TORONTO, February 9, 2004. Who lobbied CSIS to get rid of Zündel? Can't tell you; national security? Who authored the report calling him a terrorist? Can't tell you: national security? Did the Minister of Immigration who'd gone on the record denouncing him for making a "mockery" of Canada's refugee protection give directions to CSIS? Can't tell you; national security.

Today was the day any pretence of fairness in the hearing into the reasonableness of a Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) national security certificate alleging that German-born publisher and Canadian political prisoner Ernst Zündel slipped away like the last pastie from a tired sleaze club stripper. Former Solicitor-General Pierre Blais, then boss of Canada's spy force and now the judge in the Zündel case, ran repeated interference to shelter CSIS spokesman Dave Stewart from answering defence lead counsel Peter Lindsay's questions.

Lindsay himself became the object of the bench's attack, being alternately denounced for appearing "nervous", for being on a "fishing expedition" and for "wasting the Court's time" for asking questions. At times, the imposing and lanky Lindsay, his diminutive wife and partner Chi-Kun Shi, ever scouring the voluminous files and transcripts to assist him, and the balding pale publisher, his prison trousers held up with a necktie, seemed like a beleaguered trinity of battlers against an encircling state. The Crown and judge had both been privy to numerous secret hearings and witnesses and every effort of the defence to elicit information on the process followed by Canada's political police was thwarted by the barrier of "national security" erected by Crown attorney Donald MacIntosh and rubber stamped "sustained" by Mr. Justice Pierre Blais.

The emotionally tense day began badly. In a ruling delivered Friday afternoon, Mr. Justice Blais had rejected Mr. Lindsay's motion for an adjournment of proceedings pending the decisions of several courts of appeal on appeals filed in this case. Mr. Lindsay sought clarification of the judge's ruling. Mr. Justice Blais had ruled: "This Court was the proper forum for hearing constitutional challenges." "Is Your Lordship of the view that constitutional challenges can still be brought before Your lordship?" Mr. Lindsay inquired.

"This Court entertains constitutional issues. Unfortunately, you were not here in November. The Crown argued that this Court does not have jurisdiction. I cannot comment on that. A decision was made by your Client to go to another court," the judge responded, referring to Mr. Zündel's habeas corpus motion to the Superior Court of Ontario. "I will not comment on my decision. It was never put to this Court to get a clear answer. My decision speaks by [sic] itself." So, Mr. Lindsay would be left guessing as to what would be proper procedure.

Crown Attorney Donald MacIntosh added to the spirit of "We-know-but-we-won't-tell-you" churlishness. "In my respectful submission, you shouldn't answer this question," he urged the judge. "This Court shouldn't be providing Mr. Zündel with legal advice."

Mr. Lindsay next asked: "Have there been any more secret proceedings since we last me?"

"No," Mr. Justice Blais, sporting an ultra short new crew-cut, answered. "There's nothing mandating that I should mention it, but as a courtesy I always tell you if there was. If I have a legal obligation not to tell you, I would have no legal obligation to tell the parties." The judge's comments were seen to be disingenuous as the Crown is in on all the secret hearings and witnesses. Only Mr. Zündel, his counsel and the public are excluded.

CSIS spokesman Dave Stewart is rail thin. Throughout the day he was asked to leave the court no fewer than 15 times. His "exercise" was occasioned by frequent Crown objections to Mr. Lindsay's questions and the need to hear these arguments with the witness excluded. Indeed, Mr. Stewart's first stint on the stand today lasted all of two questions.

Referring to a four-page summary prepared by CSIS for Mr. Zündel's detention hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board, February 28, 2003, Mr. Lindsay asked: "Who prepared this particular summary?"

"Objection," Crown counsel Donald MacIntosh said.

Mr. Stewart was ordered to leave the room.

"It's a corporate document prepared by CSIS in support of the Minister. It has no relevance to know which individuals prepared this document," Mr. MacIntosh argued. The Crown counsel worried that Mr. Stewart may be led to reveal classified information.

Not for the first time, the judge coached the witness on his return. "Mr. Stewart, before you answer the question, I remind you of your obligation about classified information."

As to the authors of the document, Mr. Stewart responded: "I don't know."

