"...REASONABLE SUSPICION..." ?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ernst Zündel is a scapegoat for such individuals

 

There are ugly and nasty individuals who need 

scapegoats otherwise they cannot function within society. 

 

There are sad individuals who lust for power without

 having a moral framework that contextualises their actions. Often it is a 

frustrated and vindictive bureaucrat  — bureaucracy gone mad! —  who acts 

on behalf of a 'government', then forgets while holding a position, that it is 

only a temporary position that will one day have to be vacated, and then the

 public servant stands naked before a mirror —  that proverbial judgment 

day, something graphically depicted in The Picture of Dorian Gray.

 

Power does not corrupt because 'power' is an abstraction. Persons in 

positions of power will, through their actions, reveal the moral foundation 

of their character. For example, the US President is set on waging war 

against a country that is simply no match, and hence this is an act of 

aggression, a coward's war that is unjust/immoral. 

 

Such individuals have an abject mindset that thrives on inflicting hurt 

and humiliation because it operates on  'them-us' and on 'slave-master' concepts. 

 

They are primitive and unsophisticated in the negative sense because 

they are derivative, and ultimately they self-destruct.

 

 Such individuals have a mindset that operates only within a materialistic-fast 

buck value-system. It is a parasitic environment where the civilising influence 

of cultural endeavours does not flourish.

 

The so-called due legal process they accord to individuals, where there is much

 talk about giving an individual a fair go, actually defames those they dislike.

 Their victims are labelled and libelled 'haters', 'Holocaust deniers', antisemites', 

'racists', 'neo-Nazis', 'xenophobes', etc.

 

 Truth, honour and justice become meaningless concepts, while 

moral and intellectual integrity is scorned and despised. 

 

These individuals are the true voices of hate because their thought patterns

 rests on 'deficiency' thinking that is driven by immaturity/arrested 

development, envy, greed and hatred. The concept of 'balance' is regarded 

by such thinkers a weakness that needs to be attacked and eliminated. 

 

They claim to be merchants of 'change', the essence of the

 'bread-and-circus' politics currently pracised by the 

politically correct. 

 

Such individuals hate meeting others who have 'developed', 

or, as literary criticism has it, have developed from flat into round characters.

These flat characters are the politically correct who live in the domain 

of perpetual puberty blues where scapegoating reigns supreme and 

where self-reflection is hate-speak.

 

  They hate those individuals who express a loyalty to their own ethnic group, 

in Zündel's case the Germans and their national homeland.

 

And so they brand Zündel"...a patriarch or leader of the White Supremacist 

Movement in Canada...", and in their Talmudic legalese, they forget

 that 'trust' is the essence of any civilised society, not dialectic trickery! 

 

Dishonour 'trust' as a moral virtue and relationships break down and

 "we'll see you in court" becomes the catch-cry.

 

Cui Bono?

 

Zündel is a soft target, and this action against him can be likened to the

 war the USA is fighting on behalf of Israel against Iraq: It is a no-match

 contest, not at all a manly thing to do. President Bush's defamation of 

President Hussein is indicative of a mindset that has lost contact with basic

 civility where honour of one's enemy still plays a role. 

 

Bush, and those before him — especially those who still to this day 

scapoegoat and demonise Adolf Hitler —are distorting our sense of 

world history. How? Even an evil person has some redeeming virtue, and

 any intelligent person knows such disputable views must be aired in open 

debate, i.e. if we wish to make sense of the world in a 

non-dogmatic/ideological way.

 

President Saddam Hussein may have an evil mind-set that has led to untold

 tragedies. But so has US military behaviour. But such a judgment then

 needs to be carried over into the USA's political scene, otherwise our

 judgment about Saddam Hussein behaviour lacks balance.

 

 After all, didn't Britain and the USA create Saddam Hussein's alleged 'weapons 

of mass destruction'? Is this not why the USA and Great Britain 'know' what 

there is to find in Iraq — because they shipped it there in the first place?

  

The US proxy war will be a Pyrrhic victory because it is not a just war — all 

wars are tragedies and never just.

 

Back to Ernst Zündel: We have cowards hounding a man that dares stand

 up to those who tell lies about Zündel's Fatherland, Germany.

 

Read the script carefully and see what individuals emerge therefrom.

 

Remember, if you ever find yourself in such situation, then never let 

yourself be intimidated into silence by comments that you must remain 

relevant, etc. Say your bit as politely as possible so that it is on the

 record. Whenever you are interrupted consider this as an indication you

 are saying the things that will hurt them later.

 

The hate merchants consider telling the truth an act of hate

 speech/antisemitic hate propaganda, and that is a perversion of justice.

 

However, do not blame the Jews/Zionists for this state of affairs, 

but rather blame those that bend to the pressure exerted by 

such groups that pervert the course of justice.

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF ZUNDEL DETENTION HEARING, FEBRUARY 28, 2003

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD - IMMIGRATION DIVISION -

Record of a Detention Review under the Immigration Act, concerning

ERNST ZUNDEL

HELD AT: Niagara Falls, Ontario

DATE: February 28, 2003

BEFORE: K. Thomson -  Member

APPEARANCES:

E. Zundel - Person Concerned
B. Reid - Minister's Counsel

N/A  - Counsel
N/A - Interpreter  

 

[Original spelling retained, ed.]

 

MEMBER:  This is a seven day detention review concerning Ernest Zundel at Niagara Falls, Ontario.  Today is the 28th of February 2003. My name is Ken Thomson; I am the Presiding Member of  the Immigration Division. 
Now, there are several people here who I do not recognize, except for Mr. Reid, who is the Minister's Counsel.

MR. MACINTOSH: Good morning, Mr. Member, my name is Donald MacIntosh. I am Counsel for the Minister.  With me also is Robert Batt, he will be assisting me, we are barristers and solicitors of the Department of  Justice.  At the back of the room is Pamela Larmondin, who is also barrister and solicitor for the Department of  Justice and Cody Hopkins (ph), who is also barrister and solicitor for the Department of Justice, and Mr. Dave Stewart is present from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.  Mr. Batt will be examining in chief.

MEMBER:  I'm sorry, Pamela, I didn't get your last name.

MR. MACINTOSH: Larmondin.

MS. LARMONDIN: L-A-R-M-O-N-D-I-N.

MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. MACINTOSH: Mr. Reid has some documents which with your permission he would like to tender.

MEMBER: Okay. Before we get to that point, there's a couple of  preliminary matters I just need to address for the record. At Mr. Zundel's last detention review Mr. Reid had provided me with a copy of two documents, one was from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration dated the 2nd of August 1995 concerning Mr. Zundel's application for citizenship under the Citizenship Act.  That opinion of the Minister as well as a warrant for deportation from U.S. Immigration was also provided at that time.  I did not enter them as exhibits, so I'm going to make them attachment A or B to the hearing. 

Secondly, I received a request from the media that this matter be made a public hearing.  The first application I received was at approximately 2:00 yesterday afternoon.  That was from the Toronto Star.  In that application they had requested access to a refugee protection claim hearing.  Since this is not that type of hearing, I denied the request.

Just prior to leaving the office yesterday another request came in with one from the CBC as well.  I understand that the parties were faxed copies of those requests.  Did you receive that Mr. Reid?

MINISTER'S COUNSEL: I received that at about 4:00 last night.

MEMBER:   Okay.  I have another copy here, which I'm going to ---

PERSON CONCERNED:   I consented to them being here, in writing.

MEMBER:  Now, due to the timing of that application, I have not been able to fully consider it.  I will be considering that within the next five days.  But has the Minister prepared a position on that?

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:  Well, firstly, Mr. Zundel has said, as I understand it, he's consented.  The Minister is not opposed to CBC attending.

MEMBER: Or any other media?

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:  Or any other media.

MEMBER: Since there's not objections from any of  the parties, then the process will then be open to the public in future hearings. The issue that I have to decide, Mr. Zundel, is whether or not you are likely to appear for your admissibility hearing, whether or not you are a danger to the public, and whether or not the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that you are inadmissible on grounds of security.
Now, if I find that the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into the reasonable suspicion that you are inadmissible on grounds of security, then I don't believe that it would be necessary for me to decide whether or not you would appear or whether you are a danger to the public, that in itself will be sufficient to continue your detention. 
If I am not satisfied on that ground, then I will entertain the unlikely to appear and danger to the public.
Now, Mr. MacIntosh and his colleagues will be given an opportunity to present any evidence that they have and make submissions.  You will be given the similar opportunity, Mr. Zundel. 
Mr. Reid?

MINISTER'S COUNSEL: Yes, I do have a document that I would like to file. This corresponds; we received from the liaison for the German Federal Criminal Police Office. 

MEMBER:  That will be attachment C.

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:  And we may be making submissions on that later in the review.

MEMBER:  Mr. MacIntosh, continue.

MINISTER'S COUNSEL: At this time we would ask that Mr. Stewart be called as a witness on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.  He is present in the hearing room at the back, and Mr. Batt will be conducting the examination in chief.  We have prepared a summary of pertinent points that will relate to his testimony.  His testimony is intended to augment what is contained in the summary.  Mr. Batt has made copies, and will hand them up to you for your consideration. 

MEMBER:  Thank you, Mr. Batt.  Mr. Zundel will be provided with a copy, that's attachment D. Mr. Stewart, do you solemnly declare that the evidence you give before this hearing be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. STEWART:  I do.

MR. BATT:   Mr. Stewart, I understand that you are an employee of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service?

MR. STEWART:   That's correct.

MR. BATT:  And can you tell Mr. Thomson how long you've been employed with the service?

MR. STEWART:  I've been employed with the service since its inception in 1984.  Prior to that I was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  And can you just briefly outline what the mandate of the service is pursuant to the Canadian Security Intelligence Act?

MR. STEWART:    The service under Section 12 investigates threats to the security of Canada as defined within the Act.  The service also provides advice to the Minister of Immigration pursuant to other sections of the Act.

MR. BATT:   Okay.  And I understand that essentially in doing that the service is in the business of collecting information, is that correct?

MR. STEWART:  That's correct.

