Zundel Videos

Ingrid's Veterans Today Articles

Zgrams

File Index

At a conference of the national officers of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Member of Parliament Dr. Rey Pagtakhan called on the Canadian government to move to censor the Internet. He noted that the Canadian Parliament had passed a motion unanimously the previous year calling for measures to stop the spread of "hate propaganda" on the Internet. He stated his belief that freedom was not absolute. (Canadian Jewish News, February 15, 1996)

As the controversy about censorship of the Internet continued to swirl, the founder of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, John Perry Barlow, wrote an essay on the philosophical basis of freedom in Cyberspace. In many ways, it summarized the struggle of Ernst Zündel in his quest for truth, freedom and justice. And it perhaps provided an insight into the wars of the future for the mind and soul of mankind:

A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel. I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are based on matter. There is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before..."

AFTERWORD

By letter dated August 5, 1995, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Sergio Marchi informed Zündel that he believed there were reasonable grounds to believe that Zündel constituted a "threat to the security of Canada" and that an investigation of the matter would be made by Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). Until such an investigation had been completed Marchi was suspending Zündel's application for citizenship.

In October of 1995, SIRC informed Zündel that the grounds for the allegation were based on the "political terrorism" provisions of the Citizenship Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, namely, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Zündel would engage in:

"activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state."

The grounds for believing that Zündel would engage in political violence after living peacefully and lawfully for 38 years in Canada were set out in a summary of the case disclosed to Zündel: Zündel played "an important role within the white supremacist movement in Canada"; he was a "leading distributor of revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda worldwide"; he "supported the use of violence against persons or property as a method to achieve his political goal"; he supported groups and individuals that had engaged in or might engage in "acts of serious violence in the furtherance of common political objectives."

While making the allegation that Zündel advocated violence, the Minister of Citizenship produced no evidence to support the accusation in the summary of its case against Zündel. Instead, the evidence against Zündel centred on the allegation that he was a major publisher of books, videos and articles of "militant revisionist material proclaiming that the Holocaust is a hoax."

The witnesses announced by the Minister of Citizenship to testify openly against Zündel were Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, Ian Kagedan of B'nai Brith and Dan Dunlop of the Ottawa Police Hate Crimes Unit. Warren Kinsella, the author of the book "Web of Hate" backed out of testifying at the hearing days before it was to begin.

Under the procedure mandated to SIRC by legislation, however, it was entitled to hear evidence in camera and ex parte. Zündel would never know who testified against him or what they said. He would have no chance to cross-examine the witnesses openly or to hear their accusations. Only an edited, censored transcript would be made available to him. SIRC lawyers, who know little if anything about Zündel except what they read in the daily press would be the only persons entitled to question these secret witnesses.

Zündel lost an initial application to the Federal Court of Canada to have the hearing before SIRC stopped on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias and violations of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The application was based on the report of SIRC on "The Heritage Front Affair" in which SIRC had repeatedly called Zündel a "Holocaust denier" and "hate monger". As a result the hearing commenced on March 25, 1996 with Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress as the first witness against Zündel.

* * *

The story of Ernst Zündel is the story of the disaster which has befallen Canada in the last thirty years. It is the story of the siege by Jewish organizations on the right of all ordinary Canadians to hear all sides of public issues, to weigh the evidence before them and to decide for themselves where the truth lies and where Canada's national interests lie.

The Jewish organizations of Canada have become vigilantes, taking upon themselves the unauthorized responsibility of interpreting and acting upon matters of law and public and political morality. Time after time, having failed to convince the postal tribunal, the police, Crown attorneys and the Attorney General' s department of their case against Zündel, and having lost the "false news" case against him in the Supreme Court of Canada where both the Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai Brith were given status as interveners, they have indicated that they will not accept the decisions of prosecutorial and judicial authorities. Instead they have declared war on Zündel and all Canadians who wish to live in a civil and peaceful society where debate is based on reason and argument, not on intimidation and coercion. They have repeated that they will not tolerate Zündel, that they will make him a "persona non grata," that they will "put him out of business," that they will pursue him again and again to have him charged under the criminal hate laws of Canada "every time he opens his mouth", that they will try every means to have him deported from Canada to Germany.

The case of Ernst Zündel has exposed for all Canadians the danger of the law against inciting hatred under s. 319 of the Criminal Code in Canada and the power this law has put in the hands of vindictive and militant ethnic organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith and the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association. Armed with the hate law, these self-appointed vigilantes can always argue that their harassment, vilification and defamation of political and philosophical opponents, such as Zündel, is "legal." In result, however, the actions of these organizations amounts to nothing less than an assault on the democratic process in Canada.

The remaining question for Canadians is whether or not their society and democracy will be able to withstand this assault on their traditions and institutions or whether the Jewish organizations will succeed in imposing their ethnic or tribal interests over the freedom of all Canadians to think and weigh historical and philosophical issues for themselves.

APPENDIX I

What is Holocaust revisionism?