"Who in CSIS would know?" Mr. Lindsay queried.

"Objection., It's not relevant," Mr. MacIntosh interrupted.

"The answer is very clear: he does not know," Mr. Justice Blais said.

Again, Mr. Stewart took a compulsory trip out of the courtroom.

"My previous question was 'who prepared this document?" and it was ruled proper," Mr. Lindsay said. "The witness said he didn't know. Surely, it's proper to learn who might know in order for us to get the best evidence."

"It's a bit of a fishing expedition," the judge snarked.

"I'm not limited in my cross-examination to what is in those five volumes of documents," a visibly angry Mr. Lindsay shot back. "I've never heard that in cross I'm not allowed to conduct a fishing expedition. I had to fight to get this one witness. If I knew what was in the secret evidence," I would not have to ask these questions, he added.

Maintaining the claustrophobic dust closet of secrecy that has fallen over what is becoming a police state in Canada, the judge ruled: "It will not serve the interest of justice to disclose the names of people at CSIS or the RCMP involved in preparing this document."

A frustrated Mr. Lindsay asked: "I just want to understand. If I present any CSIS document, am I not allowed to ask who wrote or prepared it."

Adopting the lordly "What I have written I have written" pose, the judge responded: "I will not comment on my own decision. Don't ask me to comment on it. I have decided that my January 6 ruling applies. This question is not acceptable."

Mr. Stewart trooped back into the courtroom.

"Was this document prepared by employees of CSIS?" Mr. Lindsay inquired.

"That's correct," Mr. Stewart answered.

"Was anybody else involved in its preparation?" Mr. Lindsay continued.

"Objection. It's not relevant," Mr. MacIntosh objected.

Again, Mr. Stewart was directed to leave the room while a legal wrangle ensued. When he returned, the judge coached him: "I again remember [sic] you of your obligation under national security not to disclose the names of CSIS or RCMP employees."

As to others involved in preparing the report, Stewart said: "I don't believe so."

"It may be yes, it may be no," Mr. Lindsay pursued.

"Yes," Mr. Stewart conceded.

"Is there anyone at CSIS who would know?" Mr. Lindsay asked.

"Objection," Mr. MacIntosh said.

Once more Mr. Stewart took a trip to the outer foyer.

"It's not relevant. In my respectful submission, this is a corporate document," Mr. MacIntosh insisted.

"I'm trying to get to the best evidence. To the extent that Mr. Stewart wasn't able to comment on the preparation of this document, perhaps there are others who can," Mr. Lindsay argued.

"Pursuant to my decision of January 6, I will maintain [sic] the objection," the former CSIS boss ruled.

Mr. Stewart was recalled. "Do you know for a fact that the Department of Justice had any input into this document," Mr. Lindsay asked.

Department of Justice lawyer MacIntosh was on his feet. "Objection!"

Mr. Stewart took another walk.

The defence lead counsel was now in for a dressing down from the judge. "Mr. Lindsay, I think you miss my point. Whether other federal agencies were involved is not pertinent. You're entitled to ask questions, but you're asking about the fabric of this document. It doesn't matter. You're wasting the time of this Court. We're going nowhere. You're trying to get indirectly what you can't get directly," the judge said.

"To be brutally frank, I don't have to telegraph where I'm going," Mr. Lindsay told the judge. "I've never in my life been told how to cross-examine. We've been here 45 minutes because every question I ask has been objected to."

"It's not relevant," came the chorus from Mr. MacIntosh.

"The objection is maintained [sic] on the basis of the January 6 decision," Mr. Justice Blais intoned.

In the next round, Mr. Lindsay was able to ask a few questions before the Crown objected.

"Was this document carefully prepared to be accurate?" Mr. Lindsay asked.

"Yes, I believe so," the CSIS spokesman answered.

"Was it prepared to be fair?" Mr. Lindsay continued.

"I don't know what the word 'fair' means," Mr. Stewart replied.

Again, Mr. Lindsay asked: "Is this document accurate?"

"I don't know," the CSIS witness admitted.

After the morning break,. Mr. Lindsay directed the witness's attention to the five green-bound volumes of support material for the two May 1 summaries of the CSIS case against Mr. Zündel. "Does CSIS have any evidence of Mr. Zündel advocating violence or terrorism in literature he sent out?"

