards.

Nowhere in Mr. Somerville's Assessment Report is there any 
reflection, much less an understanding, of the vast difference, in 
substance and application between the Canadian and German laws. This 
difference in Germany affects the citizen's right to debate, discuss 
and air politically [and] historically sensitive topics like the 
holocaust.

This is the cause of the Zündel human rights case. Mr. Somerville 
glibly declares these German hate laws as being laws of "general 
application",whatever is meant by this odd terminology, and he 
opines that they are similar to Canada's hate laws - which they are 
possibly on the surface but certainly not in substance.

In Canada, the truthfulness of a statement made is a defence which 
can be raised [Ingrid's comment here:  This applies to criminal 
prosecution but not to Human Rights type prosecutions where Truthi 
is NO defense!]  as is also whether the intention of the accused was 
to raise a topic designed to remove a social ill by way of exposing 
it and in order to debate it in public so as to remove the ill.

I have no Criminal Code available to me in my cell and have not been 
able to reach my lawyers to get the exact wording of the hate 
sections in Canada's Criminal Code.

Mr. Somerville, in a footnote #31 on page 9, of his Report, gives 
the "Canadian Criminal Code, 2003, Pocket Criminal Code, page 35" 
for his faulty understanding or claim that Canada's hate laws are 
similar to Germany's abominations.

Nowhere is there any reference that he looked at, understood or even 
reflected on the crucial texts on this topic supplied to him or his 
office by me. Mr. Somerville simply says about the heart of the 
matter in the entire Zündel case and my submissions before him: "In 
Canada, there is similar legislation." (See page 9 of his report.)

A high school dropout would be held to a higher standard of analysis 
by his teacher than is applied here in a human rights case with 
international notoriety and also implications for the future in this 
hysterical era of "The War on Terror".

Mr. Somerville then imports from the German Government's arrest 
warrant against me an item I have never before heard raised by any 
Canadian prosecutor or judge in all my many court appearances over 
two decades in any Canadian court.  It is the 
"Völkerstrafgesetzbuch".

This obscure document must be so rare that Mr. Somerville does not 
give us its English name or title, but simply takes, obviously at 
face value, what the German Police concocted in their arrest warrant 
issued - significantly on the day of my illegal deportation to 
Canada from the U.S.A. on February 17, 2003 at Ft. Erie, Ontario.

Let me reiterate: In spite of the more than ample evidence supplied 
to the PRRA Unit and, thus, to Mr. Somerville in my initial 
submission of May 29, 2003, about the dismal situation for freedom 
of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association for 
political/historical dissidents holding my particular point of view 
in Germany, Mr. Somerville ignores the evidence and whitewashes the 
German State. The fact that my activities in the publishing, 
speaking and broadcasting of my human rights activities over 43 
years in Canada have led to no criminal convictions or convictions 
overturned by Canadian courts due to the protection of Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Somerville is of the opinion that it is 
perfectly alright that I should be sent off to Germany, where these 
words, spoken, written or broadcast would result in my immediate 
arrest and imprisonment for a minimum of five years, but more likely 
than not, for seven to ten to 15 or even 20 years, given Germany's 
judicial lawlessness in matters relating to Jews and the holocaust.

Mr. Somerville looks upon such typically German crimes as to 
"publicly deny an act under National Socialist rule" or "disparaging 
the memory of the dead", amongst others as alright, even though by 
any stretch of the imagination, there are no comparative statutes in 
Canadian criminal law.

There is also the matter of the holocaust topic. In Canada, at least 
for the moment, the holocaust is still perfectly legal to be 
discussed in public. In Germany, however, questioning the holocaust 
is punished by a five-year minimum jail term. In spite of the 
documentary evidence supplied to the PRRA office, Mr. Somerville 
simply does not seem to be able or could not care less how it 
impacts on my case and on my life, should I be deported to Germany 
from Canada!

Thoughtful readers and observers, especially people with an 
understanding of the marvel of Anglo-Saxondom's legal traditions, 
evolved over a thousand years, will be nothing but astonished once 
they reflect what is taking place now in Canada's politicized civil 
service and in its course, particularly the evidence heard in secret 
in camera proceedings in my case.

Therefore, I want to drive home the shocking state of affairs and 
danger posed by this alarming trend to the millions of naturalized 
Canadians from all parts of the globe and to permanent residents and 
landed immigrants like myself, [of whom] there are hundreds of 
thousands if not millions living in Canada. Make no mistake about 
it: The government has chosen me, the most media-demonized immigrant 
in the country, to get a precedent set to railroad others, using the 
spurious accusations that they are a threat to national security to 
this country for their ideas that happen to be disliked by a 
powerful lobby, not for any real crimes they might have committed.

Mr. Somerville also either does not comprehend or else willfully 
ignores my submissions and documentation, which make it perfectly 
clear that it is the politicized justice system, the political 
police called hypocritically the "Verfasserugsschutz" or 
"Constitutional police" who are a threat to people with my thoughts 
and beliefs. Thus, they will be my persecutors and oppressors and 
prosecutors. I can hardly turn to them for protection, as Mr. 
Somerville cynically suggests!

One of the most callous observations in this report, which is 
supposedly to assess the risks I would face if deported to Germany, 
is this one: "Evidence indicates punishment for the crimes the 
applicant is alleged to have committed range from fines to five 
years imprisonment. I do not find this punishment so draconian as to 
be completely disproportionate to the objective of the law".

