ZGram - 10.23.2004 - "Ernst Zundel: Final Written Submissions as to the Reasonableness of the Certificate"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

October 23, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

I know the document below is long - and usually I don't send court 
transcripts in their entirety.  However, this one is so important and 
stunningly argued that I want you to have it - even if you cannot 
read it all at once.

Have yourself a cup of coffee and ponder what can happen in the 
Western world to an utterly innocent man.

Today it is Ernst Zundel - Tomorrow it may well be you!

For your convenience, I am also attaching the document because 
attachments preserve the formatting, often lost in simple e-mail:

[START]


Final Written Submissions on Behalf of Ernst Zundel
As to the Reasonableness of the Certificate

A.	OVERVIEW

1. On May 1, 2003, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and 
the Solicitor General of Canada (the "Ministers"), pursuant to 
section 77 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA") 
signed a security certificate stating that Ernst Christof Friedrich 
Zundel ("Mr. Zundel"), a permanent resident of Canada, is 
inadmissible on grounds of security.

2. Mr. Zundel is 65 years old. He has no criminal record in Canada 
and faces no criminal charges in Canada. He lived in Canada from 1958 
to 2000, when he moved to the U.S. after marrying Dr. Ingrid Rimland, 
an American. CSIS (which has gathered the evidence against Mr. 
Zundel) has no public evidence that, during the years from 1958 to 
2000, Mr. Zundel ever (a) aided or abetted the commission of any 
criminal offence in Canada, (b) conspired with anyone to commit any 
criminal offence in Canada or (c) counseled anyone to commit any 
criminal offence in Canada. (Evidence of David Stewart on behalf of 
CSIS, January 23, 2004, pp. 2400, 2401, 2403, 2404, 2416, 2418). 
After his time in the U.S., Mr. Zundel re-entered Canada on February 
19, 2003 and has been in custody without charge for over 19 months 
since that day.

3. The issue to be determined by the Court is whether the security 
certificate pertaining to Mr. Zundel is reasonable.  It is Mr. 
Zundel's submission that the security certificate is unreasonable and 
must be quashed, pursuant to subsection 80(2) of IRPA.


4. The issue of the reasonableness of the security certificate must 
be resolved based on the case presented by the Crown against Mr. 
Zundel and the evidence presented by Mr. Zundel on his own behalf. 
These written submissions on the issue will be supplemented by oral 
submissions to be made to the Court starting on October 19, 2004.

5. There are two parts to this case:
  		a)	the public case; and
  		b)	the secret case.

  B.	THE PUBLIC CASE

6. The public case presented by the Crown against Mr. Zundel consists 
of zero witnesses.  This failure of the Crown to call even a single 
witness must be viewed as a very serious failure in the case against 
Mr. Zundel.  It must be the subject of serious questioning as to why 
not a single witness was called.  Paying lip service to the careful 
consideration supposedly given by the Court to the weakness of the 
Crown's zero-witness public case is not sufficient. There must be 
some demonstration shown that the Crown's failure to call any vive 
voce evidence at all, as would have happened in any normal civil or 
criminal case, is the subject of real concern to the Court.  It is 
thus respectfully submitted that the Court should proceed on the 
basis of preferring vive voce evidence called by Mr. Zundel over 
hearsay documents presented by the Crown, in the absence of 
compelling and properly explained reasons for not doing so.

7. In the proceedings before Mr. Justice Blais, the Applicant has 
faced over 1,800 pages of Crown hearsay "evidence" which is mostly 
unsworn and not subject to challenge through cross-examination, as 
they were not adduced through any witness but simply submitted as 
five (5) bound volumes filed as "evidence" in the security 
certificate review.

8. The heart of the public case against Mr. Zundel is the Crown's 
allegation that Mr. Zundel is not personally violent but that he 
influences or inspires other people to commit acts of violence. 
David Stewart of CSIS agreed that Mr. Zundel had been well known to 
CSIS for many years. He testified that, to his knowledge, Mr. Zundel 
has never personally been involved in any act of evidence. He 
testified that he did not believe that Mr. Zundel would engage in 
acts of violence personally (Evidence of David Stewart, January 23, 
2004, pp 2380, 2388).

9. On the issue of inspiring others to violence, Mr. Stewart of CSIS 
testified as follows on April 29, 2004, at page 3972 of the 
transcript:
  Q. The question is: Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zundel ever inspired anyone to commit any of the violent acts 
referred to in the summary? The answer is: Nothing in the 
unclassified material. Correct?
  		A: That's correct.

10. The summary referred to in this excerpt is the certificate 
summary, which summarizes the Crown's public case against Mr. Zundel. 
The key people supposedly influenced or inspired by Mr. Zundel are 
those individuals listed in the table of contents to the certificate 
summary, as follows:

  		a)	Wolfgang Walter Droege.
  		b)	Mark Lemire.
  		c)	Terry Long.
  		d)	Tony McAleer.
  		e)	Bernard Klatt.
  		f)	George Burdi.
  		g)	Christopher Newhook.
  		h)	Eric Fischer.
  		I)	Tom Metzger.
  		j)	Richard Girnt Butler.
  		k)	Dennis Mahon.
  		l)	Bela Ewald Althans.
  		m)	Siegfried Verbeke.
  		n)	Oliver Bode.
  		o)	Christian Worch.
  		p)	Gottfried Kuessel.

11. The Court pointed to these same people as being the people about 
whom the Court  was concerned in connection with Mr. Zundel (except 
George Burdi and Eric Fischer) plus the Court also expressed concern 
about the dead William Pierce1, Nick Griffin and members of South 
Africa's Afrikaner Resistance Movement. (see paragraph 27 of the 
Court's January 21, 2004 decision detaining Mr. Zundel)

12. The alleged influence of Mr. Zundel on these other people must be 
evaluated based on section 34(1) of IRPA, which provides as follows:

  34(1): A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on 
security grounds for

  			c)	engaging in terrorism;
  			d)	being a danger to the security of Canada;
  			e)	engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; and
  			f)	being a member of an organization 
that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or 
will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c).

13. Section 33 of IRPA is also relevant to the evaluation, and 
provides as follows:

  The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 
include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, 
include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that 
they have occurred, are occurring or may occur. 

14. It is respectfully submitted that the strength of the public case 
against Mr. Zundel may be evaluated by looking at each of the 
individuals listed in paragraph 10 above, and considering the 
following evidence and documents in relation to those individuals:

  		A)	the certificate summary, which supposedly 
provides "full disclosure" to Mr. Zundel (see, for example, this 
Court's decision dated September 22, 2004, continuing Mr. Zundel's 
detention, at paragraph 27). According to David Stewart of CSIS, the 
certificate summary provides "the best evidence of an unclassified 
nature" and "the strongest evidence of an unclassified nature" with 
respect to whether Mr. Zundel is a threat to the security of Canada. 
(January 23, 2004 pp.2464-2465).

  		B)	the Minister's Memorandum of Argument on 
Detention, dated December 4, 2003, which contained the Crown's 
argument of the public case up to December 2003;

  		C)	the testimony of Dave Stewart, the adverse 
CSIS witness called by Mr. Zundel over the objections of the Crown, 
and questioned about the Crown's witness-free public case against Mr. 
Zundel. Mr. Stewart testified that CSIS believed and he personally 
believed that Mr. Zundel was inadmissible to Canada on security 
grounds under IRPA (January 23, 2004,  p.2326). He testified that he 
had reviewed "the material in the Service's [CSIS] possession related 
to Mr. Zundel" (p.2368).  The Ministers elicited evidence from him 
that he was the best person from CSIS to speak to this hearing about 
Mr. Zundel (on April 29, 2004 at pp. 4105-6):

   Q. Would you also agree that you would not have been called as a 
witness at Niagara Falls if there had been someone better from the 
Service to speak to this matter?
  A. I agree with that.
  Q. I assume you have the same belief about your participation in this hearing?
  A. That's correct;


  D)	the evidence of Doug Christie, a lawyer and officer of the 
Court, who gave real vive voce evidence on the issue of the private 
relationship of Mr. Zundel to many of the individuals referred to in 
paragraph 10; and

  E)	the Ministers' Memorandum of argument dated October 1, 2004, 
which contains the Crown's final argument of the public case.


  (a) Wolfgang Walter Droege

  15. Mr. Droege is dealt with at paragraphs 34 -37 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Droege in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Droege in those 
paragraphs, such as Mr. Droege's criminal acts with respect to the 
aborted Dominica Coup 23 years ago and attack on ARA members 11 years 
ago.  (In fact, the later evidence of Mr. Christie was that Mr. 
Zundel denounced the coup and counselled Mr. Droege against 
confronting the ARA members.) There is no reference at all in the 
certificate summary to Mr. Zundel having any specific involvement 
with Mr. Droege in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the 
security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or 
might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

16. Mr. Droege is also dealt with at paragraphs 125 and 129-137 of 
the Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 
2003.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in 
any way in the aborted coup in Dominica in 1981, which is again 
discussed at length for no apparent reason.  There is no reference at 
all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Droege in engaging 
in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada.

17. Mr. Droege is mentioned at pages 2996-2999 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever helped 
Wolfgang Droege in any way to commit or plan any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  THE COURT: The caveat, Mr. Stewart - and I am sorry to intervene. 
With the ruling I made, it is always in relation to the unclassified 
evidence.
  THE WITNESS: My answer is that there is nothing in the unclassified 
material before me to indicate that.
  		MR. LINDSAY:
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever helped 
Wolfgang Droege in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. There is nothing in the unclassified information to indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever helped 
Wolfgang Droege in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime 
anywhere?
  A. There is nothing in the unclassified information to indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever involved 
in anything with Wolfgang Droege that could endanger the security of 
Canada?
  A. There is nothing in the unclassified information to indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever 
encouraged Wolfgang Droege to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. There is nothing in the unclassified documents to indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever 
encouraged Wolfgang Droege to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. There is nothing in the unclassified material to indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever 
encouraged Wolfgang Droege to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material would indicate that.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel ever 
encouraged Wolfgang Droege to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material.


