December 7, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

"The purpose of intervenors is to provide, I believe, a unique perspective from the point of view of somewhat different groups. If they were all the same, it would simply be repetition."

(...)

"I'm submitting that their unique expertise, if there is any, is not related to the legal issues either of constitutionality or jurisdiction."

(...)

"When you allow people with intense personal animosity to be a participant in these issues, that animosity does in fact make the proceedings more long and arduous, and often causing interruptions, and sometimes even lack of courtesy, which is of real detriment to the sober and serious deliberation on matters of public importance."

(...)

"Although there is often animosity in perhaps hearings you deal with, it's very seldom you invite others with more animosity to join in. They seldom have much to contribute besides that animosity. And we'll have enough heat, and we'll need light rather than heat in these proceedings if there's to be a serious resolution of these rather complex and, I think, important issues."

"It's quite clear that time after time, throughout the history of the last - from 1981 to the present, over 15 years, B'nai Brith have been aware that their efforts to prosecute and criminalize Mr. Zundel have failed.

And each and every time that a decision is made that Mr. Zundel either is not guilty or is not to be prosecuted, they simply demand further prosecution somewhere else.

And that's the pattern, it's entirely clear. There's no dispute about it, no answer, no cross-examination, no question about it. That's what they do.

Why, in those circumstances, should that be a basis for saying they have an interest?

Immediately after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law by which Mr. Zundel had been prosecuted since 1984, eight years earlier, the B'nai Brith issued a paid advertisement in the Canadian Jewish News, which demonstrates, more than anything, their attitude to two things, the law which as far as they're concerned, is an instrument to get their political will, and when the courts go against them they simply try again.

And Mr. Zundel, who they clearly hate, probably to the extent of an obsession - what did they say? Well, 'Help stop Zundel. Ernst Zundel is a hatemonger.'

Stop right there.

Ernst Zundel has never been charged with promoting hatred, and certainly has never been convicted of any criminal offence, not even publishing false news, but it doesn't matter.

If a man has been acquitted, exonerated, you keep calling him a thief anyway. You just say, "He's a thief, he's a thief, he's a thief." Of course it's defamatory, but they do it all the time.

He's a hatemonger, right? By now, it's been repeated so many times that everybody believes it, though he's never been charged with that at all, much less convicted."

(...)

"They go on to say two juries found that Zundel was a fraud and the holocaut denial is a deceit. Two juries, the Supreme Court of Canada said, should never have been asked the question."

"'Holocaust denial is but the latest in a series of deliberate lies which display Jews as master conspirators who pretend to be victims. These lies incite anti-semitism. They are a warrant for genocide.'

These words, in my submission, are an expression of the incitement of hatred, all right, of Ernst Zundel and anyone who disagrees with them. It is not the sign of someone who respects the law, accepts the Court judgments, or even is temperate in their language."

"She has told you, or placed before you, information that Mr. Zundel was convicted in Stuttgart, and if you watch the videotape of an interview that took place years ago, she was told by none other than the - on-air, on the videotape, by the Canadian Consul General of Germany that, yes, Mr. Zundel was acquitted of all those charges. . .

So it's as if the truth doesn't make any difference, she was told by the highest authority that I could suggest exists. She could have made enquiries if she wished. She was told by Mr. Zundel he was not found guilty, and she simply carries on with the same accusation on behalf of this organization.

And in my submission, it demonstrates a malice so oblivious of facts, so intense and so obsessive in nature, that it doesn't matter what the truth is, she pursues a personal goal at the expense of both reason and impartiality.

Such a person really, and such an organization, brings to bear nothing but that animosity all over again she demonstrated in the materials she brought before you."

(...)

"Why should they come before this Tribunal and be entitled to participate in fighting against the man they hate so much again?

This should not be a forum for venting personal animosity, but it should be a forum for serious consideration of the well-being (of) all citizens, both German and Jew, both Gentile and Jew, by this Tribunal whose main interest is to uphold the rights of all cultural groups, without animonsity for any individual.

Even if it were true that Mr. Zundel had erred and strayed from the path of correct behaviour in terms of speech, the ultimate objective, as the statue itself said, is not punishment, we're not here to vent hate against Mr. Zundel even if he was wrong. The ultimate objective of this Tribunal, I understand, as all the authorities have said, would be to rectify his behaviour and to get him to conform with the correct view of the method of expressing his opinion.

But why allow the participation of persons who hate so much that they pursued this man for 15 years, and joined with people who would use whatever means is necessary, including violence, to kill him?

Should this Tribunal enhance its reputation by allowing participation from such people, or would it lead to the discrediting of the proceedings and the Tribunal itself?

Thank you for hearing me."

Thought for the Day:

"An 'anti-semite' may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. . . Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out."

(Sobran's, September 1995, p. 4)