The Crown objected.

"Surely, there can't be a question of classified material in literature Mr. Zündel publicly sent out."

Again, Mr. Stewart headed for the door. "I'm asking whether CSIS has evidence of Mr. Zündel advocating violence or terrorism in literature he sent out. I don't see how his own literature that he sent out can be considered 'classified' material. I'm entitled to a clear answer not muddied up by 'classified,'" Mr. Lindsay said.

"It's not obvious to me whether it would be classified or not. It's possible some literature going out from Mr. Zündel over the years could be classified," the judge opined. "I don't know."

When Mr. Stewart returned, Mr. Lindsay asked: "Apart from a 1981 Toronto Star article, does CSIS have any other evidence of Mr. Zündel advocating violence or terrorism in literature he sent out?"

"I can't recall," was the CSIS spokesman's response.

"Without asking about the content of any classified information, are you saying CSIS has evidence of Mr. Zündel advocating violence in his literature? I'm not asking for names or dates or particulars," Mr. Lindsay explained.

"Objection," said Murray Rodych CSIS special counsel, now taking over the objection duties from Donald MacIntosh. Once again, Mr. Stewart left the room, while his legal defenders stymied the defence lawyer.

"It's a slippery slope," Mr. Rodych argued. "It's getting into the mosaic effect, where an informed reader can deduce information about CSIS. It goes to the whole question of national security. Just confirming or denying might lead to inferences about investigative techniques, searches and surveillance."

"I know the evidence classified and non-classified in this case," the former CSIS boss ruled. "I have no hesitation in saying the answer to this question would be injurious to national security or the safety of any person."

When Mr. Stewart returned, Mr. Lindsay asked: "Does CSIS have any evidence of Mr. Zündel advocating violence on the Zundelsite?"

"I don't believe so," Mr. Stewart replied.

"Presumably, if there were such evidence, it would be deemed to be important and would be in the summary," Mr. Lindsay continued.

"That is a fair assumption," Mr. Stewart conceded.

Referring back to the CSIS summary presented at the February 28 detention review hearing, Mr. Lindsay asked: "There's a section about Mr. Zündel's activities in Canada. Would this be a summary of CSIS's concerns about Mr. Zündel's activities in Canada up to February 28?"

"Some of the concerns," Mr. Stewart hedged.

"Is there one word about Mr. Zündel or violence in Canada? It is mostly about his mailing out literature," Mr. Lindsay said.

"No there is not," Mr. Stewart admitted.

It had become clear that Ernst Zündel's crime is political. It is his literature and ideas, not violence or terrorism, that concern the Canadian authorities.

An ancient Toronto Star article from 1981 reports breathlessly of raids by West German police on hundreds of people smeared as "neo-Nazis". In the course of the raids, literature from Ernst Zündel was found. This article has been a key part of the CSIS case.

"Did CSIS bother to point out whether Mr. Zündel faced any charges in West Germany as a result of the distribution of this material?" Mr. Lindsay asked. "Does it matter to CSIS that Mr. Zündel was charged and acquitted for the distribution of this material?"

There were Crown objections and the judge purported to be mystified by the question. "I'm entitled to probe how careful and fair CSIS is. It will be my submission that CSIS thrown some mud, but doesn't present the bottom-line facts."

"You're looking for inferences that are not made," Mr. Justice Blais said defending his old employees at CSIS. This is self-serving. He's not an expert. This is a political question based on an allegation that is not made."

"The government made reference to a particular incident. Mr. Zündel is bad, it said. See there. All this literature seized. But there was a trial and an acquittal. Yet, CSIS doesn't say he was charged and acquitted. This is relevant in determining the quality of the information presented to the Minister," Mr. Lindsay argued.

"I will not accept this question," the judge ruled. Later, further protecting the CSIS spokesman, Mr. Justice Blais blasted Mr. Lindsay: "I'll not tolerate that you be condescendent [sic] to the witness. I'll not let you lecture the witness. He's been co-operating."

"Your Lordship should not be making positive comments about the witness while he's on the stand," Mr. Lindsay countered.