MR. BATT:   And it has no law enforcement powers or powers of arrest?

MR. STEWART:   That's correct.

MR. BATT:   And the information that it collects, it analyzes that information and distributes it to various branches of the Government of Canada and other governments, is that correct?

MR. STEWART:  Correct.

MR. BATT:  We've provided to Mr. Thomson attached D I believe it is, which is headed "summary report concerning Ernest Christof Fredrick Zundel," are you familiar with that document?

MR. STEWART:  Yes, I've made myself familiar with the document.

MR. BATT:  And can you tell the tribunal the status of that document, it's indicated to be an unclassified document, can you indicate the source of the information and whether the service has other information in relation to the contents of the document?

MR. STEWART:   The document that we are looking at is a document that was prepared from open source information.  The service has reviewed that information and compiled this summary of the information that is available to it.  The service is in possession of information that it was collected pursuant to the provisions of its mandate, which is of a classified nature. 
There is information that is of a classified nature that substantiates the information that is provided in this document as
well as the open source information, which also substantiates the information in the document.

MR. BATT:  I understand that the service had an opportunity to interview Mr. Zundel last Friday, are you aware of the results of that interview?

MR. STEWART:  My understanding is that the interview did not take place.

MR. BATT:  And are you personally aware of the reason for that?

MR. STEWART:  I was told that Mr. Zundel did not want to be interviewed by the service.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll take you to the document itself and perhaps we can start at paragraph two on the first page of that document.  There are three allegations there and I will just go through them one by one.
It's indicated that information has established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zundel was viewed as a patriarch or leader of the White Supremacist Movement in Canada, can you elaborate on that to some extend?

MR. STEWART:  That's correct.  For an extended period of time in Canada, until his departure, I understand around August 2000, Mr. Zundel lived in the Toronto area and was viewed as a leader and in fact a patriarch of the White Supremacist Movement in Canada.

MR. BATT:  Can you indicate basically, just generally to Mr. Thomson what the White Supremacist Movement is?

MR. STEWART:  The White Supremacist Movement in Canada has had a number of different manifestations over the past several years.  In the 80's and 90's it was a coalition of several organizations which had different objectives, primary objectives being the dominance of the white race in Canada.  It has subsequently become somewhat of a fragmented coalition of individuals and groups.

MR. BATT:  Following the departure of Mr. Zundel from Canada, are you able to comment on what happened to that movement and the potential if he were to be released from custody in relation to that movement?

MR. STEWART:  Prior to Mr. Zundel's departure from Canada the White Supremacist Movement had been in disarray for a number of years.  The individuals who made up that movement were still somewhat active as individuals, but the groups no longer seem to have the same import that they did in the mid 90's and prior. 
I would speculate that with Mr. Zundel's return to Canada there is a possibility that he would again become a focal point for several members, individuals and organizations to coalesce around his persona, his ideology.

MR. BATT:  In pursuing the first point, I'll just take you to paragraph 11, which I believe is on page four of the document. There's reference there to a statement purported to have been made by Mr. Zundel to the Fifth Estate on February 1993, are you able to elaborate on the information contained in that paragraph?

MR. STEWART:  I believe this is from an interview that was conducted by Victor Malorek (ph) during a program that was aired on the CBC in 1993.
In believe that in elaboration we may have a copy of the transcript of that report here which I could read into the record if that's possible?

MR. BATT: Yes, if you could refer to that.

MR. STEWART: This is a lengthy document and a lengthy interview, and at risk of taking some of these portions out of context, I will just recite some of the pages that have come to my attention here. Mr. Zundel says, "I have supported young groups in Germany, yes absolutely, I have organized speaking tours for what I call Ernest Zundel's foreign legion, the intellectual foreign legions.  That's where the money went, information campaigns."  Mr. Malorek asks, "this is what Germany's neo-Nazis call," excuse me, this is a statement from Mr. Malorek, "this is what Germany's neo-Nazis call an information campaign.  This is an annual rally in honour of Rudolph Hess (ph), if there's furor marketed on a video by Zundel's company Samistad (ph).  Organizer Christian Vork (ph) seen in the middle of the stage stays, "Zundel contributed its funds for these events."
Clearly this is a video, so not only is this out of context, you're not seeing the video.
Vork says "he has part of the costs."  Malorek says, "so in other words, to get groups together," and Vork says, "yes, he fronts up some money," and Vork says, "as happened at every other group, also, yes."  Malorek says, "you Altens (ph), Zundel's men in Munich is seen here rallying the troops for the Rudolph Hees memorial, he once boasted that he has an annual budget of 600,000 deutch marks (ph).  In his newsletter Zundel is always appealing to supporters to send money to the Zundel Altens headquarters."  Malorek asks, "does Zundel give you money or support for speeches and conferences and seminars that you are holding in Germany." Alten says, "if we do them for him, yes he does."  Malorek says, "how much money does he donate?" Alten says, "I wouldn't say anything about it." Malorek says, "you don't want to talk about the amount of money?"  Alten says, "no".  Malorek says, "he donates."  Alten says, "he doesn't donate, I have to do something for it." 

MR. BATT:  Can you just clarify who Mr. Altens is?

MR. STEWART:  Ewald Altens (ph) was a German neo-Nazi who had visited Canada on several occasions and was seen as a leading member of the young neo-Nazi movement in Germany.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll just take you to paragraph 12 of the document. Again this is a discussion of a Fifth Estate interview during which it's said that Mr. Zundel indicated the movement is not violent, are you in a position to elaborate on that?

MR. STEWART:  I am, and I'll try to find the reference document.

MR. BATT:  Fifth Estate.  Maybe if you can't find the document.

MR. STEWART:  I have it here.  Excuse me, I may be missing that. 

MR. BATT:  Maybe Mr. Hoffman could look for the document and I'll just as you another more general question. 

MR. STEWART:  Excuse me.  With respect to your previous question, I said Mr. Malorek asks Mr. Zundel, "how many books, pamphlets, videos do you send out a year?"  Zundel says, "millions and millions, I kind of sew the seeds and other people build on those ideas."

MR. BATT:  Okay.  And that would deal with paragraph 12 which also indicates that Mr. Zundel indicated that he considers himself to be the guru or the rallying point of the right, would that be consistent with other information in your possession?

MR. STEWART: Yes, and I think that's consistent with one of the statements I made earlier, that he is seen as the patriarch, was seen as the patriarch when he was in Canada of the radical right movement.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll just take you to paragraph 16 of the document which states that Zundel disseminates this propaganda to tap an international network of supporters whose donations and purchases of publications provide funding.  It also elevated his status and earned him the respect of many supporters who looked to him as the leader within the White Supremacist milieu, again is that consistent with open and classified information that is available to you?

MR. STEWART:  That's correct, and I think Mr. Zundel's web site speaks for itself.  There are literally thousands of documents related to his beliefs.

MR. BATT:  Are you in a position to know whether that web site is still active or not?

MR. STEWART:  Yes, my understanding and research over the last few days, that web site is extremely active these days.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  In relation to the web site, I understand that at one point in the past there was a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concerning the use of the web site by Mr. Zundel, is that correct?

MR. STEWART:  That's correct, that's my understanding.

MR. BATT:  And can you elaborate on your knowledge of that hearing and the end result of it?

MR. STEWART:  I understand that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that the web site controlled by Mr. Zundel violated sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in January, I believe of 2002 he was ordered to removal material, extensive portions of material from that web site.

MR. BATT:  And I understand from your recent research then that that would appear not to have been done, is that correct?

MR. STEWART:  My understanding of it is that the web site still contains material that was determined by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be in violation of its statutes.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll take you, going back to the second paragraph, the second allegation is that Mr. Zundel was and still is a leading distributor or revisionist of neo-Nazi propaganda world wide, can you just elaborate a bit on what constitutes revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda?

PERSON CONCERNED: Page please?

MR. BATT:  I'm sorry, the second page, Mr. Zundel, the second paragraph and the second item in that second paragraph. 

MR. STEWART:  As I say, Mr. Zundel's web site is extensive, has a list of articles that are available.  He has a table of contents.  He has lists of items, documents, videocassettes, and audiocassettes, that are for sale.
He has an extensive list of information related to, and I'll cite a few just from the table of contents, a revisionist challenge to the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Nuremberg the Crime That Will Not Die, Jewish Soap, the Liberation of the Camps; Facts Versus Lies, Put Holocaust Denial in it's Place By Publishing the Evidence, What is Holocaust Denial. 
The list is extensive, and I have just in reviewing some of the material from the Zundel site over the last few days, I have for example a 96 page document here which lists only the audio tapes that are for sale through the Zundel site. 

MR. BATT:  Can you just describe in general terms for Mr. Thomson what is revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda, what is the essence of the message if I can put it that way?

MR. STEWART:  Simply put, the essence is is that the Holocaust is a fabrication by Jewish interest groups. 

MR. BATT:  Okay.  And is there any concept dealing with racial superiority attached to that?

MR. STEWART: The inherent concept is the inferiority of Jewish peoples.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll take you, in pursuing this allegation I'll take you to paragraph three where there is an allegation that Mr. Zundel operated a publishing company from his Toronto residence entitled "Zanisat (ph) Publishing Limited."  Can you elaborate on that for Mr. Thomson, explaining how he operated there?
You've already spoken of the web site, but the paragraph refers to militant revisionist books, articles and videos and that sort of thing?

MR. STEWART:  Yes.  Well, Mr. Zundel maintained an extensive inventory of books and literature that he distributed and sold from his residence when he was living in Toronto.

MR. BATT:  And going to paragraph four, again it indicates the extent of the distribution of his literature, there's a reference there to German police seizing material that had been transmitted from Canada to Germany, do you have any further knowledge of that, or can you confirm that that's the correct statement?

MR. STEWART:  I can, and I refer to a newspaper article. 

MR. BATT:  Maybe if you can't find it at the moment, are you in a position to confirm that there is information which would back up that statement, and that you are familiar with that information?

MR. STEWART:  Yes, I am.  And the information dates back to 1981 in a newspaper article, I remember reviewing it recently, I just can't find it right now. 

