Talk:Ernst Zündel/Archive 1

Fred Leuchter

Actually, most of the text on this page is about Fred Leuchter, and not Ernst Zundel. -- Modemac

Then remove excessive coments out of this page.

Okay, I will. Thank you. -- Modemac

Holocaust denier / Holocaust revisionist

Zündel never denied the holocaust, he states that it was grossly exaggerated. Sam [Spade] 01:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Holocaust revisionism" is a euphemism. In any case, he was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a German court so describing him as a Holocaust denier is appropriate. AndyL 03:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't belaive that questioning history and facts has such results, it seems the text on this site is not very objective. While I do not agree with Zundell, it is crazy to assume he is wrong on no evidence at all!

No evidence. Yeah, that WWII thing was kind of a myth. Gzuckier 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont agree with him either, but in America, people might complain but no one would try to stiffle his free speech. I am sickened that they do this in Europe and to a lesser extent Canada. The way to fight these people is with truth and just plain ignoring the neo nazis. My problem with the articles on both Zundel and other revisionists is they all seem to agree that they need to hanged. I in no way agree with any of them, but I will defend to the death their right to free speech. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Well, you realize that in Germany and Austria, the results of letting the Nazis have their say didn't work out too well for them last time, so you can see why they would be a bit touchy. In any event they have the right to make their own laws in their own country, and Zundel can stay out of there when he's in a mood to discuss his "revolutionary findings". Gzuckier 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument. I guess protecting 'unpopular' speech is not very popular up there in Canada. Do you really believe for even a moment that Zundel has anything to do with the old NS goverment? That permitting his views ammount to allowing a NS coup in Germany? Come now. He cannot just 'stay out' of Germany, he is a German citizen, and has been deported from Canada...as well as making enough of an ass of himself not to stay here in the US. Anyway we are getting OT. This article is far too anti-Zundel (not that I am pro). user:Pzg Ratzinger

??? Are you saying he was busted for holocaust denial in Canada? ??? Gzuckier 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

From what the article says, he was considered a 'security risk'. Not sure how, but if he hadnt been public about his views I doubt he would have been considered as such. user:Pzg Ratzinger

We don't have the first amendment here in Canada (not that many countries do), but there is protection for free speech. In fact, closely reading the article you'll find that the Supreme Court found the law he was prosecuted under unconstitutional.

As for his "security risk" status, it might have more to do with the violent far-right groups he associated with then any of his revisionist writings. Cantankrus 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I admit, I skimmed the article, and I missed that bit at the end. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Indeed, yes. Excerpts from the ruling of Canadian Federal Justice Pierre Blais, denying Zundel's application for refugee status (chutzpah!!!) and ordering his deportation as a risk to the security and/or human rights of the citizens of Canada, January 21, 2004; upheld on appeal by Ontario provincial court and Canadian federal court:

Mr. Zundel's activities have in large part been public. In the context of these public endeavours, Mr. Zundel has never advocated violence. This has been the basis of his position throughout the hearing. How can defending ideas, however unpopular or insulting, pose a safety concern for Canada? ...

However, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zundel is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person.... The Ministers believe that by his comportment as leader and ideologue, Mr. Zundel intends serious violence to be a consequence of his influence...

Mr. Zundel wields much more power within the right-wing, extremist and violent movement known as the White Supremacist Movement ...than he lets on. He would have us believe that he is only interested in ideas, and that others use his ideas as they see fit, a situation for which he cannot be responsible. The information made available to me paints an entirely different picture. Mr. Zundel is not the avuncular figure looking on with some indulgence on the wayward excesses of some misguided souls who fail to understand his message of non violence. The evidence points to his own direct involvement with groups he pretends to know very little about...

Mr. Zundel represents a threat that far exceeds simple guilt by association... The Ministers have provided considerable evidence, that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security, that Mr. Zundel has extensive contacts within the violent racist and extremist movement. Mr. Zundel stated in his testimony that he knew the following people slightly, or had professional contacts with them, or had interviewed them as a reporter. Information showed, rather, that he had dealt with them a great deal more, in some cases had funded their activities, and generally had maintained much closer ties than what he had admitted to in his examination or cross-examination. These contacts include Tom Metzger, Richard Butler, Dennis Mahon and William Pierce in the United States, Christian Worch, Ewald Althans, Gottfied Kuessel and Oliver Bode in Germany, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Terry Long, Christopher Newhook, Tony McAleer, Bernard Klatt, Wolfgang Droege and Marc Lemire in Canada, Nick Griffin in Great Britain and members of South Africa's Afrikaner Resistance Movement.

[details of contacts]

The information provided in camera by the Ministers to this Court goes further: Mr. Zundel in many cases pulls the strings that lead to violent actions.

I am convinced that Mr. Zundel was well aware of the outcome of his publications and public comments. Moreover, he knew in advance when certain activities, actions, demonstrations would occur, where skinhead elements would be involved with little restraint or indeed, with encouragement from the more staid members of the movement who would pretend not to know and not to approve of those actions. Not only did he know ahead of time, he was often involved in the planning... The constraints of national security have made the Ministers unable to show public evidence to link Mr. Zundel to any of the violent acts that have been committed by extremist, racist groups. The information that has been provided to me, however, has satisfied me that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such a link exists. I am also satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that if Mr. Zundel were freed from detention, he would be able to reestablish links with groups that present a threat to the security of Canada."