In a dramatic conclusion to a stormy day, the Crown and judge stymied defence efforts to learn the extent of Jewish lobbying of CSIS. "Do any of the contents of the May 1 summary come from Jewish groups seeking the removal of Mr. Zündel from Canada? "M. Lindsay asked.

"Objection! National security," Mr. MacIntosh said. Mr. Stewart again trekked to the door.

An incredulous Peter Lindsay pointed out that the April 30 CSIS summary -- a non-classified document -- quoted a report from the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith. "How can this be 'national security'?" he demanded.

"It's an improper question," the dogged MacIntosh replied. "He cannot ask for the source of CSIS's information or who those sources are. His question is designed to elicit in camera material."

When he returned to the witness box, Mr. Stewart said: "I'm not sure I can identify which groups are calling for Mr. Zündel's removal from Canada."

"Are you aware that B'nai Brith called for Mr. Zündel's removal from Canada?" Mr. Lindsay asked.

"I don't know," Mr. Stewart responded,

"Have representatives of CSIS met with representatives of B'nai Brith in reference to Mr. Zündel?" Mr. Lindsay probed.

"Objection," snapped Mr. MacIntosh.

"There's evidence of Jewish groups calling for Mr. Zündel to be removed from Canada," Mr. Lindsay answered.

Once more the stifling blanket of alleged 'national security' was drawn over the proceedings. "It's injurious to national security to enter the domain of the methodology of CSIS. I will not allow that," Mr. Justice Blais ruled.

Mr. Lindsay then entered a binder of articles and press releases about Mr. Zündel. He referred to a B'nai Brith press release from February, 2003. The press release reported a meeting between B'nai Brith President Frank Dimant and the Minister of Immigration where the Jewish lobby group sought Mr. Zündel's removal from Canada. "This group is in close contact with the minister who signs the certificate. It's appropriate to know whether this group is in contact with CSIS, who prepares the report for this same minister," Mr. Lindsay said.

"Are you aware of contacts between the minister and B'nai Brith in 2003?" the defence counsel asked.

"I'm not," Mr. Stewart replied.

"Are you aware of contacts between CSIS and B'nai Brith in 2003?"

"Objection," said Mr. MacIntosh, leaping to the defence of the lobbyists.

"Sustained," came the predictable ruling.

"Are you aware of directions given by the Minister of Immigration to CSIS?" Mr. Lindsay asked.

Again, Mr. MacIntosh objected. "It could be injurious to national security. It could be injurious in terms of CSIS methodology."

"The Globe and Mail of February 20, 2003 said Immigration Minister Denis Coderre was 'furious' when he learned Mr. Zündel had returned to Canada and had made a 'mockery' of Canada's refugee system," Mr. Lindsay responded.

"Using the politically correct catch-all term, Mr. MacIntosh argued: "It's not appropriate to ask that."

"Based on previous decisions about national security, this question is not acceptable," the former CSIS boss and Ottawa insider ruled. "Objection is maintained [sic]." 

The Zundel Defence Fund Needs Your Help Today
November and December have been very expensive months for the Zündel case. We have spent just over $50,000. Yes, part of this was to bring the Lindsays up to speed in the case. We had six court dates -- four in federal court and two in Superior Court in Ontario for a habeas corpus motion. Ernst Zündel, of course, spent Christmas in prison. January was a expensive month, with four days planned in Federal Court -- January 22, 23, 26, and 37. Added to than was an appeal in Federal Court to be heard January 28.

The Defence Fund is very seriously depleted and we face major outlays in the February. I again ask for your commitment and urgent help. Please mail us your contribution today or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date.

We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst Zündel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature study. Mr. Zündel has long been a paint and sketch artist. He had returned to his love of art before the U.S. I.N.S picked him up and deported him. He has done a number of new and beautiful designs, including Stonehenge and oak leaves. All donors of $100 or more will receive one of these sketches. Mail your donation today to CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date. On your cheque or an accompanying piece of paper, note: "For Zündel Defence Fund."

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

The hearing before Mr. Justice Pierre Blais looking into the reasonableness of the CSIS national security certificate declaring Toronto publisher Ernst Zundel a threat to national security resumes tomorrow (Monday) in Federal Court at 360 University Avenue, in Toronto, at 9:30 a.m.

