A rather new sympathizer of our struggle to keep Ernst Zundel's presence on the Net is Carol Valentine, President of Public Action, Inc. and best known for her controversial, politically incorrect Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. ( http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter )
From what I have seen and read by Carol, she seems highly articulate,
well-informed, alert to who's who and what's what, and known as a "straight-shooter" - a person who doesn't mince words.
About two weeks ago, she and I had discussed the studied indifference of strutting cybernetters who purport to be absolutists in their "freedom of speech" stance yet think nothing of having their beaks buried right in the sand like some proverbial ostriches when it comes to assisting Ernst Zundel. In his struggle with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its beholden Tribunal, it is widely understood by all and sundry that these Holocaust Enforcers ***need*** a Zundel conviction of "hatred" in the worst way so as to justify their own existence and extend their jurisdiction to the Net.
They will do anything but anything to obtain it!
Why?
The members of the Holocaust Enforcement Squad know well they cannot touch the US-based Zundelsite by grandstanding before some Soviet style "Tribunal" and calling it a "telephone". They know that I control the Zundelsite. I have the password. I hold the ZGram copyright. They know that my website will stay on the air, regardless of the Zundel outcome, provided my support holds firm and remains steady at the helm.
Why, then, do these censorious forces persist in yet another drawn-out persecution of Ernst Zundel - costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing the Canadian taxpayers millions?
Here's why: So they can run to Parliament, to the spy agencies, to the immigration people and to the media with a long-sought and finally obtained "hatred" conviction right in their sticky little hands and silence their most knowledgeable, persistent critic on the continent - silence him once and for all! It is, in part, a very personal vendetta that will take a bloody bite out of Canada's already sorely diminished freedom - through lack of public vigilance and altogether by default!
I had discussed this craven Holocaust Enforcer strategy with Carol and pointed out that here was yet another "democratic" country, Canada - its freedom being sold right down the drain! - while our Cyber Braves stood by and did no more than hold their noses on command, like kindergartners, because the person struggling was Ernst Zundel, tarred "Racist", "Neo-Nazi" and other not-so-Christian names by self-appointed censors for patently self-serving reasons.
Carol, smart cookie that she is, immediately understood the layout of the land and the parameters that mark this politically transparent foray to keep the Holocaust Dogma intact. She said she would do what she could.
I was gone on private business all of last week, and when I came back, I found a most interesting communiqué from Carol:
On Friday, October 16, I attended a symposium held at the Cato Institute at 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The subject of the panel discussion was:
"Privacy Pandemonium: What the EU's Privacy Directive Means for the United States."
The panelists were:
* Peter Swire, Ohio State University, Editor of Cyberspace Law Abstracts, <admin@SSRN.COM>
* John E. Calffe, Author, Fear of Persuasion, American Enterprise Institute Solveig Singleton, Cato Institute, and
* Marc Rotenberg, Electronic Privacy Information Center, http://www.epic.org/
The session started at approximately 10:00 am. There were about 70 people in attendance, including representatives from:
US Department of Commerce
Federal Trade Commission
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
Senate Banking Committee
Embassy of Great Britain
Embassy of France
Embassy of Germany
Embassy of Malaysia
Lucent Technologies
Citibank
IBM
Compaq Computer Corporation
Nat'l Association of Manufacturers
American Bankers Association
American Enterprise Institute
Bell Atlantic
Ernst & Young
Consumer Alert
Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press Washington Telecommunications Week
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Center for Democracy & Technology
and many law firms.
The symposium was largely a discussion of the European Union's confidentiality requirements concerning computerized records. But during her comments on this subject, Solveig Singleton briefly alluded to the censorship of holocaust revisionists in Europe. And during his comments, Marc Rotenberg briefly alluded to Internet free speech and telephone privacy.
So when question time came around, I raised my hand. The moderator recognized me, saying that my question would be the last.
I tape recorded my question and the response I received. My voice was of course clear, as I held the tape recorder. A few words of the response were muffled, but the part of the response that dealt with Ernst Zundel was NOT muffled--that was as clear as a bell.
Carol Valentine:
"Hello, I'm Carol Valentine, author and maintainer of a controversial web page, so naturally I picked up on your discussion of First Amendment issues and telephone calls.
"Right now freedom of speech on the Internet is under ferocious attack. There is an attempt being made to censor someone, claiming that the telephone wire he is using is really the Internet or the Internet is really a telephone wire--some sort of contorted argument like that.