Zundel's conviction in Germany, BTW, involves a bit more than just espousing unpopular opinions; the prosecution cited "200 shipments of right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi content [including] books, periodicals, symbols, decorations, films, cassettes, [and] records" from Zundel's Canadian Samisdat Publishers into West Germany between January 1978 and December 1979, in violation of West German law, including mass mailings to all members of the West German Bundestag (parliament). Thumbing your nose at German law while "seeking refuge" from German law in Canada only works out if you don't indulge in nasty activity in Canada such as to cause you to get deported back to Germany. Or, more briefly, being a stupid asshole can be dangerous.

In addition, the feelings of Zundel and his followers regarding "free speech" were made quite clear by his Ban Schindler's List campaign, as discussed in the following Usenet thread:[1]:,

I might ask how Mr. Zuendel could have been a "fair treatment" advocate when he called for enforcement of "anti-hate" laws in _1980_! This was five years before Mr. Zuendel was dragged into the Canadian courts (and via a different law, I might add).

First we are informed by one of his defenders, that what Zundel actually meant was to point out the evils of censorship in some sort of ironic manner, by advocating it. This is historical revisionism alright; I guess those who see no problem with "revising" the details of the Holocaust, would certainly see no problem with revising the historically documented details of their calls for censorship of opinions which they themselves don't like:

"If Zuendel's calls for censorship bring attention to idiotic, repressive laws and can some how result in their overturn, wonderful!

...

Sincerely,

Richard Widmann

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust "

The reply:

"Richard Widmann is the maintainer of the pages on the CODOH website which deal with censorship and suppression of the "revisionist" viewpoint. CODOH is the Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust. Noting that there was no mention of _revisionist_ attempts at censorship, I asked him if he had any intention of recording such attempts. He wrote back politely to clarify that CODOH would only be noting attempts to censor "revisionists," and attempts to censor the Internet. I politely thanked him for the clarification. He politely apologized for claiming that I was dishonest. I politely accepted his apologies and thanked him.

Then, I wrote Mr. Widmann on February 19th to ask:

Can I get you to state on the record that you condemn Zuendel's calls for censorship?

Receiving no answer, I wrote him again on the 25th:

Hello. Just making sure you saw my email of 2/19, with the question:

"Can I get you to state on the record that you condemn Zuendel's calls for censorship?"

From his reply below, it is clear that Mr. Widmann -- CODOH's maintainer of web pages which describe incidents related to censorship and suppression of free speech -- will not publicly condemn attempts at censorship of what CODOH calls the "orthodox" or "establishment" point of view. Thank you for your reply, Mr. Widmann.

followed by:

Now, I would like to extend the invitation to the rest of CODOH. This article is being posted and emailed not only to Mr. Widmann but to CODOHm...@aol.com and to brsm...@valleynet.com, the Director of CODOH. Will anyone at CODOH state on the record that they condemn Zuendel's calls for censorship? Or do they agree with Mr. Widmann, that there is good censorship and bad censorship -- the good kind being censorship of the "orthodox" or "establishment" point of view?

...

Posted to alt.revisionism and alt.censorship. Emailed to Mr. Widmann, Mr. Smith, CODOHm...@aol.com, Mr. Zuendel, Ken McVay, Hilary Ostrov, and (in case he happens to be interested) Declan McCullagh of the fight-censorship mailing list."

a few days later:

Ingrid Rimland, the maintainer of Mr. Zuendel's website, has responded to me in her semipublic mailing list, the "Zgram" list. I thank her for sharing her opinion, but I would like to point out that I was not asking her. I was asking CODOH, whose representatives (excepting Richard Widmann) still have not responded. Here is what Ms. Rimland had to say. Note that she is essentially just repeating the argument of Mr. Widmann, which I have already debunked here in alt.revisionism:

The Nizkor strategy now seems to be to make the CODOH people state that Zundel is a rabid censor maniac, since several years ago, to test the repugnant Canadian Hate Laws, he asked that, given that they were in force, they be applied to everybody, since he, too, felt defamed - by Schindler's List, for instance - which he asked to be banned as being a disgracefully defamatory piece of anti-Germanism.

He did this on the principle that nobody has a stronger obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Does that make him a "censor"? Or does it not make Zundel, rather, a conscientious objector to unfair censorship?

I won't even get into her implication that Steven Spielberg is a lawmaker -- symptomatic of the conspiratorial world-view that International Jewry all thinks and acts as one. And the call to ban "Schindler's List" was explicitly stated to be worldwide, which neatly eliminates the argument that Zuendel's target was Canadian anti-hate laws.

The movie was indeed banned in Malaysia and the Philippines, and effectively banned in Lebanon and Jordan. (Skeptic magazine, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 67.) Zuendel noted the Philippines ban with a euphemism:

The film contains brutal murders of women and children, savage beatings of women, profane language, use of women as sex objects, and nudity. (It is not seen in the Philippines because of the nudity.) Young people are shocked, emotionally traumatized, and have nightmares.

Is that evidence of how much Zuendel hated censorship? That he could not even bring himself to use the word? "It is not seen," indeed!

As he went on, it becomes crystal-clear that he supported such bans:

The movie generates hatred against Germans, and it should be possible to ban it under "hate laws" in Canada, Germany, and other countries. Photocopy and distribute this, and join the worldwide campaign to BAN SCHINDLER'S LIST

Mr. Zuendel nowhere in either pamphlet mentioned that they were "tests." Nowhere did Mr. Zuendel mention that he was "a conscientious objector to unfair censorship." Nowhere did he say that the anti-hate laws are "repugnant." Words like "repugnant" were reserved for the movies of Gerald Green and Steven Spielberg. To be precise, he described them as "slander," "lies," "[supporting] genocide," "tyranny," "terror," "swindle," "evil," "prejudice[d]," "outright lies," "hymn of hate," "notorious," "self-serving," "lies and hate," and on and on.