Other dates scheduled for February are the 12th, 18th and 19th.

In other developments, the Federal Court of Appeal extended a one hour allocation to two and a half, Wednesday, January 28, and asked searching questions of the Crown. Yow motions were being heard: one to strike Mr. Zundel's appeal against Mr. Justice Blais's refusal to force the Crown to produce the names of CSIS and RCMP agents involved in gathering material in the Zundel case for the certificate and Mr. Zundel's motion for a stay in proceedings until the various appeals -- one in Federal Court and one in Provincial Court -- are heard. The three judge panel reserved on the matter.

Interestingly, on January 28, the very day of the important appeal calling for a stay, the TORONTO STAR, which has virtually never seen an immigrant, except Ernst Zundel, it didn't like, weighed in demanding that he be deported immediately. The STAR has all but ignored the Zundel hearings, ignored, of course, the crucial issues of secret, in camera hearings, a judge with a screaming apparent conflict of interest (he was CSIS's boss and CSIS is the source of the wild accusations against Mr. Zundel), and the fact that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act permits "anything" the judge chooses to be considered as evidence -- even hearsy and triple hearsay.

Nonetheless, the STAR ran its strident editorial the very day of the hearing. Those with devious minds might be inclined to suggest that certain "interests" were seeking to give their marching orders to the three Federal Court appeals judges.

The STAR editorial is filled with errors. For instance, "He has thumbed his nose at our laws and made a mockery of our justice system for decades, tying the courts up with increasingly arcane legal gambits." Actually, Ernst Zundel never sought to be before the Canadian courts. Despite numerous prosecutions at the behest of strident anti-free speech minority groups, Mr. Zundel has never been convicted of any crime in Canada.

Is the STAR really saying that we have no room for "diversity" of opinion? In every other way, the foghorn of the Liberal Party has had a love affair with "diversity."

"The Canadian Security Intelligence Service declared him a threat to national security a decade ago, " the STAR explains. Well, that's true and that's what the court hearings are all about. Labelling this pacificst publisher a "threat to national security" is a travesty. It criminalizes peaceful dissent and cheapens a serious concept -- national security.


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION


________________
EDITORIAL: Deport Zundel now

Toronto Star, Jan. 28, 2004)

At the risk of giving Ernst Zundel and his supporters more of the attention they so crave, we must ask once again: Why is he still in Canada?

Zundel, an infamous Holocaust denier, has no claim on this country. He is not a citizen. He has thumbed his nose at our laws and made a mockery of our justice system for decades, tying the courts up with increasingly arcane legal gambits.

His latest attack on Canada began nearly a year ago, when he was deported here by American immigration authorities. Since then, he has tied up the courts in legal actions by trying to claim refugee status.

Now he is engaged in another endless fight, this time over whether he is a security risk. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service declared him a threat to national security a decade ago.

Zundel has a country. It is Germany, which wants to see him return so he can face charges in a raft of crimes related to his spread of hate literature. But his allies claim sending him there amounts to persecution.

It is time to end this legal mess.

The federal government and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler must quickly get their act together and expedite this case. Judges should also move the case to the top of their court files.

Well past time to buy Zundel a one-way ticket.
____________
The Zundel Defence Fund Needs Your Help Today
November and December have been very expensive months for the Zundel case. We have spent just over $50,000. Yes, part of this was to bring the Lindsays up to speed in the case. We had six court dates -- four in federal court and two in Superior Court in Ontario for a habeas corpus motion. Ernst Zundel, of course, spent Christmas in prison. January was a expensive month, with four days planned in Federal Court -- January 22, 23, 26, and 37. Added to than was an appeal in Federal Court to be heard January 28.

The Defence Fund is very seriously depleted and we face major outlays in the February. I again ask for your commitment and urgent help. Please mail us your contribution today or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date.

We have a number of delicate colour-pencil sketches by Ernst Zundel done in prison. Each is dated and signed. Each is a nature study. Mr. Zundel has long been a paint and sketch artist. He had returned to his love of art before the U.S. I.N.S picked him up and deported him. He has done a number of new and beautiful designs, including Stonehenge and oak leaves. All donors of $100 or more will receive one of these sketches. Mail your donation today to CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date. On your cheque or an accompanying piece of paper, note: "For Zundel Defence Fund."