"I noticed that among our cyber warriors who protect the First Amendment, this case is not getting very much coverage. I'm wondering, Marc, if you could comment on that, [Marc Rotenberg, EPIC] and of course I'd love to hear from the other panelists, too.
"Matter of fact, I did a search of your [Marc's EPIC's webpage] and could not find the name of Mr. Zundel mentioned at all. For those people who may not know, Ernst Zundel is a holocaust revisionist who is in danger of being silenced because he has offended some vested interests in Canada.
"It seems to me this case would set a total precedent internationally. I wonder if you or any of the other panelists would care to comment on why there seems to be a reluctance to take up Mr. Zundel's cause."
Marc Rotenberg:
"We have been as involved with as many First Amendment issues on the Internet as anyone," [Cites several cases]. We have been involved in international campaigns [involved when] the German government went after the manager of Compuserve. We wrote to the German Minister of Justice and urged him not to go ahead with this prosecution . . . . We have opposed government regulation of the Internet all around the world.
"I'm somewhat familiar with the Zundel case. I know some people who are involved with it. We haven't been involved with it to date."
[This was followed by a sentence about how the ACLU and other groups out there were trying to identify threats to free speech.]
Moderator:
"I think we are about out of time."
With the moderator ending the session then and there, none of the other panelists had a chance to speak. We were all invited to make our way to the refreshments table. None of the panelists approached me there, either, although one of the attendees came up (and) asked me if it had occurred to me my question had not been answered.
We laughed, and then he told me he lived in Ottawa for three years and had heard of Mr. Zundel and thought he was doing a terrific job."
Thanks, Carol, for trying. That's more than most people will do.
Meanwhile, here is an update on the most recent Zundel Saga:
Our biggest challenge - and one that seems to be blocked every step of the way - is to get a judicial review of the legitimacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission's jurisdiction to have their paws on an American-based website and to censor it from a 5,000 kilometer distance. We have five requests before the Federal Courts to get those all-important judicial reviews. We want a court of higher competence to look at the following questions:
1. Does the Canadian Human Rights Commission have jurisdiction over a US-based and operated website under the ***current*** legislation?
2. Is the old statute, drafted by Canadian censors in the 1970s against telephone information hotlines, applicable to the Internet?
3. Is Truth really no longer a defense in cases involving discussions of history, politics, policies etc?
4. Can expert witnesses be dismissed as experts because they do not subscribe to the politically correct viewpoints on history, race, the "Holocaust" etc?
5. Should "judges" or C.H.R. Tribunal members who have previously worked in other Human Rights Commissions, and ***who passed judgment on the same facts and publications*** now challenged once again for being posted on the Zundelsite - documents already found to be within the law - not be excused from serving?
Pertaining to Point 5, just this past Monday, we asked the Federal Court not even for a review itself but ***for at least an expedited date*** for a judicial review to have a real judge decide if Reva Devins, now a member of the sitting Human Rights Tribunal and previously an Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, could judge the Zundel case impartially - since she had once before prejudged Ernst Zundel in a gloating, vicious press release in 1988 upon his conviction of having "spread false news" - a conviction later overturned in 1992 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
While working for the OHRC as a Commissioner, Reva Devins, now a Tribunal member, had already a decade ago been part of an official, public statement that Ernst Zundel deserved what he got! Should she not have disqualified herself from serving on the Tribunal ***to punish him a second time in this same evidence case***?
There is convincing and clear case law in Canada that she, as a trained lawyer - Harvard, I believe - should have excused herself and removed herself from the Tribunal. She knew! Reasonable people would say that her presence taints the current Tribunal that makes it its business to judge Ernst!
It turns out that Ernst should not have been so bold as to have asked to have his rights protected. Not only was this motion for an expedited judicial review dismissed by Madame Justice Trembley Lamer, (sp?) as a salutary lesson Ernst Zundel was also ***assessed costs*** for the legal fees of the Holocaust Enforcers' lawyers time who fought against his rights! Fine way to stop some questions!
Estimated costs for going to court - to obtain justice from a higher court for the documented bias of a member of a quasi-court - in this one instance will cost Ernst an estimated $5,000 plus!
In Europe, this practice is common. Dissidents who seek relief in courts against the government bodies pimping for a predatory Holocaust Enforcer industry not only routinely lose their cases - but are assessed horrendous costs and fines.
It's very clear that Canada is following that pattern.
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"If the Holocaust myths had any foundation in fact. its promoters would not have needed support in 1946 by forged documents and re-touched photos, in 1979 by marked air photos of Auschwitz, and in the 1990's by 5-year jail terms for non-believing Europeans."
(John Ball, http://www.air-photo.com/ )