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I'll move to the third allegation contained in paragraph two on page two of the document.  That states Zundel maintained White Supremacy contacts internationally and channeled monies through these contacts to promote his cause prior to his departure from Canada.
Going to paragraph which is on page three, there's some elaboration of that allegation with reference to a Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Zundel's significance in the world in which he operates, can you elaborate on that?

MR. STEWART:  Again, this is from the Fifth Estate program, Mr. Malorek was interviewing Mr. Atkinson.  Malorek made the statement, "Alten's relentlessly hawks Zundel's material, especially the so called Luchta (ph) Report, a $37,000.00 study funded by Zundel trying to prove that Nazi gas chambers were a hoax.  A definite crowd pleaser here in Munich.  This is the keystone of Zundel's success in uniting young neo-Nazi's with war veterans, and activists with academics.  Graham Atkinson of Search Light magazine says, "actually there is a very very important link between what one would might term the hard line of the neo-Nazi fringe, and those people who would seek to be respectable.  In other words, he brought together those people who out rightly would defend the Third Reich with those who would claim academically to question whether or not the Holocaust happened."

MR. BATT:  Going to paragraph ten, there is reference there to the transferring of money, you've already made reference to the comment by Mr. Altens concerning the fact that money was not donated freely, but do you have any knowledge that you can talk about concerning the transmittal of money for the support of a cause other than what's referred to here?  Can you comment on how money is raised and where it is transmitted in the world by Mr. Zundel?

MR. STEWART:  My understanding is that Mr. Zundel solicits money, donations, from those who believe in his philosophy. He sells material. In fact his web site very frequently contains requests for donations.
Just a recent review of the web site, of the document, "Freedom fighters of the world unite, urgent appeal for your cooperation, to my friends in the intelligence, scholastic and revisionist community.
Mr. Zundel states, "please remember I am merely the tool, I am the means to achieve this end.  You can help me make it possible.  I think you in advance.  Ernest Zundel.  Please download and fill out the questionnaire below and return to me as soon as possible.  Yes, Ernest Zundel, I would like to help you defeat the Holocaust promotion lobby, I have the following talents," there's some blank spaces.  "I am sending you documentary evidence," blank space, "books, other.  I am willing to testify under oath to the following, please describe in detail.  I own a computer."  The type of computer is listed. 
Then the next question, "I cannot participate directly in the trial, but would like to support you financially, I am able to pledge the following monthly amount for the duration of the trial," blank.  "I would like to request help in setting up a will, please send me the necessary forms and documentation.  I would like to send you a jumpstart donation of," blank. "Name, address, telephone number, facsimile.  I think you in advance; I will be in touch via letter, Internet, radio, T.V. broadcasts.  Ernest Zundel."  And this is, "Ernest Zundel needs your support.  Zundel defense fund, contact the Zundel site, 3152 Parkway, Number 13, Pidgeon Forge (ph), Tennessee, U.S.A."

MR. BATT:  Do you have any indication as to why there would be a reference to Tennessee?

MR. STEWART:  I believe that after Mr. Zundel left Toronto, he took up residence in Tennessee.

MR. BATT:   Do you have any knowledge at this time of who might be operating the site given that Mr. Zundel has been in custody for the past few days?

MR. STEWART:  From the information on the web site itself it would appear that that would be Mr. Zundel's spouse, Ingrid.

MR. BATT:  Okay.  I just want to turn briefly to the issue of violence; do you have any views or information concerning the potential for violence, firstly on the part of Mr. Zundel, or generally his ability to insight violence on the part of others?

MR. STEWART:  The conclusion of our document, which was sent to the Minister of Immigration, paragraph 17 states that, "although Zundel is unlikely to resort to violence himself, he financially and ideologically supports Militant White Supremacist neo-Nazi groups.
There are reasonable grounds to believe that he has supported groups and individuals who advocate and use violence to achieve their objectives. 

MR. BATT:  One of the documents that was tabled by Mr. Thomson, I'm sorry I don't have the designation, but it's the document that was signed by Sergio Marques (ph) in August of 1995, I think it might be attachment A. I'm sorry, thank you.  Are you in a position to indicate whether or not the allegations expressed by Mr. Marques in that document would still be of concern to the service, to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?

MR. STEWART:  I would.  The document that we're referring to here states that, "Ernest Christof Frederick Zundel made an application for a grant of citizenship dated October 24th, 1993 pursuant to Sub Section 19(2) of the Citizenship Act, the undersigned is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ernest Christof Frederick Zundel will engage in activity that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, and that he has been associated with and has supported groups of individuals that may engage in acts of serious violence in the furtherance of political objectives."  That was signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in August 1995.
Pursuant to that there were a number of hearings related to Mr. Zundel's request for citizenship.  The final episode was dealing in the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, which has jurisdiction to review the matter, the denial of the citizenship by the Minister of Citizenship. 
That hearing took place in late 2000, at which point Mr. Zundel abandoned his claim for citizenship by moving to the United States.

MR. BATT:  So, given that the hearing continued, or the hearing in relation to the citizenship application continued until 2000, I would take it that the concerns expressed in the 1995 document still existed five years later, in 2000?

MR. STEWART: That's correct.

MR. BATT: And do you have any comment, are you in a position to comment as to whether or not those concerns still exist today, in February 2003?

MR. STEWART:  I would say that if Mr. Zundel were to return to Canada that we would review material and look at renewing our concerns that were expressed to the Minister of the day in light of the current circumstances.

MR. BATT:   I don't have any further questions, Mr. Thomson.  Thank you.

MEMBER:  Mr. Zundel, do you have any questions of the witness?

PERSON CONCERNED:  Yes, I certainly do.  Now, Mr. Stewart, may I see that Marchi (ph) document from 1995?  It says that, "Mr. Marchi is of the opinion, that there are reasonable grounds to believe," the opinions, believe, "that I engage in activity that constitute a threat to the security of Canada," that I have associated with groups that have
 individuals that may engage, not that have engaged, that may engage in acts of serious violence in furtherance of political objectives.
Now, it's opinions, beliefs, may engage in; you have in effect brought absolutely no proof that I have ever in my 45 years in this country, Mr. Stewart, engaged in violence.  You haven't brought a charge against me, you haven't brought a court case, you haven't brought a hearing, nothing.

MEMBER:  Well, Mr. Zundel, I don't really mean making comments, I'm asking you if you have some questions of him.

PERSON CONCERNED:  I'm asking for documentation,  facts. 

MEMBER:  Well, simply ask him the question in that manner.

MR. STEWART:  We've provided information to the Minister, the Minister made this statement based on the information that he was given.

PERSON CONCERNED:  May engage.  All right.  Now, Mr. Stewart, you have been with the CSIS Service since its inception.  Mr. Reid last week during my first preliminary detention hearing suggested that I was not going to be released because CSIS was going to investigate my activities in clemency for the last two and a half years.  Tell me about the parameters of CSIS, are you not a domestic spy agency, or do you travel outside to snoop on what people do in the United States?

MR. STEWART:  Mr. Thomson, the witness at the outset of his testimony testified as in the statutory parameters of CSIS, which were overly broad.

MEMBER: Yes, I guess so.

PERSON CONCERNED:  So, is CSIS permitted to spy outside of the country on the political activities of Canadians?

MR. STEWART:    Mr. Zundel, I can give you the role of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as it's defined in the Act.  I will not be in a position to provide you with any specifics of any information that we are conducting.  We do investigate threats to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act.  If you wish I can read those sections of the CSIS Act for you?

PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, I'd like to hear those, if you're entitled to spy outside the country.

MR. BATT:   Well, with the greatest of respect, it's our position that Mr. Zundel is capable of looking at the statutory scheme.  The witness is here as an employee of CSIS.  It's really not incumbent upon him to comment on how the service interprets this particular piece of legislation.  It's a matter that is set out in the statutory scheme, and it's a matter that has been ruled on numerous times by different courts, and if Mr. Zundel wants to have an opportunity to examine that in more detail, he can look at all the jurisprudence dealing with the interpretation of the CSIS Act.

PERSON CONCERNED: Mr. Thomson, I'm a high security threat, 24 hour lockdown because Mr. Reid says, CSIS has to first spy by on my activities in the United States.

MEMBER:  Well, I don't know if the term spy particularly applies to the situation.  The witness has explained the mandate of CSIS, and they're responsible for security matters here in Canada. 
So, I don't know what the relevance is about your question spying in the United States.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Thomson, the relevance is clear.  I am incarcerated because these people are saying they have an allegation against me being a danger to the public, and they're basing that on this man's reports.

MEMBER:  And this man's report, as I see it, most of the information emanates from Canadian sources. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Reid clearly said, when you were present at the hearing, that I was being locked up because CSIS first had to check into my activities in Tennessee, is that not correct?

MEMBER:  That was a small part of it.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Well, okay.  It's for me an
 important part, look at me.

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:  Well, Mr. Thomson, Mr. Reid is a representative of the Citizenship and Immigration Commission.  He does not speak to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service any more than I speak to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The witness is in a position to answer questions based on what is within
 the specific statutory mandate of CSIS if a proper question were asked, which it hasn't been, in my respectful submission. This is just nothing but dealing with matters that are not germane to this particular review, and are irrelevant.

MEMBER:  And I would agree with that.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Okay.  Mr. Thomson, the question of the ownership of  the web site has come up.  I have in my hand an affidavit that my wife now, my current wife, made for the Federal Court of Canada, specifying in this affidavit exactly what her role and my role is in the web site.

MEMBER:  Okay.  You'll be given an opportunity to present your evidence.

PERSON CONCERNED:   To who?

MEMBER:  To me. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  This man, Mr. Stewart, has eluded to that, repeated several times, my web site ---

MEMBER: Okay.  Has he seen the document.

PERSON CONCERNED:  No, I presented him with it.

MEMBER:  Okay.  Well, I don't know what the document says, so I'm going to recess briefly, I'll make a copy for the parties, and then we'll decide whether or not it should be omitted.
 Four pages document that Mr. Zundel was referring to on the Zundel site, is Exhibit P-1. 
I'm going to recess for a minute to give the witness time to read that.

