ZGram - 8/23/2004 - "Defense Attorney Lindsay Demands More Information About Zundel Secret Hearings"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

August 23, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

The rather lengthy but excellent summary, prepared by Paul Fromm, has 
now been sent to our world-wide contacts in media, the legal 
professions, human rights activists and organizations and anonymous 
sources in various governments to keep them abreast of what is 
happening in Canada in the notorious Zundel persecution/prosecution. 

I am sorry it comes to you late - I only received it last night.

Please publicize this far and wide!  Ever more activists are becoming 
alert to how Canada's formerly good image is being befouled by these 
Stalinist Star Chamber proceedings, presided over by former CSIS 
boss, Judge Blais:

[START]

Defense  Attorney Lindsay Demands More Information About Zundel 
Secret Hearings - Reported by Paul Fromm

  TORONTO, AUGUST 11, 2004. 

  An exasperated Peter Lindsay, head of the Zundel defence team, 
insisted "respectfully but firmly," that he could not do his job to 
properly represent his client if he did not receive more information 
that about the secret hearings that have preceded and paralleled the 
certificate review of the German-born dissident and publisher.

"I can't make any more useful submissions about the detention because 
the detention is all based on secret evidence. This is not about me. 
It's about the Court and this Court cannot do justice without hearing 
from both sides."

  Some in the audience called the called this day "starvation day" as 
Mr. Justice Pierre Blais, apparently eager to leave early, skipped 
lunch and forced the hearings to go from 9:20 to 2:15 before 
adjourning until August 30.

  Most of the proceedings were taken up with submissions concerning 
the continued detention in solitary confinement of the 65-year-old 
German-born artist and dissident. Under the infamous Immigration and 
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), would-be refugee claimants held as 
suspected threats to national security, like Mr. Zundel, are entitled 
to a "detention review every six months. July 21 marked the six month 
anniversary of Judge Blais decision that Mr. Zundel was likely a 
danger to Canada's national security and, therefore, should remain in 
custody.

  In his submission, Mr. Lindsay argued: "The ministers have produced 
double, triple and quadruple hearsay. After the ministers produced no 
witnesses, Mr. Zundel had to call Dave Stewart of CSIS, a hostile 
witness who had already testified against him" at earlier immigration 
hearings. "Yet, this adverse witness again and again had to say there 
was not public adverse evidence against Mr. Zundel.  I, as his 
counsel, was not even allowed to ask Mr. Stewart about unclassified 
evidence of Mr. Zundel's alleged links to acts of violence."

Mr. Lindsay then referred to the transcript of the hearing of April 14:

  Mr. Lindsay: "Are you able, on behalf of CSIS, to speak of any acts 
of violence directed by Mr. Zundel?"

  Judge Blais: "Your question is directed at classified information 
and I will not allow the question." 

Mr.Lindsay: "Limited to unclassified information, can you point to 
any act of violence inspired by Mr. Zundel?"

CSIS counsel Mr. Rodych objected.

  Judge Blais: "I will not allow the question."

  Mr. Lindsay continued: "I was not being permitted to ask about 
public material to get answers as to a question fundamental to this 
case: Did Mr. Zundel ever help or encourage acts of violence? The 
import of these transcript quotations is that there is no public 
evidence against Mr. Zundel. Objections that had not even been made 
were upheld and threats were made to shut down the evidence of Mr. 
Stewart. Your Lordship has made it clear that the secret evidence is 
crucial to the case against Mr. Zundel."

  Referring to Mr. Justice Blais's detention review decision of 
January 21, Mr. Lindsay said: "Since then, there's been even more 
secret evidence. On June 9, I again asked, and I was told by Your 
Lordship. 'Frankly, I don't remember,'"

"I must note the extent of the secrecy," Mr. Lindsay continued. Not 
only is there secret evidence, but the person who is the subject of 
it doesn't even have the right to know if there is secret evidence, 
and the public has to rely on your 'courtesy', to use Your Lordship's 
words. Then, there's this secret trial, the very existence of which, 
subject to 'courtesy', may be secret."