18. By the way, the same answers to the effect of "not in the 
unclassified material" in answer to the same questions as those above 
were also given by Mr. Stewart in relation to the three extra 
individuals or groups referred to by the Court as being of concern in 
paragraph 10 hereof, as follows:

  	Individual/Group			Transcript Reference

  	William Pierce			February 12, 2004
  						pp 3126-3127

  	Nick Griffin				February 12, 2004
  						pp 3117-3119

  	Members of South			February 12, 2004
  	Africa's Afrikaner Resistence	pp 3096-3098
  	Movement

  By the way, there is no unclassified CSIS information of any contact 
between Mr. Zundel and Mr. Pierce.  (Evidence of Dave Stewart, 
January 26, 2004, p.2563)

19. The Crown later persuaded Mr. Stewart to change his answer about 
Mr. Droege, by pointing Mr. Stewart to part of the Heritage Front 
report (April 29, 2004, pp.4140-4144).  The excerpt of the report 
contained an assertion about an enemies list and Mr. Zundel's 
emphatic denial of involvement in such a list, using the words 
"absolutely nonsense".  Mr. Zundel's counsel attempted to clarify the 
matter, but was not permitted to do so, as can be seen at pages 4184, 
4187, and 4192 of the transcript:

   Q. Do you on behalf of CSIS know whether Mr. Zundel's version is 
correct, i.e., that it is absolutely nonsense, or whether the other 
version presented in this document is correct? Do you know which is 
correct on behalf of CSIS?
  Mr. MacINTOSH: Objection.
  .
  .
  .
  Mr. LINDSAY: I am not allowed to ask the question?
  THE COURT: Reformulate it. I don't see how it could be helpful.


  Q. Do I take it, sir, that you on behalf of CSIS are not able to say 
which of the two versions is correct?  Is that a fair summary, sir?
  Mr. Rodych: I object, my lord.  For Mr. Stewart to answer that 
question is going to be a matter of national security.
  Mr. Lindsay: why is it a matter of national security?
  The COURT: I think this is a matter of national security, and the 
objection will be sustained.
  Mr. Lindsay: I guess that's that.


  Q. Does CSIS have any information at all that Mr. Zundel had direct 
knowledge of the enemies list or a list referred to in relation to 
either Mr. Droeger or Mr. Long?
  MR. RODYCH: Objection on the grounds of national security.
  The COURT: I think we had an objection on that particular point 
earlier, not with you but with your predecessor, and I upheld the 
objection.

  20. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Droege 
and Mr. Zundel on July 27, 2004, at pages 4924-4926 of the transcript:

  Q. ...did you ever observe interactions between Mr. Droege and Mr. Zündel?
  A. Yes.
                       Q. And in that context, what observations did 
you make, Sir?
  A. Mr. Zündel strenuously criticized Mr. Droege for his activities 
in the United States and said, basically, that he got what he 
deserved for being involved with violence.  He said it was 
"ridiculous, counter-productive", and typical of the type of people 
he didn't want to associate with and that if Mr. Droege had any ideas 
like that in the future, he didn't want to be involved or connected 
to him in any way.
  Q. And when you say "ideas like that", what ideas are you talking about?
  A. Well, the ideas that Mr. Droege got himself in jail for, the 
activities of organizing -- and this is all hearsay -- but it was 
clearly what Mr. Droege told Mr. Zündel, and what I knew.  But it was 
his involvement in some crazy scheme to, with violence, take over 
this Island called Dominica.
  Mr. Zündel ridiculed that and said it was "entirely 
counter-productive" and "typical of the kind of stupidity that he 
didn't want to be involved with".
  I have had many private conversations with Mr. Droege -
  THE COURT:  Excuse me, you had...?
  THE WITNESS:  I have had many private conversations with Mr. Droege.
  MR. LINDSAY: 
  Q. With respect to the interaction between Mr. Zündel and Mr. 
Droege, did Mr. Zündel ever encourage Mr. Droege in any way towards 
violence, or crime, or terrorism, or anything of that nature?
  A. Mr. Zündel has, in my presence, repeatedly denounced Mr. Droege, 
to his face, for his violent activities.  Mr. Zündel, in my presence, 
and in Mr. Droege's presence, has said, on many occasions, that that 
form of behaviour was a "disgrace to his race".

  Mr. Christie also testified that an "enemies list" came from Grant 
Bristow, not from Mr. Zundel.  (August 30, 2004, pp. 3253-4).

21. Mr. Droege is also mentioned at paragraphs 32, 37,  38 and 52-55 
of the Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004. 
Incredibly, the Crown argues, at paragraph 38, that Mr. Christie's 
evidence confirms Justice Blais' finding in the January 21, 2004 
detention order that Mr. Droege turned to Mr. Zundel as his advisor. 
The example cited in support of this argument is the 1993 "Sneaky 
Dee's" incident where Mr. Droege didn't follow Mr. Zundel's advice 
and, by not following it, became involved in violence.  The Crown 
then continues, at paragraph 39, to argue that Mr. Zundel had also 
provided advice to Eric [Fischer] and cites as support an example of 
Mr. Fischer failing to follow Mr. Zundel's advice and thereby 
becoming involved in violence and kidnapping.  The Crown's 
submissions in these two paragraphs show the hopeless nature of the 
public case against Mr. Zundel,  by highlighting  the Crown's 
tortured efforts to find public evidence against Mr. Zundel.  The 
Crown's argument at paragraphs 52-55 concerns whether Mr. Zundel and 
Mr. Droege discussed history or other matters or both.  The Crown 
fails to mention the real point: there is no mention at all of Mr. 
Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Droege in engaging in 
terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada.

  (b) Marc Lemire
22. Mr. Lemire is dealt with at paragraphs 38-40 of the certificate 
summary.  The only reference in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel is the 
allegation that Mr. Zundel financially helped Mr. Lemire to run a 
racist internet site.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Lemire in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada. 

23. Mr. Lemire is dealt with at paragraphs 145-147 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  There 
is no evidence at all presented in those paragraphs of Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Lemire in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada.

24. Mr. Lemire is mentioned at pages 2999-3016 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

   Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Zündel ever helped 
Marc Lemire in any way to commit or plan any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Marc Lemire in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Lemire in any way to commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Lemire which could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. I think, if I refer to the document, paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 --
  Q. What specifically are you referring to?
  A. I am referring to the fact that Mr. Lemire has been called the 
"webmaster of the far right."
  Q. Is that all you are referring to, sir?
  A. I am paraphrasing from the document.  Bringing racial supremacist 
groups together, he created the Canadian Patriots Network.  He 
started an electronic bulletin board system.  He started the Freedom 
Site web site to link to most of the extremist right-wing groups in 
Canada.
  Q. Yes...?
  A. There is unclassified information to indicate that Mr. Lemire 
received financial assistance from Mr. Zündel and that he runs the 
largest racist Internet site in Canada.
  Q. Does CSIS have information that Mr. Lemire has been involved in terrorism?
  A. Not of an unclassified nature.
  Q. In violence?
  A. Not of an unclassified nature.
  Q. In crime?
  A. Not of an unclassified nature.
  Q. Has the Canadian Patriots Network been involved in crime?
  A. There is no indication in the unclassified material that it has.
  Q. Has it been involved in terrorism?
  A. There is no indication in the unclassified material that it has.
  Q. Has it been involved in violence?
  A. There is no indication in the classified material that it has.
  Q. What about this bulletin board?  Does the bulletin board somehow 
encourage violence?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does it encourage crime?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does this bulletin board encourage terrorism?
  A. Not in the unclassified material in this document.
  Q. This Digital Freedom chat service, has it been involved in 
encouraging crime?
  A. Not in the unclassified material in this document.
  Q. Has it been involved in encouraging violence?
  A. Not according to the unclassified information in this document.
  Q. Has it been involved in encouraging terrorism?
  A. Not according to this document.
  Q. With respect to the Freedom Site web site, has that web site been 
involved in encouraging violence?
  A. Not according to this document.
  Q. This document being the summary?
  A. That's correct.
  Q. Has it been involved in encouraging violence in any of the other 
unclassified materials?
  A. I would have to refer to the unclassified support material.
  Q. You can refer to whatever you want.  May I approach my lord?
  THE COURT:  Yes.
  MR. LINDSAY: 
  Q. Do you want the five books?  You have the five green volumes in 
front of you, sir.
  A. Could you repeat your question, please.
  Q. With respect to the Freedom Site web site, has that web site been 
involved in encouraging acts of terrorism?
  A. I don't see anything in the material that I have looked at.
  Q. And nothing about encouraging crime or violence either.  Correct?
  A. Not in this unclassified material.
  .
  .
  .
  MR. LINDSAY: 
  Q. Mr. Stewart, does CSIS have any evidence that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Marc Lemire to be involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified information.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Marc Lemire to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified summary.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Marc Lemire to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified summary.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Marc Lemire to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified summary.
   Mr. Lemire was linked to the Heritage Front by the Certificate 
summary. Mr. Stewart provided answers like "not in the unclassified 
material" in answer to the same questions about "any member of the 
Heritage Front." (February 12, 2004, pp 3089-3091) Where counsel for 
the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as this from Mr. 
Stewart, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart 
on April 29, 2004.  That was not done for the evidence about Mr. 
Lemire.

  25. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Lemire 
and Mr. Zundel on July 27, 2004, at pages 4926-4929 of the transcript:

  Q. Have you observed interactions between Mr. Zündel and Mr. Lemire?
  A. Many times.
  Q. Are you able to provide some evidence to the court about what you observed?
  A. Mr. Zündel has talked to Mr. Lemire about the Heritage Front, the 
Martyrs' Day Rally, and other activities of the Heritage Front. Mr. 
Zündel has talked to Mr. Lemire, in my presence, about the need to 
obey the law and follow the law.  Mr. Zündel has counselled Mr. 
Lemire, many times, on how to conduct himself within the framework of 
the law.
  That, I have heard.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. Did Mr. Zündel, in any of those many debates you heard, ever urge 
Mr. Lemire to any kind of violence, crimes, terrorism; anything of 
that nature?
  A. I specifically recall Mr. Zündel, on more than one occasion, 
specifically disapproving of the skinhead way of life, to which at 
one time Mr. Lemire appeared to be attracted.  And I know that Mr. 
Zündel advised him to stay away from that type of lifestyle.  It was 
the standard explanation of Mr. Zündel that "every good white man 
should behave like a noble person and follow the law".  That was his 
attitude to all these young people, particularly Mr. Lemire.  And Mr. 
Lemire was more receptive than most.  Quite a few just never came 
back, when they heard him say that, particularly Mr. Burdie, whom I 
also --
  THE COURT:   Excuse me, did you say, specifically, "the white man"?
  THE WITNESS:  Yes.  He had the attitude that white men had a code of 
honour to live by:  that they should respect the law; that they 
should be gentlemen. That was his attitude.  And he would talk about 
that.  And all the young people who would come by, many of them were 
skinheads, and he didn't approve of that way of life, particularly 
the violent bravado, the drugs and the alcohol.  He specifically 
denounced that kind of behaviour. As I said, quite clearly, when he 
told them that, they often did not come back.
  MR. LINDSAY:
  Q. Referring to the skinheads?
  A. Yes.