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Many of our readers have asked us to find out more about Canada's second
most famous political prisoner, 44-year old Mississauga bricklayer and
inveterate letter writer Brad Love. Last July, Mr. Love pleaded guilty to
charges under Sec. 319.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada -- "wilful
promotion of hate" against a privileged minority group.

His crime: writing letters to MPs and several other public figures. Before
the ascendancy of minorities in this country and the supremacy of political
correctness, his actions would have been seen as laudable. After all,
firing off a letter to an MP used to be considered the constructive
approach a concerned citizens ought to take. Not so. Brad received the
harshest sentence ever under Canada's notorious gag laws -- 18 months in
prison.

When lawyer Doug Christie learned Mr. Love had pleaded guilty to the
charges, he exploded: "He did what? You should never plead guilty to such
charges!"

In fact, as the letters were private communications -- in a subsequent
CAFEGRAM, I'll include some of their contents -- they weren't even public
communications subject to the law. As Mr. Love's letter makes clear,
police, Crown and government officials had decided to rid themselves of a
critic and nuisance.

Love's sentence demonstrates the lunacy of Canadian courts -- clearly more
political by the day. About two weeks ago, Minh Thuy Dang, a Vietnamese,
"masseuse" and whore pleaded guilty to manslaughter and "conspiracy to
commit murder". An Ontario judge gave her all sorts of sentencing discounts
for having ratted on her fellow conspirators and for having pleaded guilty.
In the end, she got 31 months for being the ringleader in a plot that ended
with the murder of her lover, pimp, a marijuana grow-up owner, Dung That
Ton,  and  his wife, Bong Thi Bui, who had befriended the ungrateful slut.
Amazingly, the judge Madam Justice Michelle Fuerst thought a mere 31 months
was "appropriate" -- that cursed politically correct term -- for what she
called acts "reflective of unspeakable evil."

So, let's get this straight: plot and participate in the murder to two
people and you get 31 months. Write MPs about your views about the
immigration invasion they've unleashed and your impertinence buys you 18
months. It's clear that our courts are more afraid of thinkers than
cheating whores and killers.


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION



BRAD LOVE LETTER - January 20, 2004

Happy New Year and all the best to all!

I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know how I've been doing since my
 April 8th (2003) arrest and incarceration.

BRAD LOVE LETTER - January 20, 2004

Happy New Year and all the best to all!

I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know how I've been doing since my
April 8th arrest and incarceration.

Here's the play-by-play. April 8, gunpoint arrest at a construction site
in Cambridge by four York Region Police officers. Charges: Harassment, two
counts, scurrilous mail two counts, for writing signed letters to York
Chief LaForge about his purchase of a $½ million mobile command center
(wouldn't simply cutting immigration be better?); and for writing "charity
director" Leo Adler about his remarks on Ernst Zundel in a previous news
conference. I asked him that, if he had so much sway with the IRB
(Immigration and Refugee Board), then could he please help turf out all of
the more violent illegals (news clippings included) that are running amok
and that our media tells us of daily.

Two weeks later, I finally went for a bail hearing. Bail was granted after
five hours and much innuendo, but I was promptly rearrested by a female OPP
officer telling me: "You're not going anywhere, Love. We're rearresting
you for letters (they were years old) you sent to MPPs!" This they did and
I was transferred from West Toronto Detention Center. to the
Don Jail (both multicultural cesspools) where I was denied bail the next
day at City Hall.

My badly shaken lawyer then excused himself from my case. Hmmm? After two
weeks at the Don Jail, I was transferred back to Etobicoke's West
Toronto's Detention Center and several days later, was taken to Peel
Courthouse where I was charged with writing to a local councilwoman
sometime the previous year. Obviously there was a concerted effort to layer
charges against me.

Months passed. Because of SARS lockdown (at the Metro West Detention
Center), I have no visits in July. The RCMP charged me with years-old
letters written to MPs. I'm facing approximately 20 charges in four
jurisdictions and growing weary of attending court with not a whole lot of
progress. I'm in for a fight. I'm representing myself. The cops look like
they'd rather be elsewhere. The courts can't figure anything out. My
family/fiancée are fretting. I've lost two jobs. My bank account is
bleeding as I try to maintain my life and it's all uphill.