Quoting from the January 27 transcript, Mr. Lindsay quoted Judge 
Blais's ruling:

"IRPA says secrecy is needed if disclosure of the information 'would 
be injurious to national security or the safety of any person.'" The 
judge has said that this line has never changed. On the contrary, 'it 
has been inconsistent in this case. I've been restricted from asking 
questions when the information 'could', not 'would', be injurious of 
national security. I say respectfully that that's not good enough. 
Your Lordship is applying the wrong test:  'would' not 'could' [be 
injurious] to national security is mentioned in at least four 
sections of IRPA."

  Warming to his critique of Judge Blais's handling of this case, Mr. 
Lindsay has moved for a second time for the judge to recuse himself 
for a reasonable apprehension of bias. 

Mr. Lindsay added: "The submissions of Mr. Zundel's counsel simply 
get forgotten as if they had never occurred."

In the January 6 disclosure motion decision, Judge Blais noted that 
Mr. Harkat, an Arab subject to a similar national security 
certificate, was allowed to submit more specific questions about the 
secret evidence. Blais, then, asserted that no specific questions 
have been asked.

"But, on December 11, I submitted a list of 16 questions. Yet, on 
January 6, Your Lordship said: 'No specific question has been asked.' 
I say this respectfully but firmly."

"IN your June 26. decision, when you quashed the defence subpoenas, 
you said:  'I have not been convinced that Mr. Landy (of the Canadian 
Jewish Congress) or Mr. Dimant (President of the League for Human 
Rights of B"nai Brith) can shed any light on the reasonableness of 
the certificate and counsel has been unable to specify the questions 
he would ask.'"

Directly taking the former CSIS boss, now judge, to task, Mr. Lindsay said:

"I say that's wrong. On April 30, I submitted questions. I would ask 
Mr. Dimant the nature of his contact with the ministers (of justice, 
immigration and the solicitor-general's department), what he was 
saying to the ministers, what they were saying to him, what pressure 
was being brought to bear on the ministers. B'nai Brith boasted is 
was having close communications with the minister. I would ask, 'What 
was the nature of these communications?' About the Canadian Jewish 
Congress, I indicated I would ask what contact there was between [the 
Immigration Minister] Coderre and the CJC.. I would ask what led Mr. 
Coderre to say about Mr. Zundel 'Just watch me!'."

  "This Court has said it has carefully considered the problems 
inherent in secret evidence. You Lordship said: 'The evidence 
presented to me in camera was weighed carefully as to the quality of 
the witnesses.'  Yet I say, respectfully but firmly, that even when 
Mr. Zundel's counsel are present, they are ignored  or not 
acknowledged, like your saying I was not able to come up with 
questions to ask Mr. Dimant.  We are asked to have confidence that 
the evidence heard in secret against Mr. Zundel is carefully weighed. 
I ask that some outline of the secret evidence against Mr. Zundel be 
given to us, so that we can call evidence to refute it. I am 
submitting questions about the secret evidence that would not 
compromise national security."

  Examples of Questions Regarding the Secret Evidence

   1. Were any live witnesses called as part of the secret evidence?

  2. If so, how many were there? Were any of them "expert" witnesses?

  3. With respect to the witnesses, did they testify as to their 
personal knowledge or as to hearsay? Was it first hand hearsay, or 
second hand hearsay, or worse?

   4. Did any such witnesses have criminal records? Did any of them 
have any apparent bias or animus with respect to Mr. Zundel? What 
investigation was there (if any) of any bias or animus?  Were any of 
the witnesses from groups strongly opposed to Mr. Zundel's remaining 
in Canada?