 ---Upon Recessing
 ---Upon Resuming

MEMBER:  All right.  I know you haven't had a long opportunity to digest the contents of it, what are you trying to achieve here, Mr. Zundel?

PERSON CONCERNED:   Very simple.  To point out what the facts are of the case, not what newspaper clippings say, what the facts are.
Okay.  Now, this is a deposition from your wife?

PERSON CONCERNED:   From my wife to the Federal Court of Canada upon which she was cross-examined by Attorney General of Canada lawyers, and gave viva voce evidence in person in Canada, in 1997.
Well you have the right to call her as a witness before this proceeding, so you can question her on it.

PERSON CONCERNED:  I think after my treatment, my wife would be very wise to stay in the United States where her activities are guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution.

MEMBER:   Well, that certainly is something that you and your wife have to decide.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Well, that's why I brought her.

MEMBER:   But I want to know what the witness would know about this particular document and the information that's contained therein?

PERSON CONCERNED:  We'll ask him if he knows about the document, if he knows about the fact of the ownership of the Zundel case, if he does not know, all the claims that they are making about me owning the site and running it and being responsible for it, is a crock.

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:   Mr. Thomson, I think Mr. Zundel should be required to specify in advance what particular questions he wishes to ask so that you can have an opportunity to consider the relevancy of those questions
 and whether or not counsel for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has any objections to specific questions rather than just -- I mean to say to a witness that this witness should be prepared to comment on matters that he may not necessarily have any personal knowledge of, that are contained in the affidavit of Mr. Zundel's wife.
He should be required to demonstrate what questions he has to ask and you should be required to consider whether or not those questions are of any relevancy with respect to the particular hearing.

MEMBER:  I agree with that.  I don't think that you should be on a fishing expedition,  Mr. Zundel.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Thomson, with all due respect.

MEMBER:  I realize you are not represented by counsel and are somewhat disadvantaged in that regard.  So, I would like to give you some latitude. I want to know where you're going with this; I'm still not clear what you are trying to do and what the relevance is.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Thomson, let me make it from my vantage point, a non-lawyer, very clear. 
 For six years, seven years, the media, the Human Rights Commission, who refused to allow my wife to testify viva voce, even though she was sitting one yard away from the (inaudible), and was willing to say exactly what she says in her affidavit, that she is the webmaster, she set up the web site.
She runs it, has run it, still runs it.  You are holding her, certain hostage here in a high security track, because I just now am married to this woman, before I wasn't married to the lady, and the claim by the media and by politically appointed Canadian packs in the Human Rights Commission is, that I am the guilty part of the web site.  I don't know how to run a computer.  I don't know the password.  I have never owned a computer.  I am computer phobic. 
So, I am saying that if CSIS wants to stand here and under oath testify that I am the owner, I have every right to elicit from this representative of CSIS, if the service ever checked into this or not.  If not, I am being wrongly accused for the last six years, that's where I'm going at.

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:   Well, Mr. Thomson, the Canadian Human Rights tribunal as an independent administrative body made certain factual findings in relation to Mr. Zundel.  One of the things they found was that he maintained some control, or was able to exercise some control over this particular web site and indeed posted certain material which constituted anti-Semitic material.  This is, in effect what he's doing is, he's engaging in a collateral attack on the finding of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
They've made certain factual findings after considering the totality of all the evidence that was adduced in front of them. 
If he chooses to dispute those findings, Mr. Zundel, he's entitled to do that.  But nevertheless the findings stand in my respectful submission. 
This affidavit was dated on December 13th, 1996, and that was well before the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in respect of these matters.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Well, Mr. Thomson, I know where I'm at, but I have here a copy of the transcript of the decision of the Human Rights Commission, page nine, it was delivered to me in my jail cell by the commission.
On page nine, section 15, it says, about this application and this affidavit, "in effect the application by us, by my defence lawyer, would have constituted a summary dismissal of these proceedings."
Now, they were perfectly aware that with that affidavit that hearing should have been ending.  No, I am not responsible for the conduct of a kind of kangaroo courts.  But it is perfectly clear that I have the evidence here of a miscarriage of justice.
Now, you can rule it out or not rule it out, some day, somewhere down the line there is going to be some hearing where this is going to come out.

MEMBER:  Well, that's a matter between you and the Human Rights Commission, that's not a matter for me to decide. They've already rendered their decision in this matter and found that you had violated the legislation under which they work.  I am not prepared to go behind that.
If you have access to the courts and you also have access to the tribunal if you wish to dispute any of their findings. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  No, Mr. Stewart has had the four pages.  Where do I stand?  May I cross-examine him?

MEMBER:   Yes.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Yes.

MEMBER:   I want you to ask specific questions, not stand up and make speeches.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Okay, good.  I'll try not to make a speech, Mr. Stewart. 
Mr. Stewart, why don't we do it this way because my voice, I'm on medication in the jail over there, my voice is just about giving out.  Why don't you read for the record what my wife's affidavit says as to the ownership of this web page?

MEMBER:  Could you refer him to a specific paragraph?

PERSON CONCERNED:   Okay.  If you could, all the way up to paragraph six and then I think that would suffice.  Thank you.

MR. STEWART:   "I Dr. Brimlan (ph) of Carlsback (ph), California in the United States of American may go and say as follows, I am the web master of the Internet web site of the World Wide Web known as the Zundel site located at the electronic address, http\webcom\ZundelsEnglish\ (ph).  As such I have personal knowledge of the matters herein after deposed to.  I am the creator, designer, editor and primary electronic columnist of the web site.  All documents which appear in the Zundel site are prepared in HCML, Abode Acrabat coding my me on computer equipment owned by me, and located in Carlsback, California, The United States of America.  I decided on the name Zundel site because Mr. Zundel is the world's best known skeptic of genocidal activities alleged to have happened in German concentration camps.  I felt the name would summarize for many familiar with Mr. Zundel's struggles of focus and aim of the web site, namely the call to readers, installers world wide to scientifically and forensically examine widely held but never properly examined claims of systematic genocide of European Jews during World War II.  I do not recall consulting Mr. Zundel, if I could use the word Zundel site.  I unilaterally decided what I have sole control over the password to the Zundel site.  Mr. Zundel does not and has never known the password to the Zundel site.  Through this password I access the site to make changes, additions, deletions or graphic alternations to the Zundel site which I do on a regular basis."

PERSON CONCERNED:    Now, in the document, Mr. Stewart, that you presented to Mr. Thomson in background material, summary reported, a CSIS summary report, allegedly (inaudible) crimes in Canada.
I find that you quote, "CHRC found that there is still control to Zundel's web site, and it was he who caused the materials found on the web site to be communicated."
Also, when the Zundel web site was the subject of legal proceedings in Germany, several mirror sites were established.  By whom?  By who?  Have you got any proof at all that I was the person or the party that caused these things?

MR. STEWART:   Mr. Zundel, I admit that I haven't seen the affidavit from Ingrid Brimland prior to this occasion, we based our statement on the findings of the Human Rights Commission, which indicate that based on all evidence available put before us at this hearing, we find that Ernest Zundel controlled the Zundel site, and it was he who caused the materials found on the web site to be communicated.

PERSON CONCERNED:   No, Mr. Stewart, were you also aware that at this hearing Mr. Pensa (ph) ruled that truth was not a defense in front of him?
It doesn't say that anywhere here.  As far as I'm concerned, and all the courts I've been in front of, Mr. Thomson, in Canada, even during hate charges, which were all dropped, in my Supreme Court case which I won in 1990, the truth was always the ultimate defense.
The man ruled that truth was not a defense. 
So, what I'm saying here is, I am being tried and basically punerated and convicted by video clip, Fifth Estate, highly edited, by newspaper clippings, newspaper headlines.  Mr. Thomson, what is that?  I am in jail. I am 64 years old.  I'm in jail over there with all kinds of heavy equipment.  Look, I stand here in an orange suit, the nicest colour that colour can give me, and I am there because slipshod work by CSIS results in that.

MEMBER:  Well, that may be your view of it.  This is not a court of law. I am not required; the same rules of evidence do not apply. I simply have to consider any evidence I consider credible and trustworthy. To this point the witness has, in my view, testified honestly and openly and I consider his evidence credible and trustworthy.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Okay.  Then I'll proceed with the following. You have in the summary of my alleged crimes newspaper statements and video clips from news reports.  I don't think there's a grown up person in this room that doesn't know what editing does to T.V. shows.  That I am by innuendo fermenting some kind of violence with my intellectual allegiance, and right behind it is says information contents. 
Mr. Stewart, all you brought here is that I supported young groups in Germany, yes absolutely.  I have organized speaking tours, speaking tours, seminars, information compacts.  I have assigned these young people with books and booklets. 
Now, what is the purpose of the innuendo and the loaded terms that are being brought here such as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, White Supremacist, ideologies. 
Mr. Stewart, you said you went to the web site, can you bring me one print out of that Zundel site where there is one White Supremacist statement on there, one, not two, three, five, ten; one, on the Zundel site, where I Ernest Zundel promote White Supremacy.  Have you got a printout?

MINISTER'S COUNSEL:  Well, Mr. Thomson, I think the witness should be required to answer a more specific question than that.  Because what Mr. Zundel says constitutes White Supremacy, and what other people say constitute White Supremacy, might be two different things.  It's a very vague question that's being put to the witness.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Thomson, let me rephrase it.  Mr. Stewart, do you know, can the service point at one single conviction, one single conviction that was upheld by the courts finally up to the Supreme Court of Canada, of one single publication in front of a Canadian Court, not a kangaroo tribunal like the Human Rights Commission, a court, a real court with real judges and jurors, where I, Ernest Zundel have been convicted for publishing Nazi literature, neo-Nazi literature, White Supremacy literature, can the service point to one single successful conviction that wasn't overturned in a higher court, can you?

MR. STEWART:   Are you talking about a court in
 Canada, because we have courts in Germany that have found that to be the case?