So, after roughly four months in custody, I am reacquaint with my lawyer
who says he will consolidate my charges and seek out a "deal." Oh, did I
mention police officer who when not trashing my car, apartment, etc, took
the time to visit my ex-wife's current fiancé and even my 94-year-old
grandfather at his northern (Ontario) home. How they found them is beyond
me. So, they reminded my loved ones of how bad I was and how much jail
time I would be serving but my family, having heard the lies of the
government for most of their lives, quietly closed the door on such an
intrusion.

In July, because of overcrowding, I was transferred again, this time to a
$84 million super jail in Lindsay, Ontario far from friends, visits,
lawyers, etc. On July 28, I was paddywagoned for two hours back to the
Newmarket Courthouse where even more charges were laid against me before my
plea.

These included a "concealed weapons charge" for they found a knife in my
car, having searched it three weeks after I had been taken into custody
back in April. Unbelievable! But now they find they have something sinister
to attach to the crime of writing signed letters to MPs/MPPs for over the
past ten years to which I received perhaps five replies. They charged me
with a letter that I had written in 1999, for god's sake but before a
Jewish judge, an East Indian crown, a female federal crown, one OPP cop and
Newmarket's midget of political correctness, York Region cop, Peter Heard,
I stood in chains to plead "no contest".

Sure, I could have fought alone, maybe winning some, but my lawyer told me
that the would simply contact more politicos asking them for letters I had
sent and bring even more charges against me.

Can one man in a democracy such as ours, use all the media information at
hand and set it as backup evidence to the beefs that I have regarding
foreign aid, immigration, multiculturalism, waste, etc.? Well, the answer
is no. Police themselves told me: "Why stick your lone neck out? Why not
form a group? You would be immune to us?"

And I simply stated: "I am one man, one vote. Can't I also take part in
democracy?"

Well, we all know the answer to that. They said it was "racist" of me to
point out that too much of our violent crime I think can be directly
linked to various ethnic groups and open door immigration. Which is odd
because every day of my ten months in custody, my daily paper provides me
with facts/photos proving that this is exactly the case. Could SARS be
linked to (civet) cat munching Chinese people as I said? Well, my newspaper
told me exactly this last week. Do we give too much of our money away to
corrupt nations that despise us, while ignoring the plight of our elderly,
homeless, etc.? Again, the media presents direct evidence of this. Are
there tens of thousands of illegals, students and migrants, currently
running loose in the GTA? Well, my own government confesses this. In fact,
as testimony to their own incompetence, they recently moved 1000
intelligence/enforcement officers into a public safety detail. Feel
safer now? Yeah, me neither! In fact, I don't really fear these
undocumented thugs. I fear a government and it's agencies who have come
down hard on those who speak or write about them and jail them for a longer
time than the bad guys themselves get. I fear those who shoot the
messenger rather than address his message. And I fear the big mouth
hypocritical and vindictive kibbutzim who can so easily sway the
government/courts/cops into doing their dirty work and hunting down those
who speak uncomfortable truths. And I am wary of a media that never
questions such abuses of free speech and civil rights. And I'm confused
over the comments of our Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler (whom I'm banned
from writing to among others) who is quoted as saying in The Toronto Star
December 13, "He's not afraid to speak his mind" which is great for him but
could he also grant the same freedom to others who may oppose some of his
secular views?

But what is crystal clear is that far too many disenfranchised, apathetic,
complacent citizens in this country have abandoned their
courage/integrity/common sense while watching their freedoms being
curtailed and their social system eroded. Throw in the specter of violent
crime that edges closer to them daily and I'd say that thing are really in
a downward spiral. So let this be a tale of woe. Speak out, act up, but do
it en masse. Don't attach one name to a letter, attach a committee. Don't
make one phone call, have dozens make the same call. Don't call the media
but summon them to your event. And above all else, don't think one has to
be a hero, activist or extremist to make our world a better place. Simply
take part in the activities you believe in. Damn the consequences if the
cause is just.

Brad Love, Lindsay, Super Jail 541 Highway 36, Lindsay, ON, K9V 6H2