26. Mr. Lemire is also mentioned at paragraphs 32, 37 and 55 to 57 of 
the Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There 
is mention at paragraphs 56 and 57 of a supposed contradiction 
between Mr. Zundel's evidence that he was not asked for his opinion 
about the Heritage Front and Mr. Christie's evidence that Mr. Zundel 
did not approve of the Heritage Front.  More significantly, there is 
no mention in those paragraphs of any evidence of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with either Mr. Lemire or the Heritage Front in 
engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.


  (c) Terry Long
27. Mr. Long is dealt with at paragraphs 41-43 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel being involved 
in any way with Mr. Long in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Long 
in those paragraphs.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Long in engaging in terrorism, being 
a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence 
that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

28. Mr. Long is dealt with at paragraphs 157-159 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  Those 
paragraphs discuss whether Mr. Long was the Canadian representative 
of Aryan Nations and whether Mr. Zundel knew it.  However, there is 
no reference at all in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Long in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to 
the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or 
might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

29. Mr. Long is mentioned at pages 3016-3018 of the testimony of Mr. 
Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q....Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Terry Long in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified summary.
  Q. Or in the unclassified materials more generally.  Is that right, sir?
  A. Yes.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Long in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Long in any way to commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Long that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Long to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Long to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Long to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Long to become involved in anything that would 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Mr. Stewart answered a similar series of questions in relation to 
"anyone at Aryan Nations" by saying that there was no evidence in the 
unclassified material. (February 12, 2004, pp 3080-3083) Where 
counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as this, 
they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on April 
29, 2004.  That was done for Mr. Long and Aryan Nations, with 
reference to the same part of the Heritage Front Report referred to 
with respect to Mr. Droege. (pp 4143-4). When Mr. Zundel's counsel 
tried to pursue the matter, he was not allowed to do so on security 
grounds, as previously described in paragraph 19 hereof.
30. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Long and 
Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5265-5268 of the transcript:

  Q. What opinion did Zündel express to you about Long?
  A. He thought he was pathetic and a uniform fetishist, associated 
with violence out of some insecurity; that the Aryan Nations was 
kooky, crazy; that they were going to get into a lot of trouble, and 
they were violent.  Those were his words.
  Q. Did he express any opinion about the wisdom or non-wisdom of 
their involvement in violence?
  A. He said they were going to get in a lot of trouble, and he 
thought their religious beliefs were incomprehensible, crazy.  We 
used to argue about that.  I used to explain to him that they were 
just a corruption of British Israel that had quite a history in the 
19th century.  He wasn't interested in that aspect of religion; he 
just thought they were crazy.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. What was the opinion that Long expressed to you about Zündel in 
2002 or 2003, before this certificate?
  A. Long expressed respect for Mr. Zündel, but has said that he is 
out of touch and out of date.  Long's interest at that time, not on 
the last occasion -- Long had given up politics on the last occasion 
that I talked to him.  His expressions about Zündel were respectful. 
Prior to that, when he was recruiting Aryan Nations and whatnot, his 
view was that Zündel was basically unable to relate to the people 
that he was interested in recruiting.

31. Mr. Long is also mentioned at paragraphs 71-76 of the Ministers' 
Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  Those paragraphs refer 
to peripheral matters, such as whether Mr. Christie knew if Mr. 
Zundel had met Mr. Long.  The important point is that there is no 
mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Long in 
engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

  (d) Tony McAleer
32. Mr. McAleer is dealt with at paragraph 44 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph alleges that Mr. McAleer led Canadian 
Liberty Net, which included as an option hearing a message from Mr. 
Zundel.  However, there is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. McAleer in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

33. Mr. McAleer is dealt with at paragraphs 177 and following of the 
Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 
2003.  It repeats the discussion of Mr. Zundel having had a message 
on Canadian Liberty Net. There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. McAleer in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada.

34. Mr. McAleer is mentioned at pages 3018-3021 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Tony McAleer in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. McAleer in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. McAleer in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. McAleer that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. McAleer to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  MR. RODYCH:  Again, my lord, this is becoming quite repetitive. 
That was the first question asked regarding Tony McAleer.  I am not 
sure why it has to be asked again.
  MR. LINDSAY:  No, the first question was whether he helped.  The 
second question was whether he encouraged.
  THE COURT:  There is a difference.  So far it is acceptable.
  THE WITNESS:  I would say not in the unclassified material.
  MR. LINDSAY: 
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. McAleer to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. McAleer to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. McAleer to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material.

  Mr. Stewart gave essentially the same answers in relation to 
Canadian Liberty Net. (February 12, 2004, pp. 3167-3172) Where 
counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as this, 
they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on April 
29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. McAleer.

35. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. McAleer 
and Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5269, 5270, and 5272 of 
the transcript:

  Q. To your knowledge, did Zündel ever suggest to McAleer to become 
involved in any violence or terrorism or crime?
  A. Certainly not to my knowledge.
  Q. To your knowledge, did Zündel ever encourage McAleer to become 
involved in violence or terrorism or crime?
  A. Certainly not to my knowledge.
  Q. To your knowledge, did Zündel ever discuss with McAleer the issue 
of violence or terrorism or crime?
  A. In conversations with Mr. Zündel he indicated to me that he told 
McAleer to avoid that lifestyle, because McAleer did get into some 
fights.  That is all I know about that.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. What opinion did McAleer express in terms of Zündel?
  A. The same type of opinion that I heard from Droege and I heard 
from Long, that he was out of date and out of touch; that he was 
controversial and, therefore, interesting for his web site.  I said, 
"If he is out of date and out of touch, why do you put him on?" 
"Because he is a media figure, a media personality.  He is 
interesting.  All sorts of people are interested to hear what is 
happening to him" -- and actually because McAleer believes in freedom 
of expression.

36. Mr. McAleer is also mentioned at paragraphs 37 and 42-51 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004. Those 
paragraphs talk extensively about Mr. McAleer's appearance and about 
Mr. Zundel's knowledge of the Canadian Liberty Net message site. 
However, there is no mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement 
with Mr. McAleer or Canadian Liberty Net in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada.

  (e) Bernard Klatt
37. Mr. Klatt is dealt with at paragraphs 45-46 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
thus no reference at all in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Klatt in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

38. Mr. Klatt is dealt with at paragraphs 148-149 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  There 
is discussion of whether Mr. Zundel's evidence that Mr. Klatt was 
gentle and soft-spoken was consistent with the content of Mr. Klatt's 
website.  However, there is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Klatt in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

39. Mr. Klatt is mentioned at pages 3021-3023 of the testimony of Mr. 
Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Bernard Klatt in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Klatt in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Klatt in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Klatt that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Klatt to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Klatt to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Klatt to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Klatt to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Klatt.

40. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Klatt and 
Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at page 5279 of the transcript:

  Q. Mr. Christie, to your knowledge, did Mr. Zündel ever suggest to 
Mr. Klatt or encourage Mr. Klatt to become involved in acts of 
violence or crime or terrorism?
  A. No.  Mr. Klatt is a real gentle soul, and I doubt that he would 
ever -- I never heard them discuss anything of that kind.

41. Mr. Klatt is also mentioned at paragraphs 32, 37 and 66-70 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  At 
paragraph 70, the Crown refers to Mr. Zundel's contacts with Mr. 
Klatt about the Internet.  However, the Crown entirely fails to 
mention that Mr. Klatt may never have met Mr. Zundel prior to the 
Human Rights case about Zundelsite and that their discussions about 
the Internet were in the context of Mr. Klatt possibly being an 
expert witness in the Human Rights case.  (see August 30, 2004 
transcript, pages 5275-5279) Moreover, in paragraphs 32, 37 and 66-70 
of the Crown's final argument, there is no mention of Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Klatt in engaging in terrorism, being 
a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence 
that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (f) George Burdi
42. Mr. Burdi is dealt with at paragraphs 47-51 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Burdi in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Burdi in those 
paragraphs, such as Mr. Burdi's criminal acts.  There is no reference 
at all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Burdi in 
engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada. 

43. Mr. Burdi is dealt with at paragraphs 125, 127, 128 and 138-142 
of the Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 
4, 2003.  At paragraph 140, there is reference to Mr. Zundel finding 
Mr. Burdi's lyrics offensive and not wanting Mr. Burdi around.  This 
is consistent with Mr. Christie's later evidence as to Mr. Zundel's 
distaste for skinheads and their music and propensity for violence. 
Moreover, there is no reference at all in paragraphs 125, 127, 128 
and 138-142 of the Crown's argument to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Burdi in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

44. Mr. Burdi is also mentioned at pages 3023-3024 of the testimony 
of Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
George Burdi in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Burdi in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Burdi in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Burdi that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Burdi to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Burdi to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Burdi to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Burdi to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Burdi.


45. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Burdi and 
Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5281-5283 of the transcript:

  Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Burdi express an opinion about Mr. Zündel 
and, if so, when and where?
  A. Yes.  I represented Mr. Burdi, Mr. Jason Snow and one other 
gentleman in Windsor on charges of promoting hatred with their record 
company.  One time they picked me up at the airport to drive me to 
Windsor, and they also drove me back.  In the conversation with the 
three young men who then and previously had been -- more previously 
than then -- skinheads with this violent rock band of RaHoWa, we 
talked about Mr. Zündel and we discussed his activities in the car on 
way from Toronto to Windsor and back again.
  .
  .
  .
  They did discuss Mr. Zündel repeatedly, and they spoke about him 
objectively.  They were not emotionally involved one way or the other 
with his person.  They said that he was out of touch with young 
people, would never be able to understand their music.  Burdi was 
quite hurt by Zündel's rejection.  He felt that it was foolish of 
Zündel to reject the youth and him particularly at that time.  They 
all three plead guilty eventually.
  Q. Did they express any view as to who Zündel's followers were?
  A. They used the term "old farts" -- f-a-r-t-s.


46. Mr. Burdi is mentioned in passing in paragraph 37 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Burdi in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (g) Christopher Newhook
47. Mr. Newhook is dealt with at paragraph 52 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph does not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Newhook in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Newhook in that 
paragraph, such as Mr. Newhook's criminal act of possession of a 
baseball bat.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Newhook in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

48. Mr. Newhook is dealt with at paragraphs 143-144 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003. 
Paragraph 144 refers to Mr. Zundel's attendance at a birthday party 
for Mr. Newhook and his singing Happy Birthday to him.  More 
significantly, there is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Newhook in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

49. Mr. Newhook is mentioned at pages 3025-3027 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. My question is:  Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zündel ever helped Christopher Newhook in any way to commit or plan 
to commit any act of terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the public material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Newhook in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Newhook in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Newhook that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Newhook to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Newhook to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Newhook to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Newhook to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Newhook.

