TORONTO, December 11, 2003. Ernst Zundel headed back to prison after these
two days in Federal Court, with Mr. Justice Pierre Blais having reserved on
motions that he be recused for bias and compel the Solicitor-General to
provide a list of agents who interviewed Ernst Zundel or others in the
Zundel case.

Judge Blais also delayed ruling on arguments that the German-born
publisher be freed on bail. Final decision on this matter that has already
consumed a staggering 12 days in Federal court and two before the Superior
Court of Ontario on a habeas corpus motion must await yet another in camera
secret hearing requested by the Minister of Immigration and the
Solicitor-General. This meeting will be held later this week. The Crown
remains violently opposed to any release under any conditions for Mr. Zundel.

Mr. Douglas H. Christie opened the day with an eloquent rebuttal of Crown
Attorney Donald MacIntosh's arguments against granting Mr. Zundel bail.
"Now breaches of Canadian human rights law are seen to be the equivalent of
terrorism," he said of Crown complaints that the Zundelsite continues to
feature articles impugned in a January, 2002 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
decision. "Now they are using Section 13.1 [of the Canadian Human Rights
Act], a law not meant to be punitive, to incarcerate a person."

The Crown's argument is that Ernst Zundel is "an embarassment to Canada
and, therefore,  is a threat to national security. Mr. Zundel is an
embarassment to whom?" Mr. Christie demanded. "To German diplomats?"

"If embarassment to foreign diplomats is a problem, why not apply it to
Chinese dissidents in Canada," he asked.

"The name for this is a police state when you determine what political
opinions will be allowed. Dissent is the essence of a free and democratic
society," the Battling Barrister reminded the court.

"The Minister says that the integrity of Canada's external relations is
harmed by Ernst Zundel's distribution of 'hate literature' to Germany and
Austria. Yet, there's no proof that he's ever done this. Before you use the
that definition -- 'hate' -- apply the law," Mr. Christie admonished ,
noting that Mr. Zundel has never been prosecuted, much less convicted,
under Sec. 319.2 -- Canada's "hate law."

"The export of Mr. Zundel's material is not drugs or guns, it's ideas.
This entire trial is a war on ideas," Christie charged. "If the Zundelsite
distributed hate literature, it would be easy for the Government to lay
charges. However, then, they'd have to prove them."

Referring to Mr. MacIntosh's arguments, Mr. Christie said: "My friend
seems to say, if Canada sees it's in its national interest to incarcerate
people, it's okay. What do we do with other 'embarassments' -- anti-free
trade protesters, environmentalists? They don't go to jail for six to eight
months," Mr. Christie emphasized. "The courts have upheld the right of
those people to demonstrate."

"There's no threat to the security of Canada in anything Ernst Zundel has
published," Mr. Christie continued.

Addressing both the judge's and Mr. MacIntosh's unhappiness with the
continued operation of the Zundelsite, Mr. Christie charged: "If he can't
communicate, he can't raise money. How can a 64-year-old unemployed artist
raise money? One of the concerns anyone in his position would have is how
he is to fund a battle that may last over a year."

"My friend asked for a 'fair, large and liberal interpretation of a threat
to the national security of Canada.' If it's too large," the defence lawyer
argued, "we have a police state!"

"My friend's submission said Ernst Zundel has no intention to comply with
any order of this Court. If a Federal Court could establish a breach of the
Human Rights Tribinal order, then it would estblish that he'd committed an
act. Yet, we're to detain him in custody because of an apprehended breach,"
Mr. Christie challenged. "They jump on that possibility. It's paranoid and
politically motivated. It has nothing to do with national security. It's to
silence a nuisance," Mr. Christie charged.

"This whole thing is about guilt by association." Mr. Christie referred to
the Crown contention that, if released, Canada's most famous political
prisoner would put a message on Mr. McAleer's long defunct website. "Mr.
McAleer is not a criminal," Mr. Christie pointed out.