So, the question again: what evidence does Ms. Rimland have that Zuendel's cause was not really Schindler, but censorship? If she can come up with any, Nizkor will be happy to archive it or include pointers to it, whichever she prefers, so that our readers can make the most informed decision possible. [2] [3] [4] [5]

Posted to alt.revisionism. Emailed to Zuendel/Rimland; Cc'd to CODOH and Richard Widmann."

Needless to say, there was no reply.

Anyway, excuse my digression, we were discussing about how Holocaust revisionism is all about defending free speech? Gzuckier 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. You seem to think under a misguided train of thought that I am a supporter of his. Nope. Supporting his free speech. What he does to make an idiot of himself (such as advocating the banning of Schindler's List) is not my concern. I would defend Spielberg's right to the same. I could care less about the white nationalism that underlies much of Zundel's motives. My only reason for posting in articles talk page for which I have_zero_experience in was in reference to the massively POV article on denial or revisionism topic, including this one. The only reason I had even come across it to begin with was it was related in a distant means to several German WW2 military articles I have contributed to. user:pzg ratzinger

Yeah, sorry if I sounded like I was targeting you. I understand and admire the viewpoint re "free speech even for things I don't agree with". I should actually go check the article and see if the Ban Schindler's List campaign is noted, instead of just fulminating. Gzuckier 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i dunnit. of course, now the article can be interpreted as even more antiZundel. Gzuckier 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote all that tripe above? Everything about his deportation from the US and Canada smelled of political pressure. His violent ways involved writing, printing and distributing pamphlets I hope Canadians have stopped trembling. Poor Germans - they all seem to need a nanny to check their reading list.

1968 Liberal Party leadership

"Taking his first stab at stardom, Zundel, despite his German citizenship, placed his name in the 1968 leadership contest of the federal Liberal party (credential arrangements at Canadian political conventions were rather loose at that time). He described himself as a dark horse candidate, representing what he referred to as "the third element,"[24] i.e., ethnic groups whose ancestry was neither British nor French. Zundel also portrayed himself as a staunch anti- Communist, making, of course, no mention of his neo-Nazi views and associations; since he was not known publicly in this capacity - in fact, he was not known at all - neither did anyone else. In his autobiography, he speaks of his candidacy as though it had constituted the sensation of the day. "I was therefore the only non-Minister and outsider. the youngest candidate and also the first immigrant and German Canadian in Canada's history who had achieved this. This gave me the image of a maverick, a Skorzeny figure of politics."[25] In reality, no one cared who he was, his nomination attracted almost no attention, and he received not a single vote." [6] Jayjg | (Talk) 22:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is a text file from sone unknown, giving their personal opinion. He attracted a considerable amount of attention (to the point that several papers carried follow-up 'wheres he now?' articles for years to come: until he became infamous and everyone knew exactly where he was), and he only 'received not a single vote' in the same meaningless way that you and me 'recevied not a single vote' at the 68 liberal convention. But he did have the endorsement of a number of them pre-vote. Check a real source, e.g., page 1, Toronto Daily Star, April 6, 1968.

== Please tell us how many votes Zundel recieved then? AndyL 22:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found another source after my last edit. As Zundel is not listed as a candidate in the first ballot results on the Parliamentary website his dropping out prior to the first ballot is credible. AndyL 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

Can we have this lead section expanded to encompass all the main points? One line lead sections aren't too good in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did it myself :) Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was taken by "local police". Local police in my part of the US do not deport you to a foreign country - nor do they even handle immigration cases. Should the "local police" section be changed to "FBI". How would local police even know you might be in a minor technical violation of an obscure immigration matter?

About his being Jewish

I agree that it's an interesting angle, but I think there's rather too much space devoted to it. Better to mention it in a paragraph or two and include a link to some external site with more detail. At the very least, the interview in its present form should go. It's not exactly a smoking gun, and it takes up a lot of space. --Saforrest 20:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've cut the interview excerpt down to the key question and answer. AndyL 03:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

einpass? What is meant here? Reinpass? Never really heard of that either. BigBen212 20:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Prehapse he is Jewish, so what? Regardless anyone, including a jew, has a right to question history!!!

I really dont see what that has to do with anything. The reason this section is allocated time, is because it offers a possible inroad into understanding his thinking. Threatis 05:57, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

The word Arierausweis is most probably wrong, it should be Ariernachweis. The Ariernachweis is a big sheet of paper where local authorites had to certify that all your ancestors (up to ones granparents) were of "aryan" descent.

See: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/antisemitismus/ariernachweis/

Change the title

An anonymous user deleted this section; I immediately restored it, but changed the title to "Zündel's Jewish Ancestry". I'm not against anonymous editors, but will insist on Wiki ettiquete - no major deletions without discussion. The title "Is Zündel Jewish" was crap, as there was never any evidence that he was - but there is ample evidence that his ancestry is Jewish, including a referenced admission by the man himself. CPMCE 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If his granparents' names and domicile are known it should be an easy matter for local people/records to decide their ethnicity. But who cares anyway, other than some wiki oddball editors.

UFO Angle

I deleted the UFO reference from the intro paragraph and added a separate section. I think it is highly relevant and deserves a separate mention, particularly since there are plenty of indications that it was merely a publicity stunt, and it throws an interesting light on his personality.

--Dietwald 11:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to a more logical spot, right under the section where it mentions his use of the pseudonym. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why defamatory prison garb pictures

Why bias the article with pictures of him in an orange prison jump suit? There are hundreds of pictures of him available, why do you choose the worst one? Lokison 10:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He's most notable at the moment for being on trial. I don't think he's worn anything but prison garb for the past few years. Homey 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this is a good way to put some good ole ad hominem into the article - it was getting too balanced for my tastes.