50. Mr. Newhook is mentioned in passing in paragraph 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Newhook in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (h) Eric Fischer
51. Mr. Fischer is dealt with at paragraph 53 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph does not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Fischer in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Fischer in that 
paragraph, such as Mr. Fischer's criminal acts.  There is no 
reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. 
Fischer in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of 
Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger 
the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

52. Mr. Fischer is not dealt with in the Minister's Memorandum of 
Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  There is thus no 
reference at all in that argument to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Fischer in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

53. Mr. Fischer is mentioned at pages 3027-3029 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Eric Fischer in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Fischer in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Fischer in any way to commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Fischer that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Fischer to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Fischer to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Fischer to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Fischer to become involved in anything that endangered 
the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Fischer.

54. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Fischer 
and Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5288-5289 of the 
transcript:

  Q. ...Do you recall discussing an incident of violence with Mr. 
Zündel involving something Mr. Fischer had done?
  A. I remember Mr. Zündel saying about a kidnapping incident 
involving Mr. Fischer.  "I warned those boys not to be involved with 
the Heritage Front" or "with violence", one of those two things.  "I 
told you so," in effect was the conversation about that.
  Q. Just so we are entirely clear, what was Zündel saying as to who 
had given the warning?
  A. He had.  He always said, "I have been a stabilizing influence in 
these boys' lives.  I have tried to teach them how to obey the law." 
He said that many times.  He expressed total frustration with this 
Heritage Front because it was stealing all the people that he wanted 
to enlighten and educate about the Second World War.  He had no 
control over them, and I think he regretted that he had no influence 
on youth, although he fancied that he did.

55. Mr. Fischer is also mentioned at paragraphs 37, 39 and 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  Paragraphs 
37 and 94 are non-substantive references.  Paragraph 39 shows Mr. 
Fischer not following Mr. Zundel's advice to obey the law.  There is 
no mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Fischer in 
engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

  (I) Tom Metzger
56. Mr. Metzger is dealt with at paragraphs 54-56 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel being involved 
in any way with Mr. Metzger in any of the actions attributed to Mr. 
Metzger in those paragraphs, such as Mr. Metzger's criminal acts. 
There is no reference at all in those paragraphs to Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Metzger in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

57. Mr. Metzger is dealt with at paragraphs 131 and 167-174 of the 
Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 
2003.  These paragraphs deal with peripheral matters, such as whether 
Mr. Zundel knew of a particular racist cartoon allegedly distributed 
by Mr. Metzger.  More significantly, there is no reference at all in 
these paragraphs to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. 
Metzger in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of 
Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger 
the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

58. Mr. Metzger is mentioned at pages 3029-3031 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped Tom 
Metzger in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Metzger in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Metzger in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Metzger that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Metzger to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified information.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Metzger to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Metzger to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Metzger to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Metzger.

59. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Metzger 
and Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5311-5312 of the 
transcript:

  		Q. Did [Zundel] express any opinion about Metzger and violence?
  A. That he would end up in violence.
  Q. Did he express any opinion as to whether that was a good or a bad thing?
  A. I have heard Zündel talk against violence many, many times. 
Whenever we talked about it, if there was something different, I 
would be shocked.  This is something I have talked over with him for 
many years.
  Q. Has he ever wavered in terms of his condemnation of violence?
  A. No, nor in his confidence in the courts.
  THE COURT:  Excuse me, I missed what you said.
  MR. LINDSAY:  Has Zündel ever wavered in his condemnation of violence?
  Q. And the answer was...?
  A. No and, if there was a hint of it, I would be exploring it with him.

60. Mr. Metzger is also mentioned at paragraphs 62-65 and 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  Those 
paragraphs largely deal with Mr. Zundel's degree of awareness of 
materials allegedly distributed by Mr. Metzger. However, there is no 
mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Metzger in 
engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

  (j) Richard Girnt Butler
61. Mr. Butler is dealt with at paragraphs 57-61 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Butler in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Butler in those 
paragraphs, such as Mr. Butler's criminal acts.  There is no 
reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Butler 
in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada. 

62. Mr. Butler is dealt with at paragraphs 150-156 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  Those 
paragraphs deal with Mr. Zundel's degree of knowledge of Mr. Butler 
and the Aryan Nations.  However, there is no reference at all to Mr. 
Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Butler in engaging in 
terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada.

63. Mr. Butler is mentioned at pages 3031-3033 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Richard Butler in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Butler in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Butler in any way to commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Butler that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Butler to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Butler to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Butler to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Butler to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Nothing in the unclassified material.

  The same "not in the unclassified material" answer was repeatedly 
given by Mr. Stewart in relation to anyone at Aryan Nations. 
(February 12, 2004, pp. 3080-3083). Where counsel for the Ministers 
wished to challenge evidence such as this, they did so, in a friendly 
cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on April 29, 2004.  That was not 
done for Mr. Butler.


64. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Butler 
and Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5292-5295 of the 
transcript:

  Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Zündel express any opinions about Mr. Butler?
  A. Yes.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. Where and when would these discussions have occurred?
  A. In the kitchen and in the dining room over meals with various 
people present around the dinner table during the Finta trial.  I 
will tell you when.  It was when Butler was on trial in some 
midwestern state for treason, along with a number of other people. 
Eventually they were acquitted.  That was quite a subject of 
discussion around that time.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. In terms of years, are you able to assist as to what time frame 
we are talking about that there were some discussions about Butler?
  A. Butler was the subject of conversation from time to time during 
the first trial, during the second trial, during appeals.  The 
preparation for the Supreme Court did not involve much personal 
discussion.  I don't think I even stayed at Zündel's house before the 
Supreme Court.  I went directly from Victoria to Ottawa.
  During the Human Rights Tribunal I am sure there were discussions 
about Butler.  Exactly when the most intense discussion occurred was 
during this trial somewhere in Wyoming.  I recall being around the 
kitchen table with a number of people, some of whom were Butler 
admirers. 
  .
  .
  .
  Q. What was Zündel's opinion about Butler, expressed to Butler's supporters?
  A. In one word, contempt.  It may have been motivated by some sort 
of envy; I don't know.  He had a visceral dislike for Butler 
primarily because he felt that Butler was misleading people into a 
totally destructive path.  He said the same thing of Terry Long -- 
uniform fetishists, Ku Klux Klan.  He had contempt for all these 
people running around in sheets burning crosses.  He had contempt for 
this British Israel derivative called Identity Christianity.  He said 
basically, "It is just as racist as the Jewish religion," which he 
regarded as racist.
  There was great religious debate about Butler's religious views and 
Butler's political activities.  He hated both of them.
  Q. Did Zündel express any opinion about Butler and guns and violence?
  A. He predicted that they would suffer the consequences.  He used to 
say things like "Live by the sword; die by the sword."  He is not 
illiterate when it comes to the Bible.  He was brought up with it, 
and I think he has read it a bit.  That is the type of thing he would 
say to argue with these Identity Christians, because they are all 
believing that, if you are white, you are God's chosen people and you 
have a right to reign and rule and you have a right to a territory. 
He said that was just a target and a justification for violence.

65. Mr. Butler is also mentioned at paragraphs 58-61, 72 and 94 of 
the Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  These 
paragraphs do not mention Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. 
Butler in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of 
Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger 
the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (k) Dennis Mahon
66. Mr. Mahon is dealt with at paragraph 62 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph does not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
thus no reference at all in that paragraph to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Mahon in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

67. Mr. Mahon is dealt with at paragraphs 126 and 175-176 of the 
Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 
2003.  Paragraph 126 does not refer to Mr. Zundel.  Paragraphs 
175-176 refer to Mr. Zundel supposedly doing artwork for The Oklahoma 
Excalibur, but not knowing its contents. There is no reference at all 
to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Mahon in engaging in 
terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada.

68. Mr. Mahon is mentioned at pages 3033-3034 of the testimony of Mr. 
Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Dennis Mahon in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Mahon in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Mahon in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Mahon that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Mahon to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Mahon to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Mahon to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Mahon to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Counsel for the Minister managed to persuade Mr. Stewart to change 
his answers about Mr. Mahon and the Oklahoma Excalibur by referring 
to two Oklahoma Excaliburs. (April 29, 2004, pp. 4145-4152). However, 
in re-examination, Mr. Stewart admitted that CSIS had no public 
evidence at all that Mr. Zundel had any knowledge of any of the 
contents of the two Oklahoma Excaliburs at tab 74 of the Crown's 
documents.  Mr. Zundel's counsel's attempt to probe further to get at 
the truth was then shut down by the Court, at pages 4174-5 of the 
transcript:

  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zundel had any 
knowledge of any of the contents of these specific issues of the 
Oklahoma Excalibur which appear at tab 74?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS know when Mr. Zundel produced the cover letter to the newsletter?
  Mr. Rodych: Objection, national security.
  THE COURT; Objection upheld.
  MR. LINDSAY:
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence as to whether it was years before 
1992 that Mr. Zundel designed or produced the cover letter to the 
newsletter?
  Mr. MacINTOSH: Objection, national security.
  		THE COURT: Objection upheld for the same obvious reason.

69. Mr. Mahon is mentioned in passing in paragraph 37 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Mahon in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (l) Bela Ewald Althans
70. Mr. Althans is dealt with at paragraphs 63-64 of the certificate 
summary.  There is no reference at all in these paragraphs to Mr. 
Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Althans in engaging in 
terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada. 

71. Mr. Althans is dealt with at paragraph 186 and preceding in the 
Minister's Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 
2003.  There is no reference at all in that argument to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Althans in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada.

