July 21, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

I have felt ambivalent for some time doing a ZGram on something that has kept on nagging at my soul with fine, sharp, even teeth-and finally I know I must speak out, and it is this: It's time for those within the Free Speech movement on the Net, now that the stunning US Supreme Court victory has been achieved, to put their lofty idealism where their mouths are and stand by our struggle.

They did at first - magnificently! When we had that first showdown more than a year ago, we could not have wished for more. Not all, of course, were on our side-but many.

They did not care for us-what did they know OF us?-but they stood by their principles. They handed Germany such a licking that, to this day, the media reverberate from shock.

One of their leaders even said to me: "I don't think you are evil. I don't think you are dangerous. I don't even think you are wrong."

Well, that was then, and now is now.

These days you cannot find those cyber warriors of the cyber struggle to speak out on their principles when it comes to the Zundelsite - not even if you use a magnifying glass. Where are they? Who has intimidated them? What is the matter - have WE changed?

When one of Ernst's attorneys recently put out the call to help us with the Canadian so-called "Human Rights" Tribunal as intervenors, not even the tiniest peep!

Here's what I bitterly resent: They will go to bat for their four-letter words-but not for a man like Ernst Zundel. For smut and filth and moral rot - sure! Any day! But not for a besieged and persecuted human being!

What kinds of "principles" are those?

A few weeks ago, the Electronic Frontier Canada ran the following on "Zundel and free speech" by one of their own who, at the very least, tries to set right what is wrong. I call that a beginning.

His name is Donald F. Theall, University Professor Emeritus and Past President, Trent University. Professor Theall wrote to David Jones, who heads the EFC - a man who could not bring himself to write an affidavit on Ernst's behalf, when Ernst's attorney asked. He couldn't even bring himself to say he would, until the very last day when Ernst needed that affidavit to be filed. He stalled and weaseled and wheedled until he finally decided that "free speech" was not, after all, among his absolutes and bowed out not-too-gracefully.

Here is the letter from Professor Theall, making several good points:

"I appreciate David Jones's concern with becoming associated with providing an affidavit to CHRC in the Zundel matter. These are unpleasant, perplexing and difficult issues, marked by the extremely problematic nature of the type of individual involved and the horrendous position that he represents.

But, the cause for censorship has never been advanced by selecting only the good ( or perhaps less bad) cases. Freedom of expression has usually been advanced by defending unpopular causes -- and most frequently the MOST unpopular ones..

Those of us committed to EFC should note that Alan Borovoy, the principal of the ACLU, has attacked legislation against hate literature. (See "How not to Fight Racial Hatred" in D. Schniederman, _Freedom of Expression and the Charter_ (Toronto: Thomson Professional Publishing Canada, 1991), 243-8. If he is correct, which I believe he is, then it is essential that those defending freedom of expression on the Net, or in any other form, should defend even the most unpopular issues which arise in relation to such legislation.

I can well appreciate and sympathize with wanting to dodge the issue when Zundel is involved. But when one like Borovoy (who I am sure probably detests Zundel) attacks the censorship of hate literature, I think it should be incumbent on the leaders of any groups supporting freedom of expression to take a stand.

The question is, if the EFC opposes the censorship of expression, should its officers not represent this position in a crucial, public case involving the principle? If, on the other hand, EFC endorses the censorship of hate literature, ought it not to articulate clearly (and unequivocally) that it does so?

I must confess that I do not see how there can be compromises about censorship on the net, but that is beside the point. The issue here is what policy does EFC represent on hate literature, and is this position supported by its executive or not?

I regret having to raise the issue in such uncompromising terms, but it might be a genuine problem for some of us who support the activities of EFC.

It is easily arguable that if _Mein Kampf_ or the film, _Triumph of the Will_ had been `illegal' in the thirties, the opposition to the Nazi project might not have been as strong, or apparent as early as it was. Learning about Zundel probably converts more of us to being concerned and alarmed about neo-Nazism than it leads into the cause . . . "

Well, at least one human being tried to speak up for another human being, and that should count for something-although the good professor could not be more wrong with his last, perky sentence.

My gentle question is: Where is HIS affidavit? He does not need approval!

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

"God give me strength to face a fact though it slay me."

(Thomas H. Huxley)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the July 1997 ZGrams