Holocaust revisionism, for the publishing of which Ernst Zündel has been persecuted and prosecuted for almost twenty years, involves the critical study of the evidence put forward by historians in support of the claim that the Nazi government of Adolf Hitler deliberately exterminated some six million Jews during World War II mainly in homicidal gas chambers in concentration camps such as Auschwitz.

For many of these claims, the Revisionists have found the evidence to be non-credible or entirely absent. Recent forensic examinations of the alleged gassing sites at Auschwitz, for example, have contradicted the allegation that massive gas chambers there were used to kill thousands of people. Other contradictions and exaggerations in "Holocaust survivor" testimony and other evidence have brought the entire story into question.

Holocaust revisionists believe the evidence proves that the Jewish ethnic minority suffered persecution under the Nazis, deportation to concentration camps, forced labour, disease, malnutrition and deprivation. They believe, however, that the evidence fails to prove a deliberate policy of extermination, the existence or use of homicidal gas chambers to kill millions of people, or the killing of six million Jews. The figure is still in doubt because of lack of credible evidence and the refusal of the Allied governments to allow research into vital archives such as those at Arolsen, Germany, which house the records of the Nazi concentration camps.

The following are reproductions of pamphlets issued by Ernst Zündel during the marking of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz Concentration Camp in January of 1995. The pamphlets clearly set out the controversy surrounding the Auschwitz camp.

1. HOLOCAUST CLAIM - THE NAZIS SUCH AS AUSCHWITZ COMMANDANT RUDOLF HOESS "ADMITTED" THEMSELVES THAT THEY EXTERMINATED THE JEWS IN AUSCHWITZ

The most important "witness" to the alleged mass exterminations of Jews at Auschwitz was the camp's commander, Rudolf Hoess. Hoess' affidavit (written in English, a language there is no evidence he understood) and his testimony before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg were used to justify the hangings of the Nazi leadership on the charge of exterminating the Jews. It was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the extermination story of Auschwitz.

We now know from the book Legions of Death that Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave his "testimony" and "affidavit." His wife and children were threatened with deportation to Siberia. He also spoke of his mistreatment in his "autobiography", Commandant of Auschwitz.

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess' testimony is WORTHLESS. The figures of dead he gave for Auschwitz are totally false. He swore that 2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease for a total dead of 3,000,000. Today the figure of dead claimed for Auschwitz is 1,100,000. He spoke of a concentration camp "Wolzek" which does not exist. Christopher Browning had to admit it in a recent Vanity Fair article that Hoess is an unreliable witness. Browning stated that "Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole."

In fact, the revisionists have concentrated on Hoess because he is probably the most important witness and source for Holocaust historians' conclusions on the "Holocaust". Raul Hilberg relies on his testimony heavily and he was the primary witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the "extermination of the Jews."

HOESS WAS TORTURED UNTIL HE SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY THE ALLIES CONTAINING PATENTLY FALSE INFORMATION. THE ALLIES USED THIS INFORMATION AT NUREMBERG TO JUSTIFY HANGING THE GERMAN LEADERSHIP.

2. HOLOCAUST CLAIM - FOUR MILLION PEOPLE DIED AT AUSCHWITZ

At the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the Allies accused the Germans of killing 4 million people at Auschwitz (Indictment, p. 42) After the war, plaques were erected at the camp which said: "Four Million People Suffered And Died Here At The Hands Of The Nazi Murderers Between The Years 1940 And 1945."

Right up until 1989, major media repeated this figure endlessly in articles on Nazis and the "extermination of the Jews" ("Sheer efficiency at Auschwitz became symbol for war", The Globe and Mail, September 1, 1989)

In 1989 the Soviet Union released the death registers of Auschwitz, revealing a death figure of 74,000 ("Auschwitz ID cards released by Soviets", The Globe and Mail, September 22, 1989) This new list ignited a new controversy over the figure until Holocaust historians were finally forced to admit that the 4 million figure was false ("New list of Holocaust victims reignites controversy over figures" Washington Jewish Week, March 8, 1990)

Israeli Holocaust historian Yahuda Bauer admitted the falsity of the 4 million figure ("Auschwitz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar's Case", The New York Times, November 12, 1989)

In 1990, the plaques at Auschwitz claiming that four million people died there were removed and the toll of dead reduced to 1.1 million ("Poland reduces Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million", The Washington Times, July 17, 1990)

In 1993, the Auschwitz toll was reduced by J.-C. Pressac in a new book on Auschwitz to 800,000. Other Holocaust historians like Claude Lanzmann were furious that Pressac was dealing with documentary proof as the revisionists were instead of relying on emotional testimony of survivors. ("Book on Nazi Murder Industry Stirs French Storm" The New York Times, October 28, 1993)

THE TRUE FIGURE OF AUSCHWITZ DEAD WAS AND IS KNOWN TO THE ALLIES BECAUSE THEY WERE BREAKING THE SECRET CODES SENT BY AUSCHWITZ COMMANDERS TO BERLIN HEADQUARTERS. THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THE TRUE FIGURE IS NOT ABOVE 100,000 DEAD FOR THE WHOLE WAR.

Continue . . .

ADS4711