Danish cartoons

Including this in the article strikes me as something of a tanget and is not related to Zundel's biography.Homey 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trials

Adjusted some dates and added more information surrounding the initial complaint against Zundel which led to the criminal charges in 1984.

Sources used for updates and corrections http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1999/pub/v3/1999fc24308.html http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/html/1992scr2_0731.html http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/holocaust-rev

Interesting comment - probably lifted from some other publication - about Judge Blaise'e damning decision. The first sentence of Judge Blaise's decision stamps the entire trial as a trumped up kangaroo court. Strange start to a damning decision. The entire USA/Canada part in this charade should be required reading for all North Americans for centuries - cowardly/highhanded/hypocritical/...it's hard to find the right words.

What are you talking about? "Interesting comment - probably lifted from some other publication "? Gzuckier 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any link to the trial transcript? I have read that reviews - news articles, etc - don't seem to match what actually happened - ie Biedermann testimony, etc.

• If it's anywhere online, it will be on Zundel's site. But it's tens of thousands of pages long... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"hate literature"

Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc....prejudice in a society

Perhaps that is Jayg's interpretation, but this less accurately describes the subject of Zundel's material. Would you agree that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech against the Crown? --155.247.166.29 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the Supreme Court said about Zundel's material: The pamphlet is part of the genre of anti-Semitic literature known euphemistically as "revisionist history". [...] The author alleges that "the Anglo-Saxon world" is falling into decline because of the presence of non-Aryans and that the lessons of the horrors of the Holocaust prevent "rational" debate about this trend.

I would say that this demonstrates an intent to "degrade and intimidate" for the purpose of "prejudicial action".

How would you "accurately describe" Zundel's material? Cantankrus 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would rather examine the material than reiterate opinions about its functionality. In any case, neither is necessary in the introduction that I have lightly restructured.--155.247.166.29 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada's Supreme Court isn't just someone's opinion -- it is the top law court in the land. And that they have published this analysis it becomes a reliable source, which can be used as reference in an article. You objected to the term "Hate Speech" as a controversial term and as one editor's opinion, but as the written ruling of the Court indicates, that editor was correct. Cantankrus 05:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The decision seems to show the lack of intellect needed to be a lawyer.judge more than their understanding of the case. What is this anti-semtism when someone disagrees with the holocaust? It sounds even dumber in a legal decision than it does on wiki. You could absolutely love something but refuse to belive an obvious myth. I like Greeks but I doubt very much that the Greek gods really lived on Mt Olympus. Am I anti-greek? I like some Jews, don't like some - but what has that got to do with the holocaust ( is anti-semitism really not agreeing with jews on an issue - do you have a complete list of these issues by the way. The Supreme Court decision sounds only as stupid as a bunch of lawyers can when they try to be politically correct - surpassed only by a bunch of wikians.

Rereading the Zundel trial, I noticed that the first trials were glossed over quite quickly. If you need help in beefing up the trials please ask. The famous witnesses against Zundel I believe were embarrased - to your credit you did mention that one refused to try it again. The eventual Supreme Court apellate decision I believe favored him - some free speech thing. His last trial in Canada was more a sad affair that should embarrass the entire Canadian people - I am embarrassed for them, like a bad play.

Need to balance artical by inclusion of NPOV material

I have just read about Zundel getting 5 years in the newspaper and as it had little info on him have read the Wiki artical and a few items from a quick search and it bothers me that the Wiki piece is very POV. Admittedly I know little of the man but in the interests of NPOV I feel the following points in some form need inclusion if true. The first point is quoted from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal itself while the second I have yet to read the original FOI documents. I don't believe any addition should be made without prior discussion though as it is a delicate subject.

"On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that "truth was not a defence to a discriminatory practice under s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act" in the case against Ernst Zündel. The tribunal, led by Claude Pensa, said the truth or falsity of Zundel's claims were not relevant to a finding under s. 13(1), and that the dignity of the complainants and the proceedings should not be diminished by allowing the Respondent to prove the truth of inherently offensive comments. The decision was taken after Counsel for the Commission, supported by the complainants and the interveners objected over 30 times after Mr. Christie, acting for the Respondent Mr. Zündel, sought to question Prof. Schweitzer on the 'truth' of the statements found on the Zundel site.

Mr. Freiman, for the Commission, relies on the judgement of Dickson J., as he then was in John Ross Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1991) 13 C.H.R.R. p. D/435 for the proposition that truth is not a defence to allegations of discrimination under s. 13(1) of the Act. We were also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Nealy v. Johnson (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6450, and Payzant v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, T.D. 4/94 released January 24, 1997."

"According to 90 pages of formerly "secret" documents released today (May 26, 2005) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI agents made the determination that Zündel did not have ties to international or domestic terrorism, in stark contradiction to the insistence by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service that he did, but withheld paperwork to that effect from Zündel's defense team because, according to one memorandum included in the FOIA release, "the FBI would just as soon Canada's problem not become ours." Zündel was the subject of seven FBI counter terrorist investigations, including a 2003 investigation into Zündels' internet website, all of which were closed after investigators found no evidence of criminal activity. A 2003 FBI report described Zündel as a "tired old man intent on promoting himself and his life for his own personal gain" and found no links between Ernst and his wife and any illegal activities.