72. Mr. Althans is mentioned at pages 3035-3067 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Bela Ewald Althans in any way to commit or plan any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not specifically in the unclassified material.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. Is there evidence that Zündel intended that Althans commit or 
plan acts of terrorism?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Is there evidence that he by any financial support actually was 
intending to help to commit or plan any act of terrorism?
  A. Not directly.  It is not directly linked in the unclassified material.
  Q. So the answer is "no" with respect to the unclassified material 
in terms of evidence of intent.  Am I not right, sir?
  A. That's correct.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Althans in any way to commit or plan any act of violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. Yes.  The question I had asked you was:  Does CSIS have any 
evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped Mr. Althans in any way to 
commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. I would suggest that the combination of information regarding the 
financial support that Mr. Zündel provided to Mr. Althans and the 
subsequent arrest for activities in Germany would constitute support 
for the activities for which he was subsequently arrested, charged 
and convicted.
  Q. Those activities are making a film.  Correct?
  A. No, the activities are sedition, insulting the memory of the dead 
and insulting the State.
  Q. But specifically with respect to the making of a film.  That is 
what it was about, was it not?  Do you want me to read it to you?  It 
was as a consequence of his actions in the film.
  A. I am not suggesting that the making of the film was a criminal activity.
  Q. But my question to you is --
  A. Was related to criminal activity.
  Q. Let me ask it this way.  Do you have any knowledge or does CSIS 
have any knowledge that Zündel had any involvement in the making of 
this film?
  A. I can say not of an unclassified nature.
  Q. Does CSIS have any information that Zündel even knew of the 
making of this film?
  A. I have seen nothing in the unclassified material.
  Q. Apart from the making of this film and the charges arising out of 
the film, is there any other evidence that CSIS has that Zündel ever 
helped Mr. Althans in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Althans that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Only to the extent that I have indicated, that Mr. Zündel 
supported financially Mr. Althans' activities.
  Q. In relation to the charges about this film?
  A. That's correct.  That is the only unclassified information that I 
have related to whether he would have supported activities that could 
be considered a threat to the security of Canada.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Althans to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Althans to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Althans to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. I would say not in the unclassified material.
  .
  .
  .
  Q. With respect to the crimes referred to in connection with this 
film, did CSIS consider whether such actions were crimes in Canada?
  A. Yes.
  Q. Is it CSIS' position that the actions in relation to this film 
were crimes in Canada or were not crimes in Canada?
  A. Were not crimes in Canada.
  Q. In other words, CSIS is relying on information of Althans being 
convicted of something that CSIS knew was not a crime in Canada. 
Correct?
  A. That's correct.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Althans.

73. Mr. Doug Christie gave the following evidence about Mr. Althans 
and Mr. Zundel on August 30, 2004, at pages 5299-5301 of the 
transcript:

  Q. ...was the interaction that you saw between Althans and Zündel of 
a public nature or of a private nature?
  A. It was of a private nature in the process of which Mr. Zündel 
explained what he wanted Althans to do.
  Q. Which was what?
  A. To distribute literature and educate the people of Germany about 
the Holocaust.  He wanted an office where he could distribute his 
views about the Holocaust.  He wanted conferences where it would be 
discussed, and Althans was supposed to set them up.  He wanted debate 
to go on in Germany, which is a dangerous thing I think.
  Q. Did Zündel ever encourage Althans to become involved, to your 
knowledge, in violence or crime or terrorism?
  A. Definitely not.  I specifically said to Zündel, "Why do you 
associate with this flake?" or words to that effect.  I didn't like 
him because I didn't like his, shall we call it, style.  I won't go 
any further.  If anyone wants to explore that, they're welcome.
   He said, "He is not going to get into trouble.  He is not a violent 
type person", and he certainly wasn't.  He looked to me very 
effeminate.  Although he had all the appearance of being the tall, 
Aryan German type, I thought he was very effeminate.  I didn't think 
for people like me he would be very persuasive.
  Anyway, he said, "He is not going to be involved with violence which 
would get me in trouble."  That's the irony.  There you go.
  I hated the guy, frankly.
  Q. To your knowledge, did Zündel ever suggest to Althans to become 
involved in violence or crime or terrorism?
  A. No.  He explained to me that the reason he associated with him 
was because he wouldn't, and I am sure he wouldn't.  If he couldn't 
talk his way out of something, I am sure he would buy his way out of 
anything.
  Q. To your knowledge, did Zündel ever assist or fund Althans with 
respect to commission of acts of violence or terrorism?
  A. Not to my knowledge.  To my knowledge, he was funding him to open 
an office and run a distribution of literature and conferences.  That 
is what I understood his role was to be, and also to drive me around 
to speak around Germany, which I did.


74. Mr. Althans is mentioned in passing at paragraph 37 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Althans 
in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

  (m) Siegfried Verbeke
75. Mr. Verbeke is dealt with at paragraphs 65-66 of the certificate 
summary.  The only reference to Mr. Zundel is that there were 
supposedly 18 documents authorized by Mr. Zundel on Mr. Verbeke's VHO 
website. Interestingly, Dave Stewart agreed that CSIS was not 
suggesting that any of the content of any of those documents was 
offensive or related to threats to the security of Canada. CSIS only 
relied on them for showing a link between Mr. Zundel and Mr. Verbeke 
(April 29, 2004, p. 4077). Any "link" appears to be enough.  The 
"guilt by association" could not be made clearer  than it is by Mr. 
Stewart's implicit acknowledgment that the content of the link does 
not matter to CSIS.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Verbeke in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada. 

76. Mr. Verbeke is dealt with at paragraphs 191-192 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  These 
paragraphs deal with matters such as whether Mr. Zundel knew (a) that 
Verbeke was a distributor of Holocaust denial material or (b) that 
Mr. Verbeke was one of the main distributors of Holocaust denial 
material in the world.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel 
having any involvement with Mr. Verbeke in engaging in terrorism, 
being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of 
violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons 
in Canada.

77. Mr. Verbeke is mentioned at pages 3073-3075 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...I will ask first:  Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zündel ever helped Siegfried Verbeke in any way to commit or plan any 
act of terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not according to the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Verbeke in any way to commit or plan any act of violence anywhere?
  A. Not from the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Verbeke in any way to commit or plan any crime anywhere?
  A. Not from the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Verbeke that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not from the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Verbeke to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Verbeke to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Verbeke to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Verbeke to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.


  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Verbeke.


78. Mr. Verbeke is mentioned in passing in paragraph 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Verbeke in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (n) Oliver Bode
79. Mr. Bode is dealt with at paragraph 67 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph alleges that Mr. Zundel represented Mr. Bode 
at an immigration hearing and that Mr. Bode helped to rebuild Mr. 
Zundel's home after it was damaged in a bomb attack against Mr. 
Zundel.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Bode in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to 
the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or 
might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

80. Mr. Bode is dealt with at paragraphs 187-190 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  Those 
paragraphs discuss again Mr. Bode's immigration hearing and Mr. Bode 
helping Mr. Zundel rebuild his house, and also discuss whether Mr. 
Bode was an "acquaintance" of Mr. Zundel.  There is no reference at 
all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Bode in engaging in 
terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or engaging in 
acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of 
persons in Canada.

81. Mr. Bode is mentioned at pages 3075-3077 of the testimony of Mr. 
Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Oliver Bode in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Bode in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Bode in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Bode that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Bode to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Bode to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Bode to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Bode to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.


  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Bode.


82. Mr. Bode is mentioned in passing at paragraph 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is no 
mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Bode in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to 
the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or 
might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

  (o) Christian Worch
83. Mr. Worch is dealt with at paragraphs 68-70 of the certificate 
summary.  Those paragraphs do not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Worch in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Worch in those 
paragraphs.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Worch in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

84. Mr. Worch is dealt with at paragraphs 193-199 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  Those 
paragraphs strain pathetically to try to link Mr. Zundel to bad acts 
by Mr. Worch.  For example, at paragraph 197, the Crown asserts "it 
is clear that Worch was stock piling weapons in 1991, one of the 
years that Zundel was in communication with him".  This is apparently 
presented as a serious argument by the Crown.  Assuming for the sake 
of argument that it is factually true, maybe we should jail everyone 
who had any communication with Mr. Worch in 1991.  This is yet 
another example of the Crown using guilt by association, which it 
does repeatedly in this case. Much more significantly, with respect 
to Mr. Worch and the Crown's argument on detention, there is no 
reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Worch 
in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

85. Mr. Worch is mentioned at pages 3077-3079 of the testimony of Mr. 
Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

  Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Christian Worch in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Worch in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Worch in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Worch that could endanger the security 
of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Worch to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Worch to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Worch to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Worch to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Worch.

86. Mr. Worch is mentioned in passing at paragraph 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention of Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. Worch 
in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada or 
engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives 
or safety of persons in Canada.

  (p) Gottfried Kuessel
87. Mr. Kuessel is dealt with at paragraph 71 of the certificate 
summary.  That paragraph does not even mention Mr. Zundel.  There is 
no reference at all to Mr. Zundel being involved in any way with Mr. 
Kuessel in any of the actions attributed to Mr. Kuessel in that 
paragraph.  There is no reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any 
involvement with Mr. Kuessel in engaging in terrorism, being a danger 
to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would 
or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada. 

88. Mr. Kuessel is dealt with at paragraphs 200-201 of the Minister's 
Memorandum of Argument on Detention, dated December 4, 2003.  Those 
paragraphs refer to the allegation that Mr. Zundel met Mr. Kuessel in 
1989, the same year that Mr. Kuessel was sentenced to a prison term. 
Maybe we should jail anyone who met Mr. Kuessel in 1989.  There is no 
reference at all to Mr. Zundel having any involvement with Mr. 
Kuessel in engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of 
Canada or engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger 
the lives or safety of persons in Canada.


89. Mr. Kuessel is mentioned at pages 3079-3080 of the testimony of 
Mr. Dave Stewart on February 12, 2004 on behalf of CSIS, where the 
following evidence was given:

   Q. ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
helped Gottfried Kuessel in any way to commit or plan any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Kuessel in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
violence anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped 
Mr. Kuessel in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever 
involved in anything with Mr. Kuessel that could endanger the 
security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Kuessel to become involved in any act of terrorism 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Kuessel to become involved in any act of violence 
anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Kuessel to become involved in any crime anywhere?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.
  Q. Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever 
encouraged Mr. Kuessel to become involved in anything that could 
endanger the security of Canada?
  A. Not in the unclassified material.

  Where counsel for the Ministers wished to challenge evidence such as 
this, they did so, in a friendly cross-examination of Mr. Stewart on 
April 29, 2004.  That was not done for Mr. Kuessel.

90. Mr. Kuessel is mentioned in passing in paragraph 94 of the 
Ministers' Memorandum of Argument dated October 1, 2004.  There is 
thus no mention in the Crown's final argument of Mr. Zundel having 
any involvement with Mr. Kuessel in engaging in terrorism, being a 
danger to the security of Canada or engaging in acts of violence that 
would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.