PERSON CONCERNED:   Germany has totally different laws.  You are comparing apples and oranges, Mr. Stewart, you are working not for the German Secret Service, but here, for Canadian Security Intelligence Service, have you got any proof of any Canadian court for any conviction by Ernest Zundel of White Supremacy, Neo-Nazism, racism, have you?

MR. STEWART:   No, I'm sorry, Mr. Zundel, I work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service not the police force.  I don't have access necessarily to the criminal system that you're referring to.
To answer your question, I do not have personally any information that would indicate that you have been convicted.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Stewart, Mr. Thomson, with all respect, what he's saying is they have no proof.

MEMBER:  You ask a question and then make it submission.  If you have questions just continue to ask your questions.  Make them brief and as straightforward as possible, and then I'll hear your submissions when the time comes.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Stewart, what do you know about the background of Search Light Magazines, since you are an investigative agency.  Who founded it, who paid for it, who runs it, ideologically?

MEMBER:  Okay.  You're asking ten questions at once, Mr. Zundel.

PERSON CONCERNED:  What do you know about Search Lights, you quote it?

MR. STEWART:  Yes, I know that it's a publication or a magazine that's available in Great Britain.  I don't have a whole lot of information on the organization or the individuals involved. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  You don't know that it was  ---

MR. STEWART:   I have researched, I have seen it, but I don't recall currently.

PERSON CONCERNED:  And the research alluded you that it was a Marksis (ph) publication?

MR. STEWART:   I can't answer that.

PERSON CONCERNED:  In other words, in effect you simply quoted a magazine that was broadcast and referred to at the Fifth Estate show and you took that as face value, right, the service did that, that's what it says here?

MR. STEWART:   What we've prepared here is a document that's based on the open information, I think it's our position, our advice to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would realize the context of the information that we provided and evaluate the source information that we have attributed to.

PERSON CONCERNED:   No.  With all due respect, Mr. Stewart, you did not independently obviously delve into the background of these allegations that Mr. Malorek made. You just took them at face value, and you are trying to basically kind of put the bell on me, punerating me for a tendentious T.V. broadcast. 

MR. STEWART:   Mr. Thomson, first of all, Mr. Zundel is now making a speech rather than asking questions. 
 He's entitled, as you've already informed him of, to make submissions at a later date in this particular hearing, or a later time in this hearing I should say.
Secondly, he's misstated the witnesses evidence, the witness clearly indicated that the information that's contained in the public domain, and that the Minister would be required to consider should Mr. Zundel come back to Canada, is reflective and what is not, there is additional information of an incamerate nature that buffers that information has been obtained and that is in the public domain. 
So, to try to suggest that the material was contained in this summary, represents the totality of material, contradicts the witnesses whole testimony that's been given here today.

MEMBER:  Yes, I agree with that.  This is simply a summary of the evidence; it's not all of the evidence, that is apparently available to CSIS.
So, I would suggest to you again that you make your questions direct.  They must be on point, and that you refrain from making submissions or commenting on the evidence while you are speaking. 
 I realize you are not a lawyer.  Had you been accompanied by counsel I wouldn't have been so lenient as I have been up until this point.

PERSON CONCERNED:   I agree there, Mr. Thomson, I do.
Now, I won't be long.  Other international activity in your summary, on my dirt file here.  "Zundel's publications, which include books, articles, and video recordings, have been distributed by mail to extreme right wing communities throughout the world.  Zundel was also known to broadcast anti-Semantic propaganda by a short wave radio to North America and Europe, an neo-Nazi revisionist program via satellite television."
Now, Mr. Stewart, who has written that report, have you got an author?

MR. STEWART:   Excuse me, which report are we talking about?

PERSON CONCERNED:   The one that you submitted here, the unclassified summary?

MR. STEWART:  This is a compilation of information that was put together.

PERSON CONCERNED:  So, CSIS is the one?

MR. STEWART:  Yes.

PERSON CONCERNED:  And supposedly neutral state body in Canada loads a summary report before what is, I suppose a traditional body, with such loaded emotional terms as anti-Semantic propaganda, neo-Nazi, and so on.
Are you aware of my TV programs, has CSIS got 550 tapes of broadcast the I made via satellite in public access all over North America?

MR. STEWART:  No, we don't have that.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Have you got 2,000 of my audio recordings from my short wave broadcasts?

MR. STEWART:  I have a list from the Zundel site.

PERSON CONCERNED: Have you, before you brought this in here for Mr. Thomson, is the coloured tone with it's loaded emotional terms, have you found, has CSIS found, are you stating here under oath that my broadcasts
 were so vial that they disserve the name of anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi and so on?  What's it based on?

MR. STEWART:  I was looking for a document earlier in response to a question from counsel, and I found that document now, which I've referred to from 1981.  I'd like to, in response to Mr. Zundel's question indicate that this is from the Toronto Star, March 25th, 1981.  "A Toronto man has been named by West German investigators, one of the biggest suppliers of banned Nazi propaganda seized by hundreds of raids on the homes of neo-Nazis.  Yesterday dawn raids on about 450 homes were part of the biggest crackdown of neo-Nazis since West German police was founded in 1949.  Stuttgart authorities pushed the action in conjunction with their investigation of three major producers of the brochures.  Americans Gary Loke (ph) and George Deets (ph), and Canadian Ernest Zundel, who for years have smuggled neo-Nazi propaganda into West Germany."  The article goes on to state that, "Ernest Zundel, a political photo retoucher with a studio on Carlton Street blamed the raids on Zionist pressure triggered by a demand for immigration by Israelis who want out of Israel because of its horrible economic situation.  Zundel said he has been sending Nazi literature out of Canada for 18 years, by now in 14 languages to 45 countries.  I know it's not a population viewpoint, but I'm entitled to it, he said in an interview."
He said that the West German raids also resulted in the seizure of his bank account there.  He said he is the chief author of much of the literature seized, which includes not only brochures and copies of the seven books he's written, but tapes of his monthly analysis of the news.
The statements that we used in that paragraph were based on this article.

PERSON CONCERNED:  I'm very glad you added that. Mr. Stewart, would you
 and the service know how that case against me ended?

MR. STEWART:   I don't have that information.

PERSON CONCERNED:   No, but does CSIS have it?

MR. STEWART:   I'm not aware.   No, you can provide that later.

PERSON CONCERNED:   I see.  Are you aware that the seized funds in the bank account were returned to me from that case?

MR. STEWART:  I'm not aware.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Not aware.  Okay.

MEMBER:  Thank you.  Any further questions, Mr. MacIntosh?

MR. MACINTOSH:   No.

MEMBER:   All right.  Then you're excused.  Do you have any other evidence, Mr. MacIntosh?

MR. MACINTOSH:  I just have a judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada. When it comes time to make submissions I'll be directing you to what we consider to be the relevant passages.  If I could have a moment.

MEMBER:   Why don't we take a ten-minute break.

 ---Upon Recessing
 ---Upon Resuming

MEMBER:  This matter is resumed.  Mr. MacIntosh, do you have any further evidence?

MR. MACINTOSH:    No, we do not have any further evidence that we wish to present, Mr. Thomson.  So, that completes the evidence for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.  We are prepared to make submissions.

MEMBER:  Mr. Zundel, do you have any evidence you would like me to consider, or do you just wish to make a submission?

PERSON CONCERNED: What's Mr. Reid's function, is he coming up?

MEMBER:  No.

PERSON CONCERNED:   So, the government's side is finished?

MEMBER:  Yes.

PERSON CONCERNED:
  No, I have nothing to say.

MEMBER:   Okay.  I will hear your submission then, Mr. MacIntosh, and then you'll be given an opportunity on your own behalf.