It is not Mr. Somerville's job to speculate on such legal objectives.

Had Mr. Somerville done actual research on the way the Germans apply 
these laws, he would have quickly and easily found out, as 
illustrated by the Günther Deckert case, that the current Quisling 
state in power there uses the salami tactic of laying charges in 
political dissident cases by applying every six months to a year to 
the courts forever new charges to be added by treating any new 
phrase or sentence they may find uttered by me, even those uttered 
decades ago, but now on one of 800 nationalist web sites. The German 
censors, according to Mr. Somerville, say: "German officials 
estimated that there were approximately 800 Internet sites with what 
they considered objectionable and dangerous right wing extremist 
content.". Any sentence or item carried by any of these 800 web 
sites which purports to have been spoken, written, or broadcast by 
me legally in Canada or America, can add years, theoretically, up to 
five years for each offence to my sentence! This could mean four 
more charges could add 20 years!

Mr. Somerville does not consider this draconian or completely 
disproportionate.

Let me spell it out for you how draconian it is. It will mean a 
virtual life sentence for me for my political/historical beliefs 
about an alleged event called WWII which supposedly happened 58 
years ago and about which I was critical in Canada or America where 
it was legal to think, write and broadcast this criticism 5000 km 
away. A virtual life sentence - and a Canadian bureaucrat cannot 
comprehend that this is more cruel and unusual punishment than it is 
meted out to Iranian dissidents by the Ayatollah Khomenini or 
Communist China would to dissidents caught in Tianenamin Square!

Really!  Think about it!

Mr. Somerville had the effrontery to say of Germany: "The judiciary 
provided citizens with a fair and efficient judicial process." I 
supplied ample evidence to make this statement a bold-faced lie.

If Mr. Somerville doubted my claims, he could easily have verified 
them by some serious research. He would have found that all my 
expert witnesses, historians, academics with Ph.D.s from famous 
universities, which Canadian courts have accepted and qualified in 
criminal proceedings, were rejected by German courts, along with all 
other documentary evidence I tried to introduce in my court cases 
there. How can that be called "a fair judicial system", much less a 
democratic one by a Canadian official?

Mr. Somerville says that the Germans have an "efficient judicial 
process". The gall of this statement is shocking in light of the 
evidence I supplied to him. German Criminal Courts have abolished 
the taking down or recording verbatim the words uttered by all 
involved in a court case since 1977. Thus, there are no transcripts 
of the proceedings of the criminal cases in Germany! This, again, 
was pointed and explained in documents supplied with my initial PRRA 
report of May 29, 2003, to the PRRA office in Niagara Falls. There 
is not a lawyer, prosecutor or judge who would not at once realize 
that this medieval system, reverted back to by the Quisling state, 
is and has been used to produce the grossest miscarriages of 
justice. Evidence was supplied.

Yet none of it is reflected in the Somerville report. His naiveté 
about the vast difference between the two judicial systems, the 
Canadian and the German is astounding. The major difference is our 
legal tradition of setting an accused free on bail pending trial 
versus keeping someone locked up, often for lengthy periods in 
politically-motivated prosecutions while awaiting trial in Germany. 
There, only one out of a hundred accused ever gets bail.

Mr. Somerville glibly points out that the German state will 
compensate an individual in cases of acquittal. That THIS amounts a 
mere pittance paid by that state to a person [who] has been 
victimized, brutalized, deprived of the most fundamental human 
rights, the right to be free once again does not phase Mr. 
Somerville.

A man with such a mindset has no right to deal with questions of human rights.

In short, speaking as a German-Canadian human rights activist and 
writing from a maximum security 24-hour lockup cell in the Canadian 
Gulag, imprisoned for my thoughts and associations and words I have 
alleged to have written, spoken and broadcast, I find Mr. 
Somerville's Pre-removal Risk Assessment Report slipshod and totally 
unethical. It will serve as one more embarrassment to the people who 
are denying me my due process rights and who are trying to railroad 
me out of this country where I have worked and contributed as a 
perfectly law-abiding landed immigrant and permanent resident for 43 
years. My treatment is one massive human rights violation!

These are my arguments.

My submissions are that another Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer 
be assigned to review the evidence, all of it, and do an 
independent, non-biased report - Based on the actual facts existing 
on the ground in Germany, which would await me after deportation 
there!  A real risk assessment - not flimflam and bla-bla! This 
process, I understand, is the reason for doing this: to prevent 
violations and abuses of human and civil rights in countries to 
which Canada was deporting people. The process and the legislation 
were intended to safeguard human rights and not to espouse 
self-serving government propaganda, either for the Allied Quisling 
Occupation Regime now holding the German people in subjugation or a 
Canadian Government doing the bidding for a "voter segment" as 
George Jonas, the well-known Jewish-Canadian journalist recently so 
aptly called the government's national security certificate process 
against me. In short, pandering for votes in the next federal 
election!

Jewish votes, to be clear! On the part of the Liberal Government in Ottawa.

Sincerely,

Ernst Zündel, Prisoner of Conscience
Cell #5, Maximum Security Area
Toronto West Detention Center
111 Disco Rd, Box 4950







More information about the Zgrams mailing list