91. Apart from the above review of public evidence in relation to Mr. 
Kuessel and other individuals listed in paragraph 10 hereof, there 
are other reasons why the public evidence against Mr. Zundel now 
could not possibly satisfy any reasonable judge that Mr. Zundel is or 
could reasonably be thought to be a danger to the security of Canada. 

92. As mentioned above, the gist of the case against Mr. Zundel is 
his supposed links to individuals and groups which advocate violence 
against certain groups in our society.  (see January 21, 2004 
decision, page 8, para. 17). There was particular focus on Mr. 
Zundel's supposed links to white supremacists or an alleged white 
supremacist movement. That supposed "movement" has been in disarray 
from 1995 to the present (Evidence of David Stewart, January 26, 
2004, p. 2591). The "movement" had less impact after the mid 1990s 
(Evidence of David Stewart, January 26, 2004, p. 2597). From the 
mid-1990s to 2000, the "movement" declined despite Mr. Zundel's 
presence in Canada (pp 2455-6). It was speculation, Mr. Stewart 
admitted, to suggest that Mr. Zundel's return to Canada could 
reactivate such a "movement" (p. 2456).

  93. After the Ministers produced no public witnesses against Mr. 
Zundel, Mr. Zundel was required to call as his witness Mr. David 
Stewart, an adverse witness who works for CSIS (the organization 
which had gathered evidence against Mr. Zundel and had concluded that 
Mr. Zundel was inadmissable on security grounds) and who had 
previously testified against Mr. Zundel before the Immigration and 
Refugee Board.

94. Mr. Zundel then had to fight, over the Ministers' objections, for 
the right to cross-examine the adverse witness.

95. Time after time, the adverse witness, when questioned as to the 
gist of the case - links Mr. Zundel supposedly has to suspect 
individuals and groups - gave the response that there was "nothing in 
the unclassified materials".  This evidence was given not just in 
relation to the individuals listed in the table of contents to the 
security certificate, but also in relation to the following 
individuals and groups:

  Individual/Group
  	 Paragraph in Summary	 Transcript Reference	 Transcript Date
  Canadian Patriots Network	 10	 3000 and following	 Feb. 12/04
  John Ross Taylor	 11	 3083 and following	 "
  Mr. Nerland	 11	 3087 and following	 "
  Any member of the Church of the Creator	 12	 3091 and 
following	 "
  "The Skinhead Groups"	 13	 3094 and following	 "
  Events in Transvaal, South Africa	 19	 3942	 April 29/04
  Eugene Blanche	 20	 3099 and following	 Feb. 12/04
  Kay Diesner	 21	 3100 and following	 Feb. 12/04
  Ahmed Rami	 23	 3103 and following	 "
  Any member of British National Party	 24	 3119 and following	 "
  David Copeland	 24	 3122 and following	 "
  Any one associated with The Rune	 25	 3123 and following	 "
  Any member of Ku Klux Klan	 34	 3128 and following	 "
  Any member of The Western Guard	 34	 3130 and following	 "
  Any member of The Order	 34	 3132 and following	 "
  Robert Matthew	 34	 3134 and following	 "
  Any member of Up Front Magazine	 35	 3137 and following	 "
  Anyone associated with the Telephone Hate-line operated through 
Heritage Front	 35	 3142 and following	 "
  John Metzger	 36	 3145 and following	 "
  Any member of White Aryan Resistance	 36	 3147 and following	 "
  Anyone associated with The Politically Incorrect Bulletin	 38 
	 3149 and following	 "
  Anyone associated with Digital Freedom and the Freedom Site website 
	 38	 3159 and following	 "
  Paul Fromm	 39	 3162 and following	 "
  Any member of The Aryan Resistance Movement or Women for Aryan Unity 
	 44	 3164 and following	 "
  Anyone associated with Canadian Liberty Net	 44	 3167 and 
following	 "
  Bernard Klatt's Organisations	 45	 3173 and following	 "
  Anyone associated with Burdi Groups	 47-51	 3609 and following 
	 April 13/04
  Anyone associated with Metzger Group	 54 and following	 3619 
and following	 "
  Anyone associated with W.A.R.	 54	 3621 and following	 "
  Other Telephone Hotlines	 -	 3649 and following	 "
  Anyone involved in the Aryan Nation's World Congress	 61	 3655 
and following	 "
  Anyone after Mr. Zundel moved to Tennessee	 -	 3669 and 
following	 April 14/04
  Anyone associated with Oklahoma Excalibur	 62	 3684 and 
following	 "
  Anyone associated with VHO	 65	 3687 and following	 "
  Robert Faurisson	 66	 3689 and following	 "


1. What these answers really mean is that there is no public evidence 
against Mr. Zundel.

2. In the end, unfortunately it got to the point that Mr. Zundel's 
counsel was not even allowed to ask Mr. Stewart basic questions about 
the unclassified evidence which CSIS had  of the alleged link of Mr. 
Zundel to acts of violence committed by others. The following 
occurred in the April 14, 2004 transcript, at pages 3798-3812:

  Q. ...Are you able on behalf of CSIS to specify any specific act of 
political violence ever inspired by Mr. Zündel?
  			.
  .
  			.
  THE COURT:  My problem is that I am convinced that your question is 
leading directly to classified information, and it would be very 
difficult to answer that question.  I will not allow the question. 
(emphasis added)
  			.
  			.
  			.
  MR. LINDSAY: ...Limiting yourself to the unclassified information, 
are you able to point to one example of political violence inspired 
by Zündel?  That is the next question. (emphasis added)
  			.
  			.
  			.
  THE COURT: ...Unfortunately for you, I cannot allow the question for 
the same reason I already expressed. (emphasis added)
  			.
  			.
  			.
  MR. LINDSAY: ...Does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel 
ever helped anyone in any way to commit or plan to commit any act of 
terrorism anywhere?	THE COURT:  We already decided that objection 
earlier.  It is the same line.
  MR. RODYCH:  Quite simply, my lord, it is the same grounds given 
previously.  The summary and the release of the summary speaks for 
itself.  Otherwise, we are getting into materials that fall under an 
attempt to get at classified information.  It is exactly the same 
point we made before and that you decided upon. (emphasis added)
  MR. LINDSAY:  It is a different question.  The last question, which 
was disallowed, was:  Looking at the unclassified information only, 
can you point me to one act of political violence inspired by Zündel? 
That question was disallowed.
  This is a different question.  If you wish, I will preface it with 
"looking only at the unclassified information."  I will add that if 
you wish.  I didn't think it was necessary to add that because I 
thought we all agreed that the witness understood the distinction.
  With respect to the rest of the question, it is a perfectly 
appropriate question and does not impinge on classified material at 
all.
  THE COURT:  Based on the same objection and the same reference I 
made before, the question will not be allowed because it would be 
injurious to national security or the safety of persons. (emphasis 
added)
  	.
  	.
  	.
  MR. LINDSAY: ...The next question is:  Looking only at the 
unclassified material, does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zündel ever helped anyone in any way to commit or plan to commit any 
act of violence anywhere?			THE COURT:  The 
problem is basic.  You have the evidence before him.  You don't have 
to ask the witness, "Could you find somewhere in the evidence 
something?"  It is up to you to take the evidence and say, "Look at 
this," and then ask a question of the witness, and that's it.  This 
is the way it used to be done.  Maybe I am lost, but that is the way 
we usually do it -- not asking a general question because you will 
get the same answer.  Obviously, the objection will be upheld.
  MR. LINDSAY:  There has not actually been an objection, but I will 
take it that it is understood that there was one.
  THE COURT:  I don't need an objection to carry out my duty under 
78(d).  It is my duty to ensure confidentiality. (emphasis added)
  MR. LINDSAY:  I will respect that, sir.
  The next question is:  Looking only at the unclassified information, 
does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. Zündel ever helped anyone 
in any way to commit or plan to commit any crime anywhere?
  			I take it that would be disallowed under 78(b), sir?
  			THE COURT:  Yes.
  MR. LINDSAY:  The next question would be:  Does CSIS have any 
evidence at all that Mr. Zündel was ever involved in anything with 
anyone that could endanger the security of Canada?
  			I take it that would be disallowed under 
78(b) as well, sir?
  THE COURT:  With the way the question is worded, obviously it will 
not be allowed.
  MR. LINDSAY:  The next question would be:  Looking only at the 
unclassified information, does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zündel ever encouraged anyone to become involved in any act of 
terrorism anywhere?
  			I take it that would be disallowed under 
78(b) as well, sir?
  			THE COURT:  It will be disallowed under 78(b).
  MR. LINDSAY:  The next question is:  Looking only at the 
unclassified material, does CSIS have any evidence at all that Mr. 
Zündel ever encouraged anyone to become involved in any act of 
violence anywhere?
  			May I take it that that would be disallowed 
under 78(b) as well, sir?
  THE COURT:  I think it will be disallowed.  If it goes on in this 
way, I think we will just ask the witness to come back and I will 
excuse the witness.  If you don't have any questions to ask the 
witness, I will just excuse him.

3. This series of objections shut down the entire inquiry into the 
heart of CSIS's public case against the Applicant, namely, that he 
perpetrates terrorism not by his personal acts, but by inspiring 
people in the white supremacist movement. If the court finds a public 
case against Mr. Zundel, it will have done so after denying Mr. 
Zundel the ability to challenge and answer that case, in any remotely 
fair way.

4. These lines of inquiry are central to challenging the heart of 
CSIS' case against the Applicant. The questions asked clearly relate 
to the publicly disclosed materials and the answers to them can in no 
way jeopardize national security. Yet the Court disallowed them all 
out of its, respectfully, misguided and unchecked concept of 
"national security". These questions all go to the heart of the 
Crown's case against Mr. Zundel, which is perpetration of terrorism 
through others. When they are disallowed, Mr. Zundel's right to a 
fair hearing and the entire fact finding process are both devastated.

5. The import of these transcript excerpts is that there is no public 
evidence at all against Mr. Zundel.  Questions directed at the 
evidence, even questions expressly directed at and limited to the 
unclassified evidence, were disallowed on security grounds. 
Unfortunately, phantom objections which had not even been made were 
upheld.

6. Unfortunately, threats were made to shut down the 
cross-examination, based on questions on only unclassified materials.

7. The only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that there is no 
public case against Mr. Zundel and that the real evidence against Mr. 
Zundel is the secret evidence.

  C.	THE SECRET CASE

8. The Court has also already made it very clear that the secret 
evidence is critical to the conclusion on the issue of whether Mr. 
Zundel is a danger to national security.