"The Crown says Ernst Zundel is a fascist and a neo-Nazi. Yet, he's not a
threat to national security. We allow communists in Canada. Let's look at
his needs, not his beliefs. He's not violent."

"Ernst Zundel has the right to use legal means to advance what some may
see as his reprehensible views," Mr. Christie reminded the Court. Referring
to one of the founders of the Heritage Front, the Victoria civil rights
lawyer explained: "Wolfgang Droege didn't get any advice on terrorism from
Ernst Zundel. He got advice on pacifism. Does that make him associated with
terrorism? If an older man seeks to advise a younger man to obey the law,
can that be a threat to national security? To anyone who sought his advice,
he advised non-violence."

Quoting Mr. Justice Thomas who presided over one of Mr. Zundel's "false
news" trials, Mr. Christie reminded the Court: "'Mr. Zundel always showed
respect to the Court' Mr. Zundel believes his one chance to advance his
views is the protection of the Canadian and U.S. courts."

In a dramatic move, Mr. Christie presented to the Court a statement issued
by Mr. Zundel that morning in response to a request from the judge the
previous day for dialogue on possible bail conditions.

An angry Donald MacIntosh interrupted, accusing Doug Christie of "trying
to improve Mr. Zundel's evidence."

He was cut short by a furious Mr. Justice Blais. "Are you saying I cannot
inquire into possible conditions?" He then ordered Ernst Zundel to retake
the witness stand.

Continuing his dressing down of Mr. MacIntosh, the judge said: "You
benefit from legislation to put double and  triple hearsay into evidence. I
opened the door. I know of no other legislation where you can detain
someone on such evidence. It's all extraordinary."

On the stand Mr. Zundel indicated that, in addition to the posting of a
surety, he would agree to surrender his expired German passport, and report
to the police. As for the Zundelsite, he would seek to post a document
explicitly renouncing violence aa well as including links to Jewish sites
with different views on World War II than those expressed on the Zundelsite.

Mr. Zundel was cross-examined by CSIS lawyer Rodych, who suggested that he
might use  a driver's licence to sneak into the U.S. "But landed immigrants
now need a visa," Mr. Zundel shot back. "I'd face 20 years in prison and a
$250,000 fine if I did," he added. Besides, he explained, he no longer has
a valid Canadian driver's licence.

Then, in a harsh statement that typified the belligerence of the Crown
throughout this case, Mr. Rodych said: "I will plainly state the the
Minister will not entertain any conditions. He is a terrorist and has
engaged in acts of violence."

Continuing to tease the audience with hints about bail, Mr. Justice Blais
said: "We're not there yet, but we should examine these conditions Mr.
Zundel has presented. All options remain open.

After a short break, Peter Lindsay who has now taken over charge of Mr.
Zundel's defence, spoke to his motion requiring the Minister of Immigration
and the Solicitor-General to provide the names of Canadian Security and
Intelligence Service (CSIS) officers knowledgeable of this case, "those
who've interviewed Mr. Zundel or others about him."

Mr. Lindsay's strategy is to subpoena one or more of these officers. Mr.
Lindsay explained that the CSIS certificate "sets out the 'belief' of CSIS
that Mr. Zundel is a threat to the security of Canada. We cannot see the
mindset of CSIS in considering evidence and forming its beliefs. The
unfairness of CSIS to Mr. Zundel will be an issue at the hearing on the
certificate,' he said.

Live testimony is needed to probe CSIS's biases and methodology, Mr.
Lindsay argued. "In my submissions CSIS based its beliefs on pathetic
evidence. Let's get someone in the box whom I can examine."

"For instance," he explained, "CSIS says it believes Mr. Zundel
contributes to the growth of racism and, therefore, should remain
inadmissible. Does the service really believe that racism is a threat to
national security?"

The tall bearded attorney challenged the Court: "Let me hear from one
witness who can be cross-examined. Or, is a determination to be made on a
bunch of papers. We need a witness to give real evidence. This should be
helpful to Your Lordship. This is not a request without precedent. In the
Jaballah case a similar order was made." Jaballah is an Arab being held as
a threat to national security,

Court adjourned until January 22, 2004. -- Paul Fromm

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

"The European Union is taking it very seriously, said Warman, and if it
reaches a point where universal guidelines are in place, it may become
possible to police the individuals responsible through immigration
processes. That is, while some small island or "rogue state" might opt not
prosecute under the guidelines, the hate-mongers who seek refuge on that
small island could be subject to arrest when they attempt to enter
countries that take Internet hate seriously. An example of universal (or
near-universal) agreement on standards of behavior is embodied in the World
Court, Warman said, a model that could extend to Internet hate."

Richard Warman, the high priest of Internet censorship at the Canadian
Human Rights Commission, gave a talk in Vancouver to a miniscule audience
in late October. This was a day after we picketed his Victoria meeting of
some 20 people. This Victoria meeting, said organizer Alan Dutton of the
Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society, was restricted to "the
Jewish community."  Talk of "inclusiveness" and non-discrimination!

Here Warman illustrates the totalitarian fanaticism that seems to drive
him. He envisions international agreements that would criminalize --
without a trial? -- those spreading "hate" -- that is criticism of
privileged groups -- on the Internet. Even if they succeeded in
broadcasting their views from states that didn't impose New World Order
thought control, these dissidents could be arrested when they entered other
countries.

Orwell spoke of the totalitarian's vision of the future in his novel 1984
and said it was that of a boot grinding itself into a human face. That
somewhat reminds one of Warman's vision.

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
_________________________________________________




JEWISH WESTERN BULLETIN October 31, 2003


Combating hate on Internet
Canada's experience may help delegates at a future UN meeting in Tunis.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN

Since the phenomenon of cyber-hate emerged as a serious social problem with
the advent of the Internet, governments and communities have struggled over
how to respond to the anarchic, seemingly ungovernable nature of old
prejudices being spread by new technologies.

Though the situation worldwide remains largely unchecked, Canada seems to
be coming to an entente over the way law-enforcement and public censure can
confront the problem. And the next few years will help determine if
Canada's example of combating hate on the Internet might prove adaptable to
the worldwide problem.

That was part of the message delivered by two Canadian experts in the field
who spoke Monday night at a local symposium. Leo Adler, director of
national affairs for the Canadian Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre
for Holocaust Studies, and Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer who specializes
in Web-based hate, presented their observations and research at a meeting
organized by the local group Canadian Anti-racism Education and Research
Society (CAERS).

Though the Monday night meeting was disappointingly attended by only about
a dozen individuals, it was part of a series of similar meetings in
Victoria and Vancouver last weekend that reached larger audiences.

Warman said Canadian judicial and quasi-judicial decisions are creating
precedent-setting parameters for what is and is not acceptable in
cyberspace - at least cyberspace that in any way falls under Canadian
jurisdiction.

Only three cases of cyber-based hate-mongering have made it through the
federal human rights process, but Warman said those cases will eventually
allow quicker and more effective ways to shut down hateful and inciting Web
sites. And, though criminal charges are possible under hate laws, the
action, so to speak, is currently taking place on the human rights front.

There was a lengthy delay before a human rights decision came down in the
first case, which involved the notorious propagandist Ernst Zundel. It took
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal about five years to conclude, in the
Zundel case, that the Internet falls under existing federal laws governing
telecommunications. The process was slowed down through procedural
manoeuvring by Zundel's lawyer, Doug Christie, said Warman, but it was also
slowed by the need to address the jurisdictional issues. In the end,
though, the Zundel decision provided, according to Warman, a valuable
precedent.

The second case, Warman noted, took about two years. Part of the delay in
that case resulted from waiting to see if the Zundel case would provide
applicable precedents