Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid
A. Rimland
January 17, 1998
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Yesterday, an essay was sent to me by noted Revisionist John Ball, (
http://www.air-photo.com ) titled "Canada Test Case Part Of World-Wide
Plan To Censor The Internet".
I post it here, a bit shortened:
"The Simon Wiesenthal Center is lobbying to have a Canadian
service provider charged with promoting hatred towards Jewish people as
a test case that would be the start of a 4-stage plan to censor the Internet
around the world, explained representative Sol Littman and David Cohen of
Victoria University Law School, at a January 15th Vancouver press conference.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center's (S.W.C.'s) long term plan is:
1. Lobby the B.C. government to have Internet service provider Bernard Klatt,
based in the small town of Oliver, charged with Section 318 and 319 of Canada's
criminal code which makes it a criminal offense to willfully promote hatred
towards an identifiable group, because one of the 13 websites he hosts,
which the S.W.C. defines as "hate", contains an 'interactive'
cartoon targeted to young people called 'How Odd of God to Choose the Rats',
that could result in Jewish children being physically attacked by their
peers.
2. Use a resulting B.C. criminal conviction as the legal precedent to convict
other service providers across Canada who host web sites the S.W.C. chooses
to define as "hate".
3. Use their international contacts to persuade other major countries to
use existing laws, or enact new laws, to convict service providers, and
then cooperate with other countries to police web sites the same way international
laws to police airline piracy were developed in the 1960's, according to
Littman.
4. Attempt to persuade the American people that the free speech clause of
their Constitution, which was upheld in a 1996 Supreme Court decision, needs
to be reconsidered, so that the "U.S. does not become a haven for hate
site providers" which the rest of the world has criminalized.
David Cohen defined a "hate site" as one which depicts people
as "subhuman rats, conspiring for power", as in the Klatt hosted
cartoon site. He said the Canadian Criminal Code states you can privately
communicate "hateful" speech if it is not broadcast to the public,
but you cannot publicly broadcast speech that promotes hatred towards an
identifiable group.
Cohen said the Criminal Code criminalizes the message, and it is only the
broadcast medium that has changed since the law was enacted in 1968. ***A
test case is needed by convicting a service provider on grounds that, although
Judges in 1968 did not foresee the Internet, websites are not private communication
but public broadcasts, which means service providers are broadcasters.***
(Emphasis added)
Cohen said Canadian courts need to determine if the Internet is a private
communication, a broadcast, or some new definition.
B.C. police have said they do not consider proceeding with this case until
the Zundel CHRC Tribunal Internet hearings are complete."
Ernst faxed me some of the news articles that have since appeared in print.
On one of them, titled "Crackdown on Web hate urged" (The Toronto
Star, January 16, 1998) Ernst had scribbled an ironic comment:
"Once again, I assure the Freedom of Speech of Canadians
by sacrificing myself and holding the censors at bay!"
One of the arrows in this article pointed to the paragraphs:
"Littman brushed aside critics who say the Internet
is too fluid to be easily policed.
"Let's get rid of the notion that the Internet is such a big and diffuse
system (that) there is no way you can regulate it or control it.
"'The Internet is not unlike any other medium. It is a form of communication
dependent on electronics that uses telephone lines.'"
"But a member of B.C.'s new hate-crimes unit said yesterday he doesn't
share Littman's optimism. Investigators have been hamstrung as they await
case law to set out rules on policing the Web.
"Sergeant Rick McKenna also noted that police are still waiting for
the outcome of a Canadian Human Rights Commission Tribunal in Toronto into
charges that a San Diego based Web site bearing the name of Canadian Ernst
Zundel promotes hatred against Jews."
And the final paragraphs sum up this revolting censorship attempt:
"Many critics have suggested it's impossible to police
hate material downloaded through the Internet from sites outside Canada.
"But Littman said Canada should lead an international effort on the
issue."
So there you have it - black on white. International effort! Right from
the horse's mouth! There is no conspiracy here for global control - is
there?
Last but not least:
In letters and statements Ernst has frequently condemned in no uncertain
words people on the Right who didn't show good taste and decency in this
new medium, the Internet. Some people have chided him for that, and have
accused him that he himself is censoring - but to express strong disapproval
is not censoring.
I, too, disapprove of cartoons or animated pictures showing rats, implying
rats are Jews. It is in extremely poor taste. It is low-brow and utterly
unworthy of the struggle against what many perceive to be the hidden forces
that manipulate and tamper with our freedoms.
We do not need that kind of stuff. If we are to survive in cyberspace,
we must show reason and restraint. We must translate ourselves as civilized
and cultured people.
More than a year ago I alerted my ZGram readers to an Internet cartoon that
showed a rat replete with Zundel logo. I found it on http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/zundel_r.gif
- the Toronto-based ARA web site. (I checked yesterday; it is no longer
there.)
When the terror campaign against the Zundel-Haus was heating up, that image
of Ernst Zundel as a rat was plastered all over Toronto in posters by the
ARA.
It was depicted in the ARA publication when Sol Littman of the SWC publicly
endorsed the ARA for a grant - just as B'nai Brith endorsed the ARA, stating
to public officials that B'nai Brith had a "good working relationship"
with the ARA.
At that time Marvin Kurtz, Dr. Karen Mock, and Sabina Citron met with and
even attended and spoke at ARA events.
Even the very Human Rights Commission which is now busy bankrupting Ernst
endorsed the ARA in a nationally distributed poster as a "valuable
resource"
Where was their outrage then?
The rat image was no concern to any one of them. Because the "rat"
was German, it didn't disturb them in the least. Why did they not object
to the ARA implying that a human being named Ernst Zundel was a rat?
In a ZGram, I spoke out against this gross attempt to demonize a human being
called Ernst Zundel, and since I have on my ZGram list a fair share of these
eager beaver bowlderizers, they heard me - loud and clear!
Why do they, to this day, surround themselves with ARA thugs every time
they come to court to silence Dissident Ernst Zundel? Last May, at the
opening of the CHRC hearings, of these hoodlums even carried a live rat
right into the court room - right in a paper bag!
And, finally:
We have been practically on our knees exhorting all these armchair cyber
fighters, many of them Jewish, to come to our aid as intervenors before
the Commission - or at least give us some affidavits to bolster our fight,
to volunteer as expert witnesses and help us defray the legal fees now borne
by Ernst alone.
Like it or not - like us or not! - the Human Rights Commission censorship
attempt against the Zundelsite ***is*** setting precedent!
If we lose - as many see it, already a foregone conclusion, for nowhere
can you find a speck of fairness or impartiality in these Inquisition hearings,
even if you use a magnifying glass! - the next censorship step will be easier.
Remember that the goal is international control. Right out of Orwell's
1984,
Let's just not kid ourselves - the so-called "protection of minors"
never was the goal. From Day One the goal has been the seizure of information
management - by the suppression of voices critical to the Israeli Holocaust
Lobby. Ever since the days of Zundel Mirrors and Blue Ribbons in January
and February of 1996, that talmudic handwriting was there in burning letters
- right on the cyberwall.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day - a bit long but making the point of
precedent-setting:
"A man in Austria writes to Canada about a person's activities in regard
to Germany. I can see an Austrian's interest in what is done in regard
to Austria. (But) Wiesenthal's objection should have been dismissed out
of hand as he had no standing in the matter. I would have thought only Canadians
and Germans would have had standing."
(Matt Giwer commenting on the Zundel Postal Hearings in 1982 where Simon
Wiesenthal urged Canada to revoke Ernst Zundel's postal privileges.
This was the first time Canadian government forces moved officially en masse
against the Zundel message - by stopping mail service for more than a year
***before a hearing even took place***, cutting Ernst's mail off instantly
on penalty of 4 years in prison, and cutting off his publishing business
customers in 42 countries.
This was the very act that eventually led to the two Great Holocaust Zundel
Trials in 1985 and 1988 which unleashed an avalanche of dissemination of
the Zundel point of view against the Holocaustomaniacs.
The Leuchter Report would never have happened, had they themselves not brought
it on!)
Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 1998 ZGrams