MR. MACINTOSH:   Thank you.  Firstly, Mr. Thomson, The Minister is cognizant of the remarks that you made at the outset of proceedings today with respect to if you believe under section 58(1)(c) of the Immigration Act, having considered the totality of evidence that's been adduced today, that the Minister is investigating whether or not Mr. Zundel would constitute a danger to the security of Canada that it may be unnecessary for you to determine whether he constitutes a danger to the public or whether he would show up for removal. 
Nevertheless, because you have to carefully consider your decision, and the Minister is not aware until proceedings have been concluded as to what conclusions you've come to, we intend to argue all three grounds, namely that he constitutes a danger to the public, that it is unlikely that he would show up for removal from Canada, and furthermore, section 58(1)(c) that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is conducting investigation into whether or not Mr. Zundel constitutes a danger to security of Canada. 
So, it's our position that the statutory parameters of section 58(1)(c) would provide for detention in and of itself without the need to decide the other factors.  But nevertheless, I'm going to start with danger too the public.
You've heard the testimony of Mr. Stewart.  There are a couple of things that I wish to refer to.  First of all, in my respectful submission, it's significant that Mr. Zundel, as evidenced from Mr.Stewart's testimony and from the summary that's been prepared by CSIS, has funded groups in Germany which are regarded as being associated with the Nazi movement. 
It is also significant, in my respectful submission, that he was convicted in Germany in 1991.  I would like to refer to, in that regard, to the document headed "The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Liaison for the German Federal Criminal," and page 12 of the document, this document was tendered in evidence this morning.
This is a judgement of the court in Munich dated the 6th of February 1985 against Ernest Zundel in regard to "insighting hatred against certain sections of the population and the basis of a trial which took place in November 1991, 16th December 1991.
The accused is found guilty of insighting hatred, specifically a racial hatred, disparaging the memory of the dead and attacking insulting the dignity of others, and is given a fine of 70 Marcs per day for 180 days.
The accused can pay the fine on a monthly basis of 600 Deuch Marcs due the first of each month.  The accused appears to have done this through the distribution of leaflets and insults to a particular person who appeared as a witness."
So, he's been convicted of insighting hatred against certain sections of the population through distribution of leaflets.  I would note in that regard that there are further charges that the German authorities wish to bring against Mr. Zundel that were reflected in this document as of February 2003.
At page six of the document he's alleged to have committed four legally separate acts insighted to hatred against sections of the population, attacked the dignity of others by abusing maliciously belittling or disparaging sections of the population, publicly denied an act committed under the National Socialist Rule of the type referred to in Section 6(1) of the International Criminal Code in a manner suited to disturb the public peace.  Insulted others, and disparaged the memory of the dead.
Then it gives the sections of the criminal code that are relevant.  It sets out that there are sufficient grounds from arrest and it appears that he could face a period of imprisonment of anywhere between three months and five years if convicted on this particular charge.
You notice that B says that he's done this in a manner suited to disturb the public peace. 
Now, what is also relevant, in my respectful submission, Mr. Stewart's testimony underscored this fact, if you go to paragraph 17 of the summary prepared by CSIS, it says that, "although Zundel is unlikely to resort to violence himself, he financially and ideologically supports militant White Supremacist neo-Nazi groups.  There are reasonable grounds to believe that he supported groups and individuals who advocate and use violence to achieve their objectives.  As a consequence of his participation, involvement and support of the neo-Nazi White Supremacist movement inCanada, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel has been and would be in a position to influence his followers to commit acts of serious violence in Canada or fraud." 
He's regarded as being the patriarch or leader of the White Supremacist movement in Canada.  Therefore, in my respectful submission, there are reasonable grounds to believe that his views would have significant influence over like-minded individuals. So, furthermore the horrific effects of anti-Semitism cannot be subject to any reasonable dispute.  I'd like to refer to the Keepstra (ph) case that's a page which is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Supreme Court held that the willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups in Section 39.12 upheld the constitutional challenge of that section under Section One of the charter.
At page 747, reading from the decision of Chief Justice Dixon, delivered a decision of the Supreme Court, he says as follows, "it is thus not inconceivable that the act of dissemination of hate propaganda can attract individuals to it's cause and in the process create serious discord between various cultural groups and society.  Moreover the alteration of views held while the recipients of hate propaganda may occur subtly and is not always attendant upon conscious acceptance of the communicated ideas.  Even if the message of hate propaganda is outwardly rejected, there is evidence that its premise of racial or religious inferiority may persist in the recipient's mind as an idea that holds some truth, and the incipient effect not to be entirely discounted.  The threat to the self-dignity of the targeted group members is thus matched by the possibility that prejudice messages will gain some credence with the intended result of discrimination and perhaps even violence against minority groups in Canadian society. With these dangers in mind the Kohen (ph) committee made it clear in its conclusions that the presence of hate propaganda existed as a willful and pernicious element and hence a serious problem in Canada."
So, this was a committee that one of whom, the Kohen committee, one of the members of that committee was the former Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, with Professor Wah (ph) at the time at McGill University, and they studied the pernicious and insidious effects of hate propaganda.
But what is significant about this particular case is the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has noted that people who disseminate hate propaganda, the pernicious effect that that has in society and the fact that the dissemination of that hate propaganda can give rise to violence with respect to minority groups, and indeed other groups in Canadian society.
It is my respectful submission that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found as a fact that Mr. Zundel had distributed literature on a web site that in fact he either controlled or had access to.
They found that as a fact, they found that the literature constituted anti-Semitic literature after extensive hearings which involved the complaint by the Toronto Mayor relations committee and private individuals.
Mr. Zundel attempted during this hearing by questions that he put to the witness, to engage in a collateral attack on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's findings, which in my respectful submission was completely uncooperative.  Those findings cannot be challenged in this forum.
What is significant, in my respectful submission, is that you've heard evidence from the witness called by CSIS, that indicated that after the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Zundel site was still operating and still disseminating literature that could be described as anti-Semitic in nature.
In my respectful submission that indicates further that Mr. Zundel constitutes a danger to the public in Canada because it underscores the extent to which he is prepared to distribute this literature of this type. You have evidence that he's distributed such literature in Germany, that he's funded the distribution of such literature in Germany quite extensively.  There is evidence in the summary that indicates that in providing funds to like minded individuals in Germany, he did so expecting something to be done.  I'm paraphrasing it, but that's in one of the paragraphs.
So, clearly he provided funds abroad expecting those funds to be used to further his cause and the cause of other like-minded individuals. As a result he was convicted of insighting hatred against specified groups in Germany, and he's now facing further charges. 
It's my respectful submission if he were released from custody in Canada, he would continue to insight hatred against Jewish people and other minority groups.
Furthermore, Mr. Zundel attempted to say that he didn't have control over this web site and put in an affidavit.  You've heard the testimony of the witness, Mr. Stewart, of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, called on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that this lady who is known as Ingrid is in fact the wife of Mr. Zundel. 
The fact that there is uncontradicted evidence from Mr. Stewart that indicates that Mr. Zundel did not cease and desist his activities in relation to this particular web site, indicates he's a danger to the public.  It also indicates that if he were released he would have no intention, in my respectful submission, of complying with orders that would be made by this tribunal.  For example, if this tribunal were to release him and to impose terms and conditions, clearly he wouldn't comply with any of those terms and conditions as evidenced by the fact that he's refused to comply with orders made by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the past and flouted a Canadian law. 
Now, Mr. Zundel most recently was in the United States, he was issued a warrant of deportation.  He overstayed a visitor's visa in the United States, which is an indication that he flouted American law.  He was required to show up for an administrative review of his status and failed to do so.

 ---Upon Recessing
---Upon Resuming

MR. MACINTOSH:  This dovetails with the experience of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in Canada because Mr. Stewart, as you will recall, testified that Mr. Zundel was requested to show up for an interview by CSIS and refused to do so.  This interview, obviously one of the purposes of it is to determine whether or not there are grounds to support an allegation that he constitutes a danger to the security of Canada. Obviously the interview with Mr. Zundel was not determinative of such grounds of whether he constitutes a danger to the security of Canada. Nevertheless to further an investigation in that particular point, he was asked to show up for an interview and he declined to do so.
So, that indicates that he is refusing to cooperate with Canadian authorities with regard to an investigation under Section 58(1)(c) as to whether there are reasonable grounds for indicating that he constitutes a danger to the security of Canada.  It also indicates, in my respectful submission, as a broader significance, and the significance is this, it indicates that he would be once again unwilling to comply with any terms and conditions of release or any terms that would be set by this tribunal, because he is not willing to comply with requests made by bodies that either have an investigatory capacity pursuant to Section 12 of the CSIS Act, or other administrative tribunals such as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. 
What is consistent is that he is someone who is not willing to comply with requests that have been made by various bodies that he adhere to certain parameters in conducting his activity.
You heard that he, as I indicated, has sent funds to Germany, and one of the things he's done, is he's supported a Rudolph Hess rally that was held in support of Rudolph Hess.  Mr. Hess is an infamous figure in the history of the Nazi Party, and his violent activities and his subscription to violent activities and anti-Semitic activities are well-known, to the extent that Mr. Zundel is prepared to support an individual with that reputation, that indicates Mr. Zundel, in my respectful submission, condones Mr. Hess's activities, and Mr. Hess's view of the world in so far as it relates to anti-Semitism and violence against Jewish people.
I would ask that in considering your decision that you consider the totality of all the evidence that's been adduced.  I would ask that you furthermore avert to the fact that there is, as the witness referred to, classified information that is in the possession of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that relates to this case, and in my respectful submission that classified information supports all three factors which the commission is asking that Mr. Zundel be detained,  namely that he constitutes a danger to the public, that he would be unlikely to show up for removal in the event that an admissibility hearing were held or he was removed from Canada ever after he made a refugee claim which may be unsuccessful.  The third ground, under Section 58(1)(c). 
I would note that the witness testified that the summary that is prepared is illustrative of the classified material, but certainly it does not represent a complete rendition of what is contained in the classified material.  The witness was also very clear that in the event that Mr. Zundel came back into Canada, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and other Ministers would be asked to conduct an investigation, and alluded to the Citizenship Report that had been prepared before the Honourable Sergio Marques, and indicated that the concerns that were expressed in that report, which is Exhibit A in front of you, still exist today.
So, in my respectful submission, having regard to all of the factors that you've heard in testimony, and having regard to the submissions that have been made, I would ask that the detention be continued. Those are my submissions subject to any questions you may have.  Thank you very much.

MEMBER:    There are a couple of questions.  Now, I  understand a report has been prepared by immigration officials.  Can you tell me where you're at in terms of an admissibility hearing and also I'd like to know what efforts are being made in regards to your investigation, what's on the table?  Isv the Minister considering a certificate under Section 77, or is the Minister considering an application under Section 86, or where is the department in
that regard?

MR. MACINTOSH:    Well, the Minister is considering a certificate under Section 77 of the Act, which would of course mean that the Federal Court would deal with this matter.  That is one of the reasons why we are asking that he be detained while this matter be further investigated.

In relation to the admissibility hearing, of course as you're well aware, an allegation could also be made in that regard, that he constitutes a danger to the security of Canada under Section 34(1)(d) of IRPA.  That is also being considered in conjunction with whether or not to prefer a certificate under Section 77. 
In relation to time lines, I'm not at this point in a position to indicate specifically with respect to what the time line will be for this consideration because the matters are complex and require careful consideration in order to effect due process and to make sure that the best evidence is put forward consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. 
However, it is hoped that at the next review proceeding that we will have a better indication, although we will have to deal with that at that point in time based on the best information that's available.
I would note that as I said a few moments ago, had Mr. Zundel taken a different position and cooperated with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and with CSIS, and by allowing an interview to take place with him, then this matter would have proceeded in a more expeditious fashion than it has.   But Mr. Zundel made no such efforts and is frustrating the Minister's efforts to conduct an investigation.  Whether or not he wishes to cooperate with the Minister, the Minister has a duty to investigate these matters under the act.  Those are my submissions.

PERSON CONCERNED:   Mr. Thomson, the whole tone of these hearings and the government's attitude is best reflected by the insinuation that I did not want to participate in this process.  For instance with CSIS, he says I didn't show up.  Mr. Thomson, I was in this suit in the office of the Niagara Detention at the Fort Erie bridge, and when the CSIS man was presented to me I said, I have no legal representation and I cannot speak with you until my lawyer is present.  So, what you have said, sir, is a bold faced lie.  That's number one.