9. This Court held in the January 21, 2004 decision detaining Mr. 
Zundel that "...I have come to the conclusion, based on the 
information presented to me in camera, that Mr. Zundel does represent 
a danger to the security of Canada, and should remain in detention 
for the time being." (page 6, para. 13)

10. Since then, there has been even more secret evidence presented 
against Mr. Zundel:
  		April 13, 2004 transcript, p. 3535-3537
  		April 29, 2004 transcript, p. 3908
  		September 16, 2004 transcript, p. 5776 (the secret 
lunch time proceeding)
   
11. On June 9, 2004, the Court could not ever remember whether there 
had been more secret evidence since the last proceedings, as is 
reflected at pages 4807-4808 of the transcript:
  MR. LINDSAY:  I do have one other issue, sir.  I will ask if there 
have been any more secret proceedings since last I asked.
  THE COURT:  Since May 5?
  		MR. LINDSAY:  That's right.
  THE COURT:  Frankly, I don't remember, sir.  I would have to review 
my notes.  I had a trial after that.  I don't remember, sir.  Usually 
I tell you about that on the basis of courtesy, but I don't remember.
  MR. HOFFMANN:  My lord, if I could be of assistance, as I recall, I 
don't think there were.
  THE COURT:  I know that Mr. Lindsay asks every time.  I responded to 
that question last time.  I don't have my notes.  Notes about 
classified information are never with me.  I would have to search my 
memory, and quite frankly I don't know, sir.
  		MR. LINDSAY:  Thank you, my lord.
12. Please note the extent of the secrecy. Not only is there secret 
evidence, but, according to this Court, the person subjected to the 
secret evidence does not have a right to even know whether secret 
evidence is being heard.

13. The person and the public watching must instead rely on the 
courtesy of the designated judge, to tell them of the mere existence 
of secret parallel proceedings.

14. That courtesy-based system does not come from IRPA at all - but 
this Court has, it is respectfully submitted, imposed it with no 
statutory basis whatsoever.

15. There is thus a secret trial the existence of which may, subject 
to courtesy, also shrouded in secrecy.

16. There thus may be a secret, secret trial.

17. Moreover, it must be submitted that the standards which determine 
the extent of the secrecy are not fixed or consistent but rather 
shift over time.

18. On the issue of standards of secrecy, the Court said the 
following about the line between secret evidence and public evidence, 
during the cross-examination of  Mr. Stewart on January 27, 2004, at 
page 2678 of the transcript:

  THE COURT: ...It was a long question, but it is not injurious to 
national security.  I think Mr. Stewart knows where the limits are, 
and I don't want him to cross the line.
  MR. RODYCH:  Thank you, my lord, my objection was the caveat about 
where those lines are.
  THE COURT:  The lines never moved.  Questions are moving and answers 
are moving, but the line never moves, believe me.

19. Unfortunately, the line does move and has moved.

20. For example, according to section 78 of IRPA, secrecy is 
justified only where disclosure "would be injurious to national 
security or to the safety of any person".  Unfortunately the court 
has repeatedly refused disclosure where it "could be" injurious to 
national security, thereby keeping more evidence secret than is 
justified by statute:
  (i)	In its January 6, 2004 disclosure decision, this Court wrote 
that "Harkat (1) was a request for additional information (including 
names of CSIS officers responsible for the investigation into his 
case). Justice Dawson dismissed the motion, because allowing it could 
be injurious to national safety." In fact, in Harkat, Justice Dawson 
ruled that "any additional disclosure of information would be 
injurious to national security, or to the safety of any person." 
Justice Blais therefore misreads Justice Dawson's ruling, and refers 
to a non-existent, overly broad test for secrecy.
  (ii)	The Court said on January 27, 2004 at page 2689:

  THE COURT: ...I don't think the witness has to answer because it 
relates to evidence that was provided in camera and it could be 
injurious to national security.

  	(iii)	After this mistake was pointed out at page 2690 of 
the transcript, The Court repeated the same mistake on the same day, 
at page 2714:

  THE COURT: ...As to what is going on right now is irrelevant to the 
evidence before us and, in my view, could be injurious to national 
security.

  	(iv)	The Court said on April 13, 2003 at page 3539 of the 
transcript:

  THE COURT: ...Section 78 says that relevant information can be 
provided but that disclosure could be injurious to national security 
or to the safety of persons. 

21. In addition to standards of secrecy being incorrectly applied to 
the detriment of Mr. Zundel and of open justice, the Court has not 
approached even the public evidence and submissions with careful 
scrutiny. For example, submissions by Zundel's counsel, when counsel 
is allowed to be present, have simply been forgotten as if they never 
occurred.  In refusing to order disclosure of certain information to 
Mr. Zundel (i.e., more secrecy), the Court said the following in its 
January 6, 2004 decision, at paragraph 25:
  In the circumstances of the present case, after hearing both 
parties' submissions and reviewing the information and evidence 
before me, I am satisfied that the interests of justice would not be 
served by disclosing the names of CSIS or RCMP officers involved in 
the summary or otherwise.  No specific question has been asked, 
...(emphasis added)

22. In arguing the motion which led to that January 6, 2004 decision, 
counsel asked a number of specific questions and provided a list of 
16 such questions to the Court, as reflected in counsel's submissions 
at page 2054 of the transcript:

  Let me give your lordship a few examples of questions from the 
summary touching on both the clarity or lack of clarity of the CSIS. 
This is not an exhaustive list, but I have prepared an example of 
some questions on this issue.  I provided it to my friends during the 
break, and I will pass it up to your lordship.  I emphasize that 
these are but a few examples of things that could be clarified and 
followed up on.  It is not an exhaustive list. 

  The January 6, 2004 decision, which was delivered in writing after 
reserving decision, simply said that these 16 questions had not been 
asked: "No specific question has been asked...".

23. The same problem of the Court simply forgetting that counsel's 
submissions had been made occurred again in a June 23, 2004 decision 
quashing four subpoenas issued by Mr. Zundel.  The Court wrote at 
paragraph 21 of that decision (delivered in writing after reserving) 
that "Mr. Zundel's counsel was unable to specify what questions he 
would ask of these witnesses [Mr. Landy and Mr. Diamant]".  In fact, 
counsel had specified many questions to ask these witnesses, at pages 
4264-4272 of the transcript, some of which questions are as follows:

  MR. LINDSAY: ...one could appropriately, in support of the theory, 
ask Mr. Dimant about the nature of the contact.  He is clearly having 
personal contact with the Minister.  What is he saying to the 
Minister?  What is the Minister saying to him?  What pressure is 
being brought to bear on the Minister?  What is being said about 
security issues or non-security issues?
  		.
  		.
  		.
  MR. LINDSAY:... The question is:  What pressure is being brought to 
bear?  What does "close communication" mean?  Who from B'nai Brith is 
having close communication and what is the nature of the 
communication with respect to the Minister prior to the Minister 
issuing the certificate in this particular case?
  	.
  	.
  	.
  	MR. LINDSAY:... What contact had there been with Frank 
Dimant?  What		is the close c communication which is 
allowing them to feel confident that he is going to stand firm on the 
issue?  What commitments have they received from the Minister in 
relation to Zündel based on their lobbying, based on their personal 
contacts, based on their close communication -- their words?
  	.
  	.
  	.
  MR. LINDSAY:... Again, what contact is there between Canadian Jewish 
Congress and Immigration authorities with respect to these issues?
  		.
  		.
  		.
  MR. LINDSAY:..Again, what communications between B'nai Brith, Mr. 
Dimant and Canadian Jewish Congress and Mr. Coderre - and there 
clearly have been communications and they clearly have been close 
communications -- have led Mr. Coderre to say, "Just watch me" with 
respect to the deportation of Mr. Zündel?

  To say that counsel was unable to specify what questions he would 
ask Mr. Dimant is just plain wrong.  But the Court said it.

24. The Court has said that it has carefully considered the problems 
inherent in secret evidence.

25. For example, in the January 21, 2004 detention decision, the 
Court said (at page 6, para. 12): " the information that was 
presented to me in camera was reviewed with intense scrutiny, and was 
carefully weighed, with an eye to the quality and number of sources 
of information".

26. The problem, and it is submitted very respectfully but very 
firmly, is that even when Mr. Zundel and his counsel are present and 
able to make submissions, it does not seem to result in care being 
taken.

27. For example, even when Zundel's counsel points out a basic point 
such as the words in section 78 of IRPA re: national security being 
"would be injurious..." not "could be injurious...", it does not 
matter:  the same error is again made thereafter.

28. Even when Mr. Zundel's counsel proposes 16 specific questions 
about the summary (see exhibit D-23), as was done in arguing the 
disclosure motion, reasons for a court order later state incorrectly 
that counsel did not ask any specific questions.

29. Even when Mr. Zundel's counsel proposes numerous questions he 
would ask regarding, for example, Mr. Dimant, the Court incorrectly 
writes later in reasons for a court order, saying that Mr. Zundel 
couldn't call Mr. Dimant as a witness, that Mr. Zundel was unable to 
come up with any such questions.

30. So even when Mr. Zundel and counsel here to point out matters and 
make submissions, serious mistakes have been made. Yet Mr. Zundel is 
supposed to have confidence that great care is suddenly taken when he 
and his counsel are not even here to point out matters.

31. The Court's reaction when its serious mistakes, such as those 
listed above, are pointed out to the Court, is even more troubling. 
In its September 22, 2004 decision continuing Mr. Zundel's detention, 
after the above mistakes had been pointed out, the Court wrote as 
follows (at paragraph 15):

  Counsel for Mr. Zundel spent a lot of time in his oral 
representations identifying some technical errors that could have 
been made during the long process....Counsel for Mr. Zundel also 
spent a lot of time trying to demonstrate the interest of the Court 
in hearing about the influence of the Canadian Jewish organizations 
and the pressures that those organizations put on the Ministers at 
different moments, pressures which culminate to the issuance of the 
certificate.

32. Is it a "technical error" for the Court to say counsel has not 
made submissions which were made at length?  Is it a technical error 
for the Court to repeatedly misstate the legal test for keeping 
evidence secret?  There is little that is less technical and more 
substantive than, for example, totally forgetting counsel's 
submissions and saying they were never made, more than once, in 
written decisions made after reserving judgement.

33. Note as well that the Court does not even acknowledge that 
(technical or other) errors were made, just that they "could have 
been made".  The refusal to even acknowledge the obvious is most 
troubling, especially when coming from the same fact finder who will 
evaluate secret evidence, in the absence of Mr. Zundel and his 
counsel.

34. Note as well that the Court appears to not even understand simple 
submissions.  For example, counsel pointed out that submissions were 
ignored and statements made by the Court that those submissions had 
not been made, such as saying no questions were suggested which could 
be asked of Mr. Dimant. (pp. 5036-5041).  Instead, the Court wrongly 
asserts not that Counsel is concerned about submissions being 
forgotten, but that Counsel is instead trying to reargue the interest 
of the court in hearing about pressure on the Ministers by Jewish 
groups.  This is another glaring mistake.  Mistakes like this, made 
in the context of responding to submissions about past mistakes, 
bring the administrative of justice into disrepute.

35. On August 11, 2004, in arguing about whether Mr. Zundel should 
continue to be detained, Mr. Zundel's counsel begged to have some 
weak idea of the secret evidence, in a way that would allow Mr. 
Zundel to call some evidence and make some submissions that are 
meaningful and gave Mr. Zundel a fighting chance in these 
proceedings.  Counsel argued that a court that hears, in a meaningful 
way, from both sides, is a court able to do justice, unlike a court 
which doesn't do so.

36. On August 11, 2004, Mr. Zundel's counsel had prepared for the 
Court a list of questions about the secret evidence, answers to which 
would not jeopardize national security but would give Mr. Zundel some 
opportunity to make meaningful submissions about the secret evidence. 
Those questions were as follows:

  		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 
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 remaining in 
Canada?

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

  6)	Did any witness offer any corroboration or documentation to 
substantiate their 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 actually 
written by Mr. Zundel?

  10)	Are any of those documents publically 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 been 
introduced? 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? (e.g., 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?

  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 encouraging a specific act 
of violence at any time since 1990.

  17)	Provide one example of Mr. Zundel being involved in 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 
strings 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 strings 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 strings with 
respect to anything that could endanger the security of Canada at any 
time since 1990.

37. On August 11, 2004, Mr. Zundel's counsel suggested that the Court 
had two choices:

  		1)	provide all or at least some of the answers 
to these 34 questions (so there can be some opportunity for both 
sides to meaningfully present a case and the Court to have at least a 
glimpse of a balanced case)
  						OR

  		2)	provide no answers, present no public case 
and condemn Mr. Zundel by way of a secret trial (If the Court is 
going to do that, the Court was asked to give Mr. Zundel some 
specific reason why it would (not could) jeopardize national security 
to answer any of these questions.)

1. Put simply, with no answers, and no public case, Mr. Zundel's 
counsel suggested (and still suggests) that this is effectively a 
secret trial.

2. The Court's reaction to counsel's plea for openness was to refuse 
openness and  impose more secrecy, as seen in paragraph 22 of the 
Court's September 22, 2004 decision continuing the detention of Mr. 
Zundel:
  In fact, Mr. Lindsay suggests that unless he gets some answers to 
those questions, it will be very difficult if not impossible for him 
to make meaningful submissions about the reasonableness of the 
certificate, and on the "issue of detention".  Mr. Lindsay decided to 
read those questions in making his own representations and I can 
assure Mr. Lindsay right now that those questions will be taken into 
consideration when the Court hears counsel for the Ministers in 
camera.

  Please look at the questions, such as question 10: "are any of those 
documents [i.e., secret documents] publicly available? If so, why 
haven't they been disclosed?"  To suggest that that such a question 
can be considered secretly raises the question of whether the Court 
has read the 34 questions and appreciated their nature.

3. As Mr. Zundel was disallowed from learning about and thereby 
provide a balancing challenge to the specifics of the secret 
evidence, his counsel made every attempt to do the next best thing: 
provide the Court with information as to the general credibility of 
the source of such information: CSIS. Such efforts, however, were 
categorically blocked by the court on the basis that CSIS' general 
credibility is of no interest to this Court.

4. This is despite the fact that this Court itself had in its 
handling of Mr. Zundel's witness Mr. Doug Christie been adamant about 
the importance of investigating general credibility. This Court held 
that

  Asking the witness something about the general credibility is 
important. (August 30, 2004, p. 5365, line 9-10)

  	It is all a question of credibility (line 17-18)

5. The Court was so concerned about investigating the general 
credibility of Zundel witnesses that it insisted that Mr. Christie 
answer the Crown's question on the truthfulness of Mr. Zundel's 
testimony, all of it, including the part that Mr. Christie has no 
knowledge of, because, as the Court put it, "it is all a question of 
credibility" and "asking the witness something about the general 
credibility is important".

6. For some mysterious reason, this concern about general credibility 
did not carry over when Mr. Farrell was on the stand and being asked 
questions about the general credibility of CSIS. There the Court held 
that

  		When you say you want to address the credibility or 
reliability generally speaking, I am not here for that. CSIS is not 
on trial. SIRC is not on trial either. (September 17, 2004, p. 6003 
lines 7-10)

  		[T]o look at allegations...related to the general 
credibility of CSIS...is not why I am here. (September 16, 2004 p. 
5884 lines 20-23)

7. Instead, the Court demanded the following standard of proof with 
regards to CSIS credibility:

  If you succeed in demonstrating that part of this evidence [filed 
against Mr. Zundel] is not accurate, it would shake a little bit some 
assertions and arguments by the Ministers. (September 16, 2004, p. 
5885 lines 9-13)

8. Accordingly, Court's handling of Mr. Zundel's counsel's efforts to 
adduce evidence regarding CSIS credibility through Mr. Farrell went 
as follows:

  	(a)	Question as to the truthfulness of the contents of 
"Covert Entry" as it regards Mr. Farrell's actions was disallowed as 
being too broad. Contrast that with the question allowed for Christie 
on Zundel testimony wholesale some of which he had no knowledge of. 
(September 16, 2004 p. 5813 lines 13-23)

  	(b)	Questions as to Mr. Farrell's tenure at CSIS, which 
is the subject of "Covert Entry", were not allowed unless a specific 
section of the book can be cited. (September 16, 2004 p. 5865 lines 
14-25, p. 5866 lines 1-12) The Court held that information from the 
book which may otherwise be classified is deemed declassified 
(September 17, 2004, p. 5943 lines 4-19)

  		BUT THEN

  	(c)	Questions confirming portions of the book were also 
not allowed because they do not quote Farrell or due to national 
security. (September 17, 2004 p. 5985 lines 11-25, p. 5986-5994; p. 
5991 lines 14-23;)

  	(d)	Questions that do refer to a particular section of 
the book containing a particular quote from Farrell containing 
certain information are then disallowed for having no mention of Mr. 
Zundel. (September 16, 2004 p. 5872, lines 14-18, 22-25; p. 5873 
lines 1-3 p. 5875 lines 10-14; p. 5883 lines 24-25; p. 5884 lines 
1-2, 18-23; September 17, 2004 p. 6017 lines 7-23; p. 6018  lines 
1-25, p. 6019 lines 1-22; p. 6021 lines 6-12)

  	(e)	Questions that do refer to a particular section of 
the book containing a particular quote from Farrell containing 
certain information and mentioned Mr. Zundel are then disallowed as 
to the truthfulness of said information based on national security. 
(September 16, 2004 p. 5838 lines 1-2; p. 5839 line 25; p. 5840 line 
1; p. 5844 lines 3-25; p. 5845 lines 1-25; p. 5846 lines 1-24; p. 
5920 lines 20-25; p. 5921 lines 1-14; p. 5935-9, p. 5937 lines 8-12; 
p. 5938 lines 19-25, p. 5939 lines 1-8)

9. This unwillingness to hear any adverse evidence about CSIS 
credibility is extended to the Court's pronounced dislike on Mr. 
Zundel's counsel's question on the integrity of the process. It 
appears that the Court has adopted a irrebuttable presumption of 
credibility with respect to the secret trial process and CSIS. 
(August 31, 2004, p. 5466-7)


10. In other cases, the Federal Court has criticized the secret proceedings:

  I do acknowledge that under IRPA a person who is the subject of the 
Ministers' certificate and his or her counsel may not see the 
information relied upon by the Ministers, an invidious position but 
one provided by Act of Parliament.


  			Re: Jaballah [2003] F.C.J. No. 822 at page 23 (T.D.)

11. Justice Hugessen of the Federal Court of Canada said the following:

  Often, when I speak in public, I make the customary disavowal that I 
am not speaking for my colleagues but I am speaking only for myself. 
I make no such disavowal this afternoon. I can tell you because we 
talked about it, we hate it. We do not like this process of having to 
sit alone hearing only one party and looking at the materials 
produced by only one party and having to try and figure out for 
ourselves what is wrong with the case that is being presented before 
us and having to try for ourselves to see how the witnesses that 
appear before us ought to be cross-examined...  We greatly miss, in 
short, our security blanket which is the adversary system that we 
were all brought up with and that, as I said at the outset, is for 
most of us, the real warranty that the outcome of what we do is going 
to be fair and just.

  		The Honourable Justice James K. Hugessen, "Watching 
the Watchers: Democratic Oversight" at pages 384-385

12. In this case, the Court embraces secrecy, as is evidenced by its 
refusal to publicly answer even one of the 34 questions posed by 
Counsel at paragraph 131 of these submissions.
13. Thus, it appears that any success Mr. Zundel may have in 
challenging the public evidence is immaterial and indeed, is, a 
futile exercise. In substance, the current hearing amounts to a 
two-part trial, with a secret trial in part 1 (the result of which 
has already been stated in Justice Blais' Detention Order) and a 
meaningless public trial in part 2.
14. Mr. Zundel is thus at the mercy of a secret proceeding and of the 
Judge conducting it.  It is Mr. Zundel's plea that this Court 
seriously look at the mistakes it has made and change its approach 
with respect to this matter, in order to appear more even-handed and 
fair. Mr. Zundel has no control over whether the Court will do so, 
and cannot even know whether such will happen, since it will happen 
in secrecy.  Secret justice, dispensed in the way it has been in this 
case, is no justice at all.  Maybe no one cares, because this is 
supposedly only the notorious and reviled Ernst Zundel.  But it is 
not only about Ernst Zundel.  The apparent approach of the Court in 
this case cheapens and degrades all participants in this important 
part of our system of justice, and our system of justice itself. 

  D.	OTHER SUBMISSIONS
15.   Other submissions will be made orally.

  	All of which is respectfully submitted.

  _____________________________		____________________________
  Peter Lindsay					Chi-Kun Shi







  \\PETER-93Q98S5P9\Sharing\Personal\PL\ZUNDEL, Ernst\closing 
argument\Notes - Final Submissions 041011.wpd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notes_-_Final_Submissions_04101
Type: application/rtf
Size: 335025 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20041022/fa37fc1f/Notes_-_Final_Submissions_04101.rtf