First, the Monday evening David Irving lecture at Washington State University went well. Our friend Jamie did a McCarthy-style fox-trot for the benefit of the fight-censorship newsgroup, giving it the typical Talmudic spin - and, of course, a couple "Nazi!" whoops lest anybody miss the point - but the truth, as usual, lies elsewhere.
Despite a quickly arranged "Holocaust Survivor" antidote-meeting that drew an approximate audience of 100 in a high school - most of them high school students - the Irving lecture was packed. The college students and professors were there. I have received different estimates of the size of the audience, from 350 to ". . . almost 600." The room seats 600, and it is reported that there weren't many empty chairs.
Nobody fainted from an exposure to Holocaust Revisionism. The sky did not fall in. Nobody advocated gassing Jews. The audience was, for the most part, mannerly and attentive. There was a distraught German exchange student who saw her brainwashed world cave in, but all in all, the event went just like any other meeting. It was written up in some 6 papers, including the student paper, and the kids who sponsored the lecture have labeled it an unqualified success.
This Irving lecture proves what Ernst and others have said all along - the so-called "Holocaust" is debatable. No harm will come to honest Jews if they allow history to be revised according to the actual FACTS.
However, should they succeed in shutting off the debate by forcing the criminalization of a viewpoint and by forbidding scientific researchers to publish their honest findings - who can say what will happen? Only those who have something to hide feel afraid of being exposed by new findings and newly unearthed documents. Experience has shown that, in the end, even the most viciously defended dogma crumbles! The truth WILL win out in the end!
Second point - and right on the money:
In Toronto, a veritable fax war has erupted over Monday's Zundel court date in Canada's Federal Court. All "interested parties" in the Human Rights Tribunal hearings against Ernst have now decided, at the last minute, that they want full intervenor status in the Judicial Review proceedings where Ernst and his legal team are trying to get a real court, not a quasi-court such as the Tribunal, to look at the facts and decide:
· ***Does*** the Canadian Human Rights Commission have jurisdiction over a website located in the USA, owned and operated by a US citizen, and
· ***is*** the Internet, and a website on the Internet, comparable to a telephone answering machine?
If a real court decides in the negative, as they logically should, then this whole nerve-wrecking, expensive kangaroo-like proceeding should be stopped because of lack of jurisdiction.
Will it happen? We shall see.
Those who want to silence Ernst in this latest endeavor, using the Human Rights Commission as their hit squad instrument, have tried for almost one-and-a-half years to pervert the course of justice through delays and more delays and any other means at their disposal, to prevent this judicial probe into the jurisdictional aspect of this case.
Monday, April 20th, will see a free-for-all in Toronto's Federal Court.
Ernst is under enormous pressure and threat by all these intervenors in addition to the Human Rights Commission itself, to pay them their legal fees for insisting what is his ***right*** as a tax payer and resident of Canada - namely to have a court of higher jurisdiction look into the legality jurisdiction and the behavior of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its largely Jewish claque of "interested parties" and "intervenors."
What is shaping up in Toronto is reminiscent of the Pontius Pilate story where Pilate found no fault in the accused, according to Roman law, but where the Pharisees kept shrieking: "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Will it happen that that the Pharisees will have their way in a system running amok? Or will sanity and law prevail?
This is a truly crucial test on Monday.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"If the ox of an Israelite bruise the ox of a Gentile, the Israeli is exempt from paying damages, but should the ox of a Gentile bruise the ox of an Israelite, the Gentile is bound to recompense him in full."
(Bava Kama, fol. 8, col. 1)