ZGram - 12/18/2004 - "Canada's not-so-secret secret"

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

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

December 18, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

A few weeks ago I got hold of a list of professors of law at various 
Canadian universities who are gathering support for opposing the 
loathsome Security Certificate Act.  Sixty names were on this list - 
one might presume, if one is optimistic as I am, that they belong to 
men and women of conscience with solid grounding in the law. 

I wrote to all of them, spending more than $500 on a Global Priority 
mailing so no one could have the excuse they might have missed my 
envelope.  I sent them information about my own credentials as a 
fellow writer with educational credentials as well as basic 
information about Ernst,  including "Setting the Record Straight: 
Letters from Cell # 7." 

Four of them refused my mailing out of hand.  They are Professor 
Michael Link of the University of British Columbia, Kim Brooks of the 
University of British Columbia, and Professor William Black of the 
University of British Columbia. Professor Sanda Rodgers of Ottawa (no 
university affiliation given) likewise shipped my mailing back to me.

The rest of the recipients were silent as the grave.   

Several weeks later I followed up with yet another mailing, this time 
including the FBI Report that clears Ernst utterly of any "terrorist" 
connection or involvement. 

One more illustrious academic refused that hot potato mailing - 
Professor Nicole LaViolette of Ottawa, Ontario.  (No university 
affiliation given)

Two additional envelopes came back as "undeliverable" because, 
allegedly, the University of British Columbia could not be spotted by 
the postal employee.

May we assume that political correctness  has utterly co-opted its 
venerated faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, as 
far as the name Zundel is concerned - or that there sits one 
anti-Zundel censor, undetected, where mail gets sorted out?

That still leaves 53.  Not one of them saw fit to comment, at least 
not openly.  I think dark thoughts.  Who wouldn't?

I do detect a tiny media shift, however.  Several media mavens are 
now beginning, ever so reluctantly and gingerly, to add Ernst 
Zundel's name to the five Muslim victims who sit in prison sans any 
means of any meaningful legal defense.  Except for some courageous 
Globe and Mail editorials that spoke up for his rights, it used to be 
for almost two years that Ernst was either vilified the ritualistic 
way or totally ignored in any formal write-ups - and only "five 
muslims" were mentioned. 

Shortly, I shall follow up with mailing Number 3.  This time I'll 
send a DVD demo of our Zundel documentary-to-be.  Let's see what 
happens next. 

Meanwhile, compare the interesting development in two very similar 
countries, Canada and the UK, that have adopted Stalinist tactics to 
"aid" the War on Terror by locking up some folks but never bothering 
to tell them why so as to allow a defense - with Canada remaining 
staunchly Stalinist, but with the British having second thoughts:

[START]

1.  CANADA'S 'DIRTY LITTLE SECRET' Toronto Star, 12/17/04

  http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic 
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1103237410061&call_pageid=968256290204&col=9683501167 
95

  International Human Rights Day usually passes without notice in 
Canada. There aren't many egregious violations of human rights to 
talk about.  This year, things were different. On Dec. 10 - the 56th 
anniversary of the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
- the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that got a lot of 
people talking.

  A three-judge panel affirmed Ottawa's right to use security 
certificates to detain suspected terrorists without charging them or 
giving them full access to the evidence against them. The court said 
such treatment - while unusual - was neither unjustified nor 
unconstitutional.

  This procedure makes it virtually impossible for a person accused of 
threatening Canadian security to mount a credible defence. It strips 
him or her of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, on 
which Canada's justice system is based. It gives the state the power 
to deport individuals for reasons they will never know.

  "People's lives are being destroyed but they face no charges and 
they have no effective way to defend themselves," said Ed Broadbent, 
former leader of the New Democratic party.

  "For many Muslims and Arabs, security certificates embody an 
arbitrary and non-transparent legal process that they never expected 
to find in a democratic country," said Riad Saloojee, 
executive-director of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic 
Relations.

  ===== 

2.  British Anti-Terror Law Reined In

    By Glenn Frankel

    The Washington Post

     Thursday 16 December 2004

    Highest court of appeals rules foreign terror suspects cannot be 
held indefinitely.

    London - Britain's highest court of appeal struck a blow against 
the government's anti-terrorism policy Thursday by ruling it cannot 
detain suspected foreign terrorists indefinitely without trial.

    In a stinging rebuke to Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, 
the panel ruled by 8 to 1 that the anti-terrorism act that authorized 
the detentions violated European human rights laws and were 
discriminatory because they applied only to foreign nationals and not 
to British citizens.

    "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a 
people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political 
values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these," wrote 
Leonard Hoffmann, one of the eight Law Lords in the majority, 
referring to the anti-terrorism provision. "That is the true measure 
of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether 
to give the terrorists such a victory."

    The decision was hailed as a triumph by civil libertarians who 
have labeled as "Britain's Guantanamo Bay" the indefinite detention 
of 11 suspects, most of whom have been held since December 2001.

    Under British law, the last word on the legality of the 
anti-terrorism act belongs to Parliament and not the courts. But 
legal observers said the ruling would force the government to amend 
the law to either bring the men to trial or allow for less 
restrictive measures such as house arrest.

     "It is ultimately for Parliament to decide whether and how we 
should amend the law," said Home Secretary Charles Clarke in a 
statement . "Accordingly, I will not be . . . releasing the 
detainees, whom I have reason to believe are a significant threat to 
our security."

    Parliament adopted an amended anti-terrorism act in December 2001, 
in response to the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington, that 
allowed for the detention and deportation of foreign nationals 
accused of terrorism. In cases where the detainees argued that 
deportation to their host country could lead to their torture or 
killing, the authorities opted for indefinite imprisonment.

    Eleven men are currently being held under the act, including Abu 
Qatada, a cleric whom the government has described as being the 
spiritual inspiration for leaders of the Sept. 11 attacks. Another 
detainee is Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian who was granted refugee 
status in Britain after he alleged he had been tortured in Israel. 
The others have not been identified.

    In all, 17 people have been detained under the act. Three others 
have been freed, one released but charged under another provision of 
the law and two others voluntarily left the country rather than 
remain in custody. The detentions have been upheld by a special 
tribunal in secret hearings.

[END]