Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1998 - Ingrid A. Rimland
In what seems to be an in-house publication by a liberal Jewish spokesman, Alan Borovoy, head of the Canadian version of the ACLU and an ostensible "free speech" devotee - the future will reveal if he deserves that designation - we have a brand new, if somewhat skinny book, "The New Anti-Liberals".
By that, we soon find out, he means his tribal fellow travelers who know that yesterday's destructive brand of Marxist-tinted liberalism foisted on an unsuspecting Gentile public no longer works for them.
The title was published this year by Canadian Scholars' Press, an obscure, little-known outfit, and deals with matters of keen interest to those of us engaged in exposing the tribe's free speech abuses to the public, in the alternative media, in the Canadian courts such as the Federal Courts, and various other legal fronts, such as the misnamed Human Rights Tribunals.
My heart was just melting like butter in the sun when I read how Bovovoy ever so gingerly cautions his fellow tribesmen to lay off their self-immolation course of insisting on free speech for themselves while noisily denying it to opposition activists - Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Malcolm Russ, Doug Collins and others.
I am running a multi-part series on Borovoy's writings , starting with page 43:
Some defenders of the anti-hate law have argued that there is a certain amount of vagueness in all legislation. According to them, arguments such as mine make the case not against the hate law in particular, but against all law in general. There is, of course, an element of truth to this contention. It fails, however, to adequately address two critical issues:
(1) Most of our criminal law is nowhere nearly as vague as the anti-hate provision. Murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, and theft, for example, are defined with much more precision.
(2) Where there is comparable vagueness, the values put at risk involve matters such as driving a car (it requires "reasonable care") not values like freedom of speech, which engage the very grievance procedure of the democratic system. Those who seek to control dangerous instruments such as automobiles should be chilled into being exceptionally careful. Those who seek to speak their minds in order to redress grievances should not be commensurably chilled.
That last sentence says it all. If Borovoy was not so blinkered by his tribal outlook and mindset, he would have recognized that this is what Ernst Zundel has wanted all along. But right up front Borovoy conveniently misses the point.
It was the Jewish Lobby to begin with who was instrumental in agitating for a hate law, and in formulating the wording of that law. If it is "imprecise" - then that was by Talmudic design.
But be that as it may. Some laws might be more precise than others, but all Revisionists are asking is that all be treated equally according to existing laws. But as per usual, Jews want to have a double standard. To Borovoy we say: Redress the German grievance of incessant Holocaust propaganda by your own tribesmen. Help stop the Lobby's agitating the world against Germans - and Mr. Zundel would long ago have gone away to paint pretty pictures, as he did before the "Holocaust" deluge of lies piled on lies offended his ethnic pride and sensibilities.
If it is okay to hound Ernst Zundel for decades through one court after another for "defaming" Jews, then it should be equally okay to hound Elie Wiesel for defaming Germans by exhorting Jews to reserve a "zone of hatred, healthy, virile hatred" for Germans, or Goldhagen for his blanket accusation that the entire German nation was made up of walking executioners.
Significantly, if the Canadian Jewish Congress had had its way, the anti-hate law would have been even wider. In the early 1980s, the CJC had called for removing the requirement that the provincial attorney general must consent to certain anti-hate prosecutions. Ironically, therefore, (a) mainstream publisher could well have faced criminal charges for putting out the pro-Zionist book and the Jewish leader could have suffered a similar fate for his anti-Nazi criticism of the Austrians. As anyone who has ever faced a criminal trial can readily testify, it's a harrowing ordeal. Eventual acquittal can never adequately obliterate the experience.
In the mid-1960s, there were demands in Canada by those in Jewish circles pushing for the hate law that "hate mongers" get put into insane asylums for years! Yet when Bronfman called Austrians a nation of dirty anti-Semitic dogs during a Montreal speech attended by Austrians in this country, the police and attorney generals of Ontario and Quebec were too intimidated to charge Bronfman.
Compare that to Ernst Zundel's treatment - by the same judiciary, in the 1980s - and ever since! Four days after the Supreme Court of Canada on August 27, 1992 had ruled that society would be enriched by giving free reins to speech that the majority might consider wrong or false, these free-speech destroying Jewish Lobbyists were back in the courts, as though the Supreme Court had never ruled, trying to get Zundel re-charged under the very hate law they knew would not hold up in the first round.
And they have tried to do it ever since - and ever since, various attorney generals have said Nyet while trembling in their moccasins, taking abuse and vilification heaped on them for not doing the Lobby's shrill bidding.
Within the next few years, there is a not insignificant risk that Jews will become more serious targets of the anti-hate law. The risk could be triggered by the ways in which Jews decide to deal with the disquieting signs of resurgent anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere. One way to counteract these trends is to pressure the governments in North America to take retaliatory action against those foreign governments that either unduly encourage or inadequately address anti-semitic activities within their borders. This will require mobilizing public opinion here at home. Such mobilization could, in turn, require some tough talk. Canadian Jews might well have occasion to condemn, in general terms, the behaviour of certain foreign governments and their peoples. To whatever extent Canadian Jews believe that large numbers of people in other countries are behaving in an unacceptable manner, there will be a felt need to excoriate them in the harshest terms. The stronger such language becomes, the greater the risk of crossing the boundaries of the anti-hate law.
What a lot of verbiage! What Borovoy really is afraid of shines through. And it is this - that one of these merry days there will be some - most likely colored - immigrants who can't be intimidated by the smear words "Nazi" and "Racist". And these folks are going to take Jewish hate mongers (writers, lobbyists) triumphantly to court. It is only a matter of time! The Arabs are fed up. Many Blacks are fed up, and their power is growing. Borovoy knows it. The man in the street knows it. What Borovoy is saying is that the previous tactic - to increase the smears to stop legitimate resentment of people in Europe against Jews engaged in societal abuses - is bound to boomerang on Jews.
You can't smear people forever and hope that will stop them from speaking the truth as they see it. There are, after all, more minorities in Canada than merely the self-Chosen Jews. Others will say: "Hey, wait! Just what did you call me just now? Don't we have an anti-hate law on the books? And don't you have a great big pile of money?"
Moreover, there is good reason to question how well the cause of racial and ethnic dignity is otherwise served by the anti-hate law. In significant ways, the requirements of a criminal prosecution are at variance with the canons of common sense. From the standpoint of common sense, the one thing you should not do is debate the merits of a malevolent obscenity. As Toronto Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut once observed, if someone calls your mother a whore, that is not a fit subject for a debate.
That would depend on whether or not your mother really was a whore. If the lady in question stood accused of harming society by being a teacher by day and soliciting clients by night, the charge should be appropriately investigated. If Ernst Zundel calls the Holocaust Industry a Reparations Racket, it is entirely appropriate to ask him to put on the table his facts. He should have a right to do that. The Lobby knows perfectly well that he would like nothing better than to follow the invitation to have a debate. They know they have lied and manipulated, cooked the books and fried the statistics. They cannot afford a debate. Thus, they hide behind the ever more threadbare claim that there is nothing to debate.
Ernst Zundel ***is*** debating them - in the courtrooms, before Human Rights Tribunals - all the while getting those transcripts, which will be worth their weight one day in freedom if not gold.
Thought for the Day:
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Back to Table of Contents of the Aug. 1999 ZGrams