MEMBER:  Okay.  You can address me; there's no need to address Mr. MacIntosh.

PERSON CONCERNED:  There is absolutely no foundation to the fact that I did not cooperate.  Now, as to the expired immigration visa.  I have a pretty complete immigration file here from the United States.  All the steps that I have undertaken, and I will outline it for you because it plays a big role in here, that I ran from an immigration hearing, I did no such thing, Mr. Thomson. I want to present this to you for your record.
There's a chronology by my United States Immigration attorney on the letterhead of his company.  There is also a copy of a letter by my attorney, immigration attorney in the United States, from May 23rd, 2001.  It states clearly that he is asking for a rescheduling, Mr. Thomson, as has happened so many times, in my court appearances, attorneys do that on a very regular basis, if they have a conflict in dates.  My attorney was at that day, when the hearing was scheduled, slated to already appear in what they call a divorce proctor's court in the United States, which is superior in rank to an immigration hearing.  And therefore he asked by this letter for a rescheduling.  He asked in subsequent years twice.  I have got the letters here; I have got the slips here that it was sent by registered mail.
I would like for the record that somebody at least in Canada finally gets a look at this fact.  I did not run from an immigration hearing.  That's number one, and I would like to present that to you, sir.

MEMBER:  Let's see the document?  Can I see it?

PERSON CONCERNED:  I will give it to you.  Now, I  will refer to some of these supplementary documents, Mr. Thomson, in the narrative. 

MEMBER:   I'm just going to recess briefly to make a copy.

---Upon Recessing
---Upon Resuming

MEMBER:   Mr. Zundel, the documents you requested consists of twelve pages, will be Exhibit P-2.  Now, I'd ask that when you're making reference in this document that you point the part out because this should have been provided earlier, but like I said, I'm prepared to give you some flexibility here.

PERSON CONCERNED:  Yes.  Well, I didn't get the dirt file on me from CSIS either. 
Mr. Thomson, I appreciate you giving me leeway, believe me, because I'm certainly out of my depth here, and it's not due to any fault of my own.  I did pay big bucks to get an immigration lawyer here today, and he has chosen for whatever reason not to respond to me yet. I am in that jail, I have no way of speaking to that man. 

So, let me come to these documents, the significance of these documents. The big deal was made by this man from the government, I think Mr. MacIntosh, that I did not show up for my immigration hearing, now this really rankles me, because if anything I have been known throughout my 41 years in Canada always to appear.  Mr. Thomson, I was in front of the courts from virtually 1981 to August the 27th, 1992 when I won my case in the Supreme Court.  There were hundreds, hundreds of court appearances, Federal Court, Provincial Court, Appeal Court, Supreme Court.  I never missed one single day, Mr. Thomson.  I am law-abiding, law affirming, and I think my record proves that. 
With these documents in front of you, by my attorney in the United States, and that means the complete file.  Let me just go first to the letter where he asks for a rescheduling, that's May 23rd, 2001. 

MEMBER:   Okay.  Which page is that?

PERSON CONCERNED:   It's marked twelve, it's about the middle of the document. That is the crucial document.

MEMBER:   Sorry, May 23rd, 2001?

PERSON CONCERNED:   May 23rd, 2001, Mr. Thomson. And there's a pencil marked twelve in the centre there. Now, here is what Adreva Pabo (ph) says from Memphis, and he's a man with many many years of immigration experience, that's why I engaged him.  In one of the big shiny skyscrapers down there, so he's certainly a big wheel. He's addressed the Immigration Naturalization Service, "dear sir or madam, I am in receipt of your appointment letter for the interview concerning the application for adjustment of status of Mr. Zundel. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend this interview and request that it be rescheduled to any day except between June the 20th and 22nd, and any Wednesday morning as I am a divorce proctor in circuit court.  For the presently scheduled appointment I am due to appear that afternoon on two cases in front of the immigration judge in downtown Memphis in the Federal Building.  Hence my schedule conflicts and I am respectfully requesting rescheduling of this appointment."
Now, I have in the chronology, I won't bother you with it because the record is perfectly clear, I have undertaken, Mr. Thomson, every single thing required of me by the United States Immigration Service.  I have taken fingerprints, $550.00.  I have driven to Memphis, 13 hours, in order to be photographed and fingerprinted to get a temporary work permit.  I have taken vaccinations, I have taken x-rays.  I have got an American driver's license.  I bought a house because they said it was going to help my case.  Mr. Thomson, I am not some fly by night character that would risk what I am now facing.

MEMBER:   What happened to this request?

PERSON CONCERNED:   What happened?  He never got an answer, and I kept calling him, and he said it is because of the attacks of 911 on the World Trade Centre, the INS is totally swamped, they are totally inundated. 

MEMBER:   And then after that what happened, they came and arrested you?

PERSON CONCERNED:   They came and arrested me the 5th of February this year, Mr. Thomson, I was hit like a bomb.  My world was shattered.  I was one week away from opening an art gallery. 
Now, I did not hide down there, I applied legally all the way down the line.  So, I resent the inanition.

MEMBER:   Well, you can say your part.

PERSON CONCERNED:   No, I'm just saying, you can imagine that I get pretty hot under the collar after a 40 year record of completely attending every single court appearance in Canada and in Germany.

MEMBER:   Okay.  Well, being hot under the collar right now isn't going to help your cause any.

PERSON CONCERNED:   This document speaks for itself, I was not irresponsible, I did appear.  I was in the detention room over there at Niagara Falls, I did my part and I have a constitutional right I'm told, not to speak to a CSIS man without my attorney present.  So, it wasn't that I was disrespectful of the Minister, of the process.  I believe in due process, because I've been a beneficiary of it many times in Canada.  So, I wanted to make that point very clear and stress it as firmly as I can.
Now, as to this man calling Rudolph Hess a violent man, and to be guilty because this is a violent man.  What did this Minister without portfolio of the German government of the 30's do, he flew an unarmed plane to England, risking his life, parachuted as a man in his 50's, into England to try to make peace.  He was a peace emissary.  This man with his lack of history calls this man a violent man, I am proud to know the son of Rudolph Hess before he died, the grandson of Rudloph Hess, and I am glad that I had a major part in trying to free him from his 40 year incarceration in Spandao (ph).  As a German it was my duty.  The man was not violent.
As to me being a flight risk.  I have fulfilled every obligation in every country by every court as I've already said before.
You have in front of you the proof that I also did in my immigration case in the United States. I am here today.  I am defending myself because I'm not sure of what the hell is going on with my attorney. 
Mr. Thomson, I do it because I believe in the process.  I'm not a flight risk.  I am 64.  The prison doctor has put me on medication because my blood pressure is totally out of whack.  I am in the red zone for stroke any moment. 
I came here across the border, Mr. Thomson, in the light suit, in a snowstorm, like only the area of Buffalo and Niagara Falls had produced snowstorms.  Where am I going to escape to if somebody was to let me go here?  I have no money; I came across that bridge without one cent because I was transported from the facility in the Smokey Mountains on President's Day at 2:15 a.m.  They could not release my money, Mr. Thomson.  So, I came across without a cent.
Canadian authorities have handed my expired passport; it expired the 2nd of September 2002.  I have no driver's license, I have no credit cards, I have a press card, that's all I have with me. 
Now, my face is known in this country like if I were a red dog, everybody knows Ernest.  I go across the border; they don't even have to look at my passport or my license, oh Ernest, where are you coming from, where are you going. 
Am I going to be able to hide somewhere?  Come on, what kind of, well I won't call it what it needs to be called.  I could not hide even if I tried.  Besides, my accent would give me away every time. So, what can I plead?  I mean I am not a flight risk.

MEMBER:  Okay, you've made your point. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  No.  And furthermore, the suggestion that I might shneg (ph) out here and maybe skiddadled (ph) back to the United States, I have never skiddadled to any place where I wasn't wanted.
I face; I am barred 20 years from the United States by a government decree, 20 years.  If I were to sneak across, I'm facing $250,000.00 U.S. fine and 20 years in jail.
Now, you know who put me into danger of this being sprung on me, Canadian border guards, they were not ready, so the U.S. immigration guys had to take me back to the United States.  So, in effect they risked my dam life already once. 
The security threat.  Mr. Thomson, it is extremely difficult for a man as hated and vilified for so many years with an unpopular viewpoint like Ernest, I mean I know that I'm not exactly going to be elected president in this country.  But, the idea that I would commit acts of violence is grotesque.  I have raised two sons, four grandchildren, and only once did I smack my youngest son.  I am not a violent man.  I am not a guy that blows up things. 
Now, I don't know how much you know about my record, but you are old enough for my age, my house was set on fire in downtown Toronto.  I was bombed once in 1984.  A bomb was sent to me three days after my house was set on fire.  Only because I knew this parcel felt strange, I had a hunch, I didn't open it.  It was the most powerful pipe bomb ever detonated by the Toronto Police. 
Now, CSIS, they want to talk about CSIS, untrue Mitro Ricki (ph), famous Canadian Investigative Journalists of CTV and the Globe and Mail, wrote a book last year, it's called "Covert Entry".  There are 15 pages in that book that book devoted to yours truly.  You can check this out, I'm jailed, I would have brought it for the record, I don't have access to it, but I read it with my own eyes, and here's what he said, CSIS had put agents into the Canada Post, mail sorters who work in the mail stream, they took my mail for years, he says, who says it, the agent from CSIS himself, and he says, we opened Ernest Zundel's mail for years.  The incoming and the outgoing, and then he describes how they do it, they have special keys to get into the mailbox where I got my mail, they open the mail.  He said the service was apprised about the quality of his mailing list, nothing but doctors, engineers and professors. 
Now, this brings me to the accusation that I'm a violent man and a threat to the country.  They alerted the handler of this spy, according to Mitro Ricki's book, alerted the man who sorted the mail, their spy, in a panicked voice the handler calls, according to the postal worker.  Called me and said, do not intersect a parcel from a Vancouver address, repeatedly.  Mr. Thomson, that was the bomb.  That was the bomb. Now, if anybody has a beef with a Canadian Security Intelligence Service, it's Ernest.  They set me up for assassination. 