The FBI investigated Zündel for ties to terrorist groups but found no evidence of links and found he did not pose a security threat. The FBI classified most of the documentation they had on Zündel, as "Secret", to avoid it being released in FOIA before Zündels' trial in Canada and his deportation to Germany was completed." Wayne 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The FBI operates domestically within the US - not within Canada. Dimitroff 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

By law the CIA can't operate inside the US and the FBI can't operate outside. Someday they may actually operate legally - that day is not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is the FBI is in no position to determine whether Zundel is a security risk in Canada or what his links in Canada are. Dimitroff 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't they Canadians use the FBI report? Has Canada released any evidence of Zundel's attempt to attack Canada - this would be Canadain humor if it wasn't true. Maybe Canada is safe at last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Zundel had no status in Canada and the country was not obliged to accept him. His application for "refugee status" was both ironic and pathetic. Dimitroff 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, no one has explained why an FBI report, which would be prepared about his life in the US, is relevant to Canadian authorities, who had much more intimate knowledge of his life while living in Canada.

He was known to associate and fund far-right violent groups. But, in the conspiracy laden world most revisionists/deniers inhabit, groups that use "violence" to achieve their political aims aren't considered an attack on the country or it's citizens. Cantankrus 00:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the CIA or FBI have any rights in Canada the fact remains that exclusion of the information makes the Canadian trial a Kangaroo court (so is relevant in the artical). Far from being pathetic, an application for refugee status was appropriate and should have been accepted under Canadian law as he was being deported to face a jail sentence for crimes that are not illegal in Canada, which is the basis of the majority of refugee claims that are accepted. That his views are reprehensible should not be a factor if they pose no provable threat. Wayne 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So how do you know what evidence was presented to the judge? And how was a refugee application appropriate from a German national? Canada accepts zero refugees from Germany a year, it's not a country known to torture prisoners, there's simply no basis for an application. Indeed, there's more basis to accept an application from a refugee fleeing the US than one avoiding Germany. And no, what you are referring to would be an argument against a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant being extradited to the US. Zundel is neither a citizen or a landed immigrant (he forfeited his landed status when he moved to the US) so Canada is under no obligation to protect him from extradition. Dimitroff 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do the research before making claims. Canada accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year. And yes there is more basis for refugees from the U.S. as around 5,000 US Americans a year are granted refugee status. Under Canadas Immigration and Refugee Protection Act someone can apply for refugee status if that person "has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion". That person can be rejected "for reasons of security, serious criminality or involvement in organized crime, or for violating human or international rights". Zundel certainly fits the application criteria. In fact he was rejected as a risk to security which the FBI and CIA both said he was definately not. That was why those reports were witheld from the defense and as such are relevant to the artical. NPOV must come before personal bias. Wayne 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in 1996 for instance, that would have made Germany the third highest source of refugees for Canada; in fact, it was not. In fact, it does not appear in the list of top ten sources of refugees to Canada for that year. In fact, the tenth highest on that list, Pakistan, had 653 refugees to Canada that year. This would normally imply that Germany had fewer than 653 refugees to Canada that year, rather than 1,900. And of course, it goes without saying that "5,000 US Americans" don't appear on that list either. Table S6 Of course, the same applies for all the other years for which Citizenship and Immigration Canada provides statistics. I suppose I could make some comment about your taking "revisionism" much too far, or some sarcastic remark about how the Jews who control Citizenship and Immigration Canada have falsified the statistics because they could foresee in their devious way how someday this "debate" would come about, but in the spirit of "assume good faith" I'll just close instead by repeating some good advice I heard recently; Do the research before making claims. . Gzuckier 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, provide your source for your claim about German and US refugees to Canada. I can see refugees coming from Germany or the US as a "safe third country" and originally being from Sri Lanka or Burma coming to Canada via Germany though really these wouldn't be "German refugees" but Sri Lankan or Burmese refugees but I don't know of any German (or American) citizens or permanent residents who have been granted refugee status in Canada. Indeed, I recall an article in the paper about an American *claiming* refugee status and being rejected but that's all. The other possibility is that you are confusing immigrants with refugees. Dimitroff 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reason to doubt Wayne's claim:

"In 2000, Canada received 2,464 refugee claims from Hungarian nationals. This is about five times the total number of Hungarian claims made in all of Europe combined, for the same time period. At the present rate, it is projected that by the end of 2001, Canada will have received, from Hungarian citizens, almost double the number of refugee claims received from this group last year."[7]

Note these are refugee claims not claimants granted refugee status. This means that in 2000 there were approximately 500 refugee claims from all of Europe excluding Hungary (the number of claimants granted refugee status would be significantly lower - only about 40% of refugee claims are approved by the IRB, I suspect the percentage would be much lower for claimants from Europe). So if there were only 500 refugee claims from all of Europe, only a portion of which would be from Germany, how do you get the figure that Canada "accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year"? Please provide a source. Dimitroff 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian refugee figures, 2003

The top 20 countries, by number of decisions finalized, were as follows (with acceptance rate for 2004, followed, for comparison purposes, by rates for 2003 and 2002):

1. . Pakistan 3851 (35%, down from 41% in 2003, 54% in 2002)
2. . Colombia 3259 (81%, same as in 2003)
3. . Mexico 2684 (25%, down from 27% in 2003, 24% in 2002)
4. . China 2403 (52%, down from 61% in 2003, 56% in 2002)
5. . Costa Rica 1809 (3%, up slightly from 2% in 2003, 4% in 2002)
6. . Sri Lanka 1444 (64%, down from 73% in 2003 and 77% in 2002)
7. . India 1241 (27%, down from 29% in 2003, 26% in 2002)
8. . Nigeria 1020 (50%, up from 47% in 2003 and 35% in 2002)
9. . Turkey 1016 (63%, up from 60% in 2003 and 55% in 2002)
10. . Peru 926 (41%, up slightly from 40% in 2003, 32% in 2002)
11. . Guyana 832 (24%, up from 17% in 2003, 18% in 2002)
12. . Philippines 765 (4%, down from 7% in 2003 - not in last year’s top 20)
13. . Venezuela 759 (25%, slightly down from 26% in 2003 - not in last year’s top 20)
14. . Albania 723 (40%, up from 32% in 2003, 40% in 2002)
15. . Brazil 719 (8%, up from 3% in 2003 - not in last year’s top 20)
16. . Israel 592 (23%, down from 26% in 2003, 15% in 2002)
17. . Hungary 591 (11%, up from 8% in 2003, 11% in 2002)
18. . Bangladesh 568 (52%, slightly down from 53% in 2003 - not in last year’s top 20)
19. . Congo, Rép. Dém. 564 (57%, up slightly from 56% in 2003, 62% in 2002)
20. . St Vincent 208 (21%, up slightly from 20% in 2003 - not in last year’s top 20)

IRB 2004 statistics

Hm, I don't see Germany or the US on the list despite the fact that Wayne's stats would make the US 1st and Germany 7th. If Canada has granted refugee status to people from Germany and the US it would be less than 200 a year. I suspect the actual number is approximately zero, however. Dimitroff 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mention in the post under the FBI heading below there are three categories of refugee. Although Germany is not listed, the U.S. is, with 7,000 in the humanitarian category for the period 2000 - 2005. The U.S. ranks 3rd (2005) in this category after China and Mexico. Wayne 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And as I said above you are confusing refugees from the US (ie permanent residents and US citizens granted refugee status in Canada) with refugees from other countries who are applying from the US as a safe third country. Those 7,000 are not Americans, they're from somewhere else but they've entered Canada from the US. Dimitroff 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA & FBI

These two US agencies have no status in Canada and the Canadian government is not bound by their findings and there's no reason to believe that CSIS and the RCMP had a more thorough file on Zundel gathered in his four decades in the country than the CIA or FBI did based on his 6 years in the US. Also, Zundel's relationship with Canadian extremist groups may well be different than his relationship with US extremist groups ie he was a leader in Canada and almost a nobody in the US.

It is ironic that the same people who called for decades for Canada to stop accepting refugees did a 180 and demanded leniency and compassion when one of their own begs for refugee status. Zundel has no fear of torture in German prisons, or of being shot by the German state or killed by German police. This is the sort of thing refugee conventions are meant to deal with, not someone who is a mere fugitive from German justice.

All this shows, however, is what a complete incompetent Zundel is. If Wayne is right and the US has no problem with Zundel why did he not seek refugee status in the six years he lived in the US? (Wayne, do you honestly think the US would have granted it to him?) Being married to a US citizen why did he not seek US citizenship? Why was he late filing his papers when he knew his US visa was about to expire? Why did he not do something to retain his Canadian landed immigrant status after he left in 2000 rather than forfeiting it? And why did he flee Canada, because he was up before the Human Rights Tribunal, a body that can hand down a maximum fine of no more than $5000! Zundel is the mastermind of his own misfortune. It's his mistakes that have landed him in the mess he's found himself in and all of Wayne's cries of "Blame Canada" don't change that. Dimitroff 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be pointed out that refugee status is meant to apply to someone who has fallen afoul of a law which seems unjust to Canadian eyes and needs to flee. It is not meant for Canada to be a safe haven from where foreign nationals can continue to break the law of their home country, i.e. continuing to ship to Germany incendiary publications violating German law and explicitly supporting political parties banned for advocating overthrow of the German government. Germany and Canada being close allies and Canada's official position being against overthrowal of the German government, compare to the Taliban being a haven for antiUS action, resulting in the US' decision to knock them over.

This brings up the second point: what is the difference between speech and action, when it comes to politics? The German and Austrian governments' position is that political speech is political action, and proNazi speech is proNazi political action, and Holocaust denial is political action; and their history leads them to believe that such action has not been good for their country in the recent past, and I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that fact, all in all, as is the Canadian government.

Whereas in the US and Canada, if you just want to toot your yap about the perfidious Jews and refrain from getting involved in bully-boy action, it's a bit harder to view that as a serious threat to the public peace. The government's position was that Zundel was involved with the leadership of violent groups under the guise of just reporting; "We weren't involved with planning this action, we just heard about it through the grapevine", "We're just announcing a "demonstration", we're not asking people to come out and demonstrate". etc. Given what is publicly known about his contacts and meetings and general close association with those people, the reasonable supposition that the government has informants whose identities must be kept secret for their own safety, the general tolerance of people with unpopular points of view who stick to free speech and refrain from illegal activity as evidenced by Canada being such a popular haven for antisemites despite their cries of persecution, and the aforementioned publicly obvious abuse of the concept of "refugee" status by Zundel to the detriment of Canada's foreign relations, I'm not inclined to postulate a secret conspiracy to unfairly persecute him by the Zionist dominated House of Parliament. The fact that until he ran afoul of the law, he himself was an advocate of banning as "hate speech" creative works which did not suit him merely makes the whole thing ironically amusing. Gzuckier 16:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I made a mistake. I used the CIC website and the page header said "Statistical Overview of the Temporary Resident and Refugee Claimant Population ... Population by Principal Country of Origin". The smaller print, I have just noticed says the figures I gave were for temporary residents.

You still overlook what a refugee is. There are three classes.

Convention refugee "A Convention refugee is a person who is outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group."

Person in need of protection "A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

Humanitarian and Compassionate Review (around 12% of refugees) "People who would suffer hardship if they were returned to their home country may apply to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds."

Zundel is obviously a Convention Refugee and qualifies for the review, he also may qualify for protection using the unusual treatment clause considering he was jailed for free speech. The fact that he is an idiot with rediculous ideas should not count against acceptance. The Canadian courts used the false claim that he was a threat to security to deport him. I never said that Canada was bound to accept the FBI findings but they are bound to allow them to be used as evidence by the defence and this was actively prevented. Wayne 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all you have no idea what was in the CSIS report so you are in no position to judge whether or not it is more complete than the FBI findings. Secondly you have no idea whether or not Judge Blais looked at and considered the FBI report along with the CSIS report. The FBI findings don't prove anything about Zundel's activity in Canada. Thirdly you have no expertise whatsoever in refugee law and its precedents. The Humanitarian and Compassionate Review section occurs at the pleasure of the government - since two ministers of the crown signed the security certificate against Zundel it's quite obvious the government had no willingness to grant Zundel a stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On need of protection, Germany does not torture its prisoners so that's out. On fear of persecution, when was the last time the US granted refugee status to someone fleeing a third world country because he was persecuted for being a communist, socialist or trade unionist? The US does not, as a rule, accept known communists as immigrants so why should Canada accept a known fascist? I ask again if his case is so strong why didn't Zundel apply for refugee status in the US? Dimitroff 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge. It was classified and that is the problem. As the judge said when asked what evidence existed against Zundel...."there is nothing in the unclassified materials”. What little "evidence" has been released by the CSIS is irrelevant as it is hearsay years old and involves extremist groups that no longer exist. Without any evidence and the defense not allowed to provide a defence, the trial is a Star Chamber. The Canadian security certificate (unclassified) actually says "no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence" and it's basis is that Zundel is a threat because he opposes multiculturalism. The Prime Minister of my own country opposes multiculturalism so should he be jailed? Zundel couldn't apply for refugee status in the US because it would have precluded him from applying in Canada and with 40 years residency there and the previous Canadian Supreme court ruling in his favour overturning a similar conviction in 1992, granting status should have been almost a forgone conclusion there. I'd never even heard of Zundel before reading about his conviction and the more I research the more I see human rights dissapearing. People like this can be defeated by using the truth against them, trampling on their rights makes us no better than them. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV which is the whole point of my arguement. Why knowing this, are so many so passionate about opposing changes to bios that support NPOV? Wayne 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge."

The judge saw the classified materials. That he said there was nothing in the unclassified materials doesn't mean there wasn't anything in the classified materials, otherwise he wouldn't have upheld the certificate. As for your claim that Zundel didn't apply for US refugee status because he hoped to do so in Canada that is as nonsensical as your earlier fatuous claims about German refugees in Canada. Zundel was in the US for three years and had no intention of returning to Canada (as he stated many times). In fact he forfeited his landed immigrant status in Canada both by his statements that he will never return to Canada and by his 3 year absence. So why didn't he apply for refugee status while in the US since he hoped to remain there permanently? Why didn't he get his immigration papers in order? Why didn't he seek out US citizenship? The man is a complete incompetent yet and all he does when he complains about his incompetence tripping him up is whine. Dimitroff 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the judge saw the classified materials. From the court's decision, Feb. 24, 2005, regarding the judge's access to the classified evidence, Zundel's own lack of counter to the general allegations of the evidence by providing any evidence depicting his relationship with violent individuals and organizations as anything other than participating in their activity, the constitutionality of the procedure as determined by many precedents, as well as the timeliness of the government's actions versus the delays instigated by Zundel, despite his being in detention which he claimed was injurious to his health:

[3] On May 1, 2003, the Ministers also signed a warrant for Mr. Zündel's arrest pursuant to subsection 82(1) of the IRPA. That same day, by teleconference, as a designated judge of the Federal Court, I commenced the hearing into the reasonableness of the certificate and the reasons for detention, in accordance with paragraph 78(d) and subsection 83(1) of the IRPA.

78. The following provisions govern the determination:

(d) the judge shall examine the information and any other evidence in private within seven days after the referral of the certificate for determination;

...

[6] It is important to note that Mr. Zündel's views on the Holocaust had been known for years, but were of no concern to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). They may well have been an irritant to many and may have been considered as vile and perverse, but they were not enough to label him as a security threat. Rather, the investigations only began when Mr. Zündel crossed the boundaries of free speech and pursuant to the Ministers' opinion, entered the realm of incitement to hatred and potential political violence in relation to the White Supremacist Movement.

...

To demonstrate that the certificate is reasonable, the Ministers must only demonstrate that there is a serious possibility, based on credible evidence, that Mr. Zündel is inadmissible on one of the grounds of inadmissibility provided by section 34 of the IRPA. In fact, the Ministers do not have to conclusively demonstrate any of the allegations of inadmissibility.

...The Ministers have provided considerable evidence, that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security

...

[30] Mr. Zündel was given the opportunity to respond to these findings; he also had the possibility of providing witnesses that could address, explain and give a more adequate and real picture of his true relationship with these people. Mr. Zündel opted to pass up this opportunity and to keep the nature of his affiliation with these people private.

...

52] Based on reliable evidence provided to me in camera

...

[61] I have also reviewed conclusive evidence

...

[87] As I mentioned publicly during the hearing, I understand Mr. Zündel's frustration regarding his inability to access the classified information; nevertheless, I carefully reviewed the classified material and decided that it was not possible to provide more information than was provided in the Summary, as the classified information would be injurious to national security and to the safety of persons if disclosed.

...

The nature of the evidence, kept partly secret, and the fact that no cross-examination was possible for Mr. Zündel mean that I must be particularly careful in assessing the evidence presented and determining what weight it should be given. In addition to his usual role of impartiality, the judge in such a situation must examine with particular thoroughness all the evidence which is presented to him without the benefit of the other party testing its credibility. Other judges of this Court have been placed in a similar discomforting position, where the public interest of an open court collides with the needs of national security. I wish to make it clear that the additional burden placed on the judge is not taken lightly. The information that was presented to me in camera was reviewed with intense scrutiny, and was carefully weighed, with an eye to the quality and number of sources of information. (Re Zündel, 2004 FC 86, 2004 F.C.J. No. 60, at paragraph 12) [my emphasis]

...

But the appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the security certificate issued against him, and for reviewing the reasons for the continuing detention as well as the procedure for reviewing protected information under sections 76 et seq. of the IRPA, do not meet the requirements of the Charter and the three international instruments [The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights] to which he referred. (Re Charkaoui, supra, at paragraphs 101 and 144)

[91] Section 40.1 of the former Immigration Act R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2, was also found to be constitutional (Ahani v. Canada, [1996] F.C.J. No. 937, 201 N.R. 233 (C.A.)):

As to the second proposition, we are of the view that the section 40.1 context is, in no way, akin to a criminal context. In a criminal law context, we have an individual charged with breaking the criminal law of the land who faces punishment if the state succeeds in overcoming his presumption of innocence. In a section 40.1 context, we have an alien who may lose the qualified right to stay in Canada that he gained by being given refugee status, but whose liberty will not then be otherwise impeded. The principles and policies underlining both contexts are obviously totally different, and the standards of procedural safeguards required to satisfy the Charter must necessarily differ. It is true that the filing of the certificate has the immediate unfortunate effect of leading to the arrest and detention of the person concerned, a fate normally reserved to criminals, and this is, no doubt, the most sensitive aspect of the scheme. It must not be forgotten, however, that this detention is not imposed as a punishment, nor is its sole function to assure the presence of the person. Rather, it is principally a means of providing preventive protection to the Canadian public. And, in view of the test for the issuance of the certificate, that is to say the reasoned opinion of two ministers based on security information; in view of the fact that the scheme provides for the obligatory judicial scrutiny of the reasonableness of those opinions within an acceptably short period of time; in view, also, of the possibility given to the detained to put an end to the detention at any time by agreeing to leave the country; and in view, finally, of the type of prohibited class of individuals there are reasons to believe we are dealing with, that is to say individuals somehow associated with terrorism, it appears to us, as it appeared to the learned trial judge, that such preventive detention is not arbitrary, nor excessive. (Ahani v. Canada, supra, at paragraph 4)

...

[93] Mr. Zündel has not been deprived of any of his fundamental rights. Mr. Zündel, a landed immigrant in Canada who still has his German citizenship, left Canada in 2000 claiming that he was somehow abandoning or leaving the country forever in hopes of obtaining American citizenship.

...

[97] The certificate was signed on April 30, 2003 and as a designated judge, I was assigned to the case the same day to review the detention and the certificate.

[98] Unfortunately, over the next two weeks, counsel for Mr. Zündel was only available on May 9 and May 16, 2003, even though the Ministers' counsel were available to start the detention review process right away. After those hearings, counsel for Mr. Zündel remained unavailable until July 2003.

[99] Nonetheless, on May 1, 2003, I promptly began a review of the Security Intelligence Report that was provided by CSIS to the Ministers, which served as the basis to issue the certificate. I also started to review the hundreds of documents that were provided in support of the Security Intelligence Report. On May 5, 2003, I provided the Summary of the evidence presented to me in camera to enable Mr. Zündel to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate. The evidence provided by the Ministers which would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person if disclosed, was kept confidential, in accordance with paragraph 78(h) of the IRPA. It was an important decision because this is where and how the immigration legislation departs from the usual method of full disclosure to the parties. At the very beginning of the hearing, it was also decided that the evidence provided under the detention review process would also be used for the certificate review.

[100] The process under the Canadian Immigration Act has been and is respectful of Mr. Zündel's rights. His detention has been reviewed when he was detained upon his arrival to Canada, the very day after the certificate was issued and every six months after the first decision. There could be future detention reviews and Mr. Zündel was and is still capable of providing new evidence that could justify his release from detention.

[101] Although there were many delays due to numerous last minute motions by Mr. Zündel, different requests for witnesses during the first eight months and a last minute withdrawal of constitutional issues from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in order to introduce them in Ontario Superior Court, the review decision was still rendered on January 21, 2004. A new detention review was supposed to take place in July 2004, but at the request of Mr. Zündel, it was postponed until later that year to allow Mr. Zündel to provide a new witness. This new witness was Mr. Christie, who represented Mr. Zündel at the time, but was removed as solicitor of record very shortly before testifying in this case. A detention review decision was rendered on September 24, 2004.

...

[105] Even though Mr. Zündel seemed forthcoming in answering the questions put to him, he nevertheless deliberately decided not to clarify his relationship with the individuals and organizations mentioned and described in the Summary. The questions were clear, but the answers were shrouded in ambiguity.

[106] Based on what I saw, what I heard, and what was presented to me during the hearings, I have no hesitation in concluding that his testimony lacked credibility on several crucial elements of the case.

...

[109] The decision is made by the judge and not by the Ministers. If the judge arrives at the conclusion that part of the evidence should be disclosed and the Ministers still believe that its disclosure would be injurious to national security, the Ministers may withdraw the evidence that is proposed.

...

[111] Faced with the evidence that was provided by the Ministers, I have no hesitation in concluding that pursuant to section 33 and to paragraph 34(1)(d) of the IRPA, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zündel is inadmissible on security grounds for being a danger to the security of Canada.

Once again, "looks like you made a mistake". I assume the fact that you are mistaken on these and undoubtedly other points of fact in no way changes the decision to which they have supposedly brought you. Gzuckier 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)