  5. Were any such witnesses promised or given anything by CSIS or the 
government?

  6.  Did any witness offer corroboration of documentation to 
substantiate his testimony?

  7. Were any documents introduced as part of the secret evidence? How many?

  8. Were any such documents allegedly written by Mr. Zundel 
introduced? How many?

  9. How do we know that any such documents were, in fact, written by 
Mr. Zundel?

  10. Are any of those documents publicly available? If so, why 
haven't they been disclosed?

  11. Apart from witnesses and documents, what other kinds of evidence 
have been introduced as part of the secret evidence?

  12. How many days or hours of secret evidence have occurred? How 
many days or hours of secret submissions have been made? Have there 
been secret submissions about public evidence?

  13. In what way has the secret evidence been introduced?  That is, 
are witnesses sworn or affirmed? Are there examinations in chief, 
followed by judicial questioning? Is the evidence transcribed or are 
notes simply taken? How does it work?

  14. Was some, all, or none of the secret evidence shown to the 
Ministers prior to the issuance of the security certificate against 
Mr. Zundel? If the answer is, 'not all', did the evidence not 
presented to the Ministers exist in CSIS or the Department of 
Justice's hands as of May 1, 2003, or was it gathered later? If it 
was not presented to the Ministers, will your Lordship consider it on 
the security certificate review and, if so, on what basis?

[Ingrid's comment inserted here:  I have not been able to 
double-check the reference to the year 1990 below, but apparently 
there exists an official CSIS document that states that, prior to 
1990, there was NO appreciable violence in Canada that could be 
traced to so-called "White Supremacist" groups or individuals.]

  15. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific act of 
violence at any time since 1990.

  16. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in a specific 
act of violence at any time since 1990.

  17. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific act of 
violence at any time since 1990.

  18. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding a specific act of 
violence at any time since 1990.

  19. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the strings with 
respect to a specific act of violence at any time since 1990.

  20. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring a specific crime at 
any time since 1990.

  21. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging a specific crime 
at any time since 1990.

  22. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in a specific 
crime at any time since 1990.

  23. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding a specific crime at 
any time since 1990.

  24. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string with 
respect to a specific crime at any time since 1990.

  25. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring any act of terrorism 
at any time since 1990.

  26. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging any act of 
terrorism at any time since 1990.

  27. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in any act of 
terrorism at any time since 1990.

  28. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding any act of terrorism 
at any time since 1990.

  29. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string with 
respect to any act of terrorism at any time since 1990. 

30. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel inspiring anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.

  31. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel encouraging anything that 
could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.

  32. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in anything 
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.

  33. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel funding anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.

  34. Provide one example of Mr. Zundel pulling the string with 
respect to anything that could endanger the security of Canada at any 
time since 1990.

  Crown Attorney Donald MacIntosh insisted that Judge Blais consign 
Mr. Zundel to another six months in solitary confinement at the West 
Toronto Detention Centre, where he continues to be denied alternative 
health products with which he's medicated himself for over 30 years.

  "There is more than sufficient evidence Mr. Zundel should remain in 
detention under Secondary. 83 of IRPA," MacIntosh argued. "A judge 
must ask if there is any evidence the subject is a threat to national 
security or the safety of any person or is likely."

What particularly exercised the gray-maned MacIntosh was the feat 
that Mr. Zundel might re-unite with his supporters. If released, "Mr. 
Zundel would be able to reestablish links with groups and individuals 
who are violent White supremacists and racists and he might be 
funding groups that can reasonably be considered terrorist groups 
and, therefore, a threat to national security. He's a committed 
warrior; he's a committed ideologue," he said, concluding his remarks 
with a strange spinning gesture of his upstretched left hand.

  Zundel supporters sat in bemused silence. What "terrorist" groups 
could the life-long pacifist have contacts with?

Mr. Zundel is fighting for his freedom and political life. When he 
has a desperately depleted defence fund, how could he fund others? 
Such logical inconsistencies seem hardly to trouble the Canadian 
state's spokesman who seemed intent on keeping Canada's most famous 
dissident in prison indefinitely to prevent him from political 
activity.

  Judge Blais reserved his decision.

[END]