MEMBER:   Well, I've asked you to make your submission and you're really into giving evidence. 

PERSON CONCERNED: Well, I might never again speak in front of a Canadian public official, I would beg that somebody at least somewhere has this on record.  They call me a security threat, Mr. Thomson, please. 
I have won my Supreme Court decision, I see that the government's lawyer produces Keekstra (ph), a big fat book, and he invokes the hate law, it's totally off topic.  The Keekstra case.  I note he did not produce the transcripts of my own Supreme Court victory where Mrs. Justice McLaughlin, the chief of the Supreme Court wrote a decision and in a magnificent explanation of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights said that a minority in the country must have a right to speak its mind, even if the majority doesn't like it, and even if they were wrong in its assertions, that in a multiethnic society we in Canada must be able to speak without fearing constant litigation.  Unfortunately I don't have the ruling here, but that was the ruling in my case.
It would have been nice and fair if this highly paid government bureaucrat had brought that also.  The hate, what has that got to do with this?
Now, that brings me to the term and laws.  The man is obviously ignorant; maybe he doesn't speak German, of German law and what German laws differ in compared to Canadian law.  Just because the media has had hate laws, In Canada the hate law in effect empowers a person like me to engage in discussions to remove a public ill which I consider undetermined hate, and the reason why I was never charged and successfully tried, the Attorney General always dropped the hate charges against me, is because the hate law in Canada in effect is placed on the telling of truth, and I tell the truth when it comes to my viewpoint. 
So, for him to compare German law where truth is no defense like in the Human Rights Tribunal, is disgusting.  It is comparing apples and oranges.
If you read that document from the German government, what kind of quaint laws they have in their community, I've got one here.  Insult.  I've never heard in Canada somebody being charged criminally for insult, or (inaudible) the memory of the dead.  You can defame all German soldiers forever, but you don't dare defame somebody else telling them.  So malicious gossip.  The German criminal code was bequeathed with the Germans by our conquerors.  The allies did not come to bring freedom to Germany; they conquered us as Eisenhower said.  They imposed an occupation government, and that government in Germany is the current government of Germany today.
So, they are there as quislings (ph) to control the German people and I am proud to say that I am one of this generations best known dissidents trying to bring an end to this dismal state.  Germany has no constitution like we have in Canada.  Germany operates under an occupation called basic law.  We have no charter of rights; we have no constitution, no bill of rights, nothing.  It's a character of a democracy.  If it wasn't convenient for Canada to have me in a military alliance, Canada would never give me the light of day.  They're institutions, Mr. Thomson, suck compared to this country. 
The reason why I've asked for refugee status is precisely that, Mr. Thomson.  I haven't had an easy road to hoe in Canada, but compared to what I am facing over there as I'm being shipped out, if I will be shipped out, now it looks like I am going to be shipped out, well he outlined it for you.  Minimum five years.  I'm 64 years old; all I've ever done is pleaded for my country's freedom, normalcy, not violence. Young people that I'm supposed to finance, Mr. Thomson, it's perfectly clear that I send them pamphlets, and that I pay for the rental of halls where they could meet.
Look, the Canadian Jewish Congress, all these Jewish organizations, the Italian organizations, that's what exiles or overseas Europeans do, they help to keep up the culture of their own people here and there, and welfare people.  I was fortunate to have a good trade and make good money in Canada.  Yes, I supported young people to find their way out of this marass (ph).  I did not counsel them to commit violence.
Every speech that I've given is one of non-violence.  I am an advocate of Ghandi's way of self-liberation, Mr. Thomson, not some wild-eyed revolutionary throwing cocktails around.  If anybody in the 44 years that I've been in Canada is the agreed party, it is me, I've been hounded, kicked, vilified, jailed, had my anus probed numerous times.  Then the Supreme Court set me free and when I asked the government of the day for an apology and for compensation at least to pay my legal fees, I got nothing by sneers and snickers, that's the Zundel case, I have nothing else to say.  Thank you for hearing me. Thank you for giving me leeway.

MEMBER:  Do you wish to make any reply, Mr. MacIntosh?

MR. MACINTOSH:   Yes, Mr. Thomson.  First of all I would note that what Mr. Zundel has done is he has entered minimal submissions with giving evidence.  What is significant about the statements is that when he took you to the letter dated May 23d, 2001 it is quite clear that an interview was scheduled for a certain day at a certain time, the lawyer unilaterally asked for an adjournment on the basis that he had a conflicting court date.  But in my respectful submission that didn't mean that Mr. Zundel was not required to show up at that interview.  Irrespective of the schedule of counsel, he was clearly required to show up at that interview and he's admitted before you today that he didn't do so.  His lawyer put forward an excuse as to why the lawyer didn't appear.  Well, at that point in time there was an obligation of Mr. Zundel to appear.
Furthermore, obviously the fact that he stayed in the United States beyond the time that he was legitimately authorized to do so is what is justified his warrant for deportation, which prohibits him from re-entering the United States for a 20 year period. 
So, that provides an evidentiary basis for the submissions made by the commission that Mr. Zundel has failed to comply with American Immigration law. 
Furthermore, I would note that in the documentation that he adduced in front of the tribunal, which was presented in submissions, at page, and I guess there's just after the signature of a lawyer, page two, letter to Mrs. Ingrid Zundel, February 13th, 2003, that's at the top, in the top left hand corner.  If you go down, there's a list of events that have taken place, and it says, "6 12 01, fax from Ernest Zundel advising that he and Ingrid are going to fly to California to take care of arrangements for the handicapped boy and inquiring as to whether or not a new interview examination appointment has been set by INS.  Ernest also advised in July of 2001 an individual came by taking photos of the property and the house."

Well clearly this documentation prefaces Mr. Stewart's testimony that there is a relationship and that Ingrid in fact is the wife or companion of Ernest Zundel, and that it only goes to underscore all of the testimony that's been presented here today and the documentation that you've been presented with.  So, that when Mr. Zundel said that he has not responsibility over his web site and he submits and affidavit from his wife in which he says she has the sole responsibility, clearly he and his wife are both intimately involved with this particular web site, in my respectful submission.
Obviously the submissions that he made against CSIS, in my respectful submission pertain to an attempt to assassinate him are patently ridiculous and have no evidentiary basis whatsoever and are about as ridiculous as his linkage between his cause and that of Ghandi. Ghandi never supported the Nazi cause and was horrified by all that anti-Semitism represents.  It's the complete entipethesis of everything that he stood for.
In terms of what Mr. Zundel said with respect to violence, I would not that he has misstated the submission of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, what we are saying is that the literature that he puts out causes like minded individuals to engage in violence, and that he insights violence amongst like minded people, and that the literature that he disseminates, the anti-Semitic literature, the Nazi literature, and the vilification of minority groups, insights certain people to commit violent acts, that's what we are saying. 
All of that underscores why in our respectful submission he constitutes a danger to the public.  In fact these documents only support the commission's case with respect to demonstrating that he does not comply with lawful orders of foreign countries.  That's my response.  Thank you.

PERSON CONCERNED:  I would like to have the right to reply.

MEMBER: Well, we're not going to get into a big debate.  He has been given the opportunity to response.  Like I said, I don't want to get into one side than the other. 

PERSON CONCERNED:  Mr. Thomson, my wife is an American citizen.

MEMBER: That's been established.

PERSON CONCERNED:    That's been a long time.  She's a novelist.  She's written six books.  She has a doctorate.  She takes her American citizenship proudly, very seriously.
Now, she is not going to stop the web site because some Canadian hick tribunal is going to rule against it, and besides, I was then living lawfully in the United States.  So the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, even Mr. Pensa, has largely symbolic value, only through an unfortunate string of circumstances do I find myself in this position here today.  That ruling meant zilch to me, zilch to her.  The web site will remain up because I cannot force my wife to do something, I can't even force my wife to give me sex of the kind that I'd like or not like.  It would be considered rape.  I cannot force that woman to do anything, Mr. Thomson. She is a free individual; she is an American, and that web site stays.  Even if they throw the key away and keep me forever.

MEMBER:  As I said to you at the commencement of this hearing, that there are three grounds in which the Minister is seeking your continued detention, one if you are unlikely to appear for your admissibility hearing and that the removal order was issued, your subsequent removal from Canada.
That you are a danger to the public, and that the Minister has taken necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that you are inadmissible on grounds of security.
Now, Mr. Stewart has testified from the CSIS organization.  I found his testimony to be credible and trustworthy.  I thank him for his input today. 
As I said at the outset, if I decided that the Minister was taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that you are inadmissible on security grounds, it would not be necessary for me to determine whether or not you are unlikely to appear or pose a danger to the public. 
On the issue of taking necessary steps, I am persuaded that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is taking steps to investigate that you are inadmissible on security grounds.
One of the objectives in the Immigration Act is the protection and safety of Canadian society.
The Minister has provided ample information which would certainly indicate that there is reasonable suspicion that you may pose a danger to the national security of Canada.
That decision will rest at some sort of admissibility hearing.  The Minister at this point is considering with the Solicitor General the issuance of a security certificate under Section 77.
Also consideration is being given to a security hearing under Section 86 of the Immigration Act.
You have been out of Canada for three years.  The information that is in the possession of CSIS, I understand from what was said here today is substantial.  They need to be able to go through it and also immigration needs some time to determine what you've been doing during the period that you were out of Canada.
Given the seriousness of the allegation which has been raised, I believe enforcement officials to be given the opportunity to gather all of their evidence, and to decide how you will be dealt with.
Despite this finding I probably would have also found you to be a danger to the public, but I will not go into that given my finding on the 58(1)(c). You have another detention review in 30 days.

--- PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

 I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS IS A TRUE
 TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE AND THAT I HAVE
SWORN THE OATH OF SECRECY

 ______________________________________
Jill van Veen
FOR XL TRANSCRIBING AND
DOCUMENT PROCESSING SERVICES
 March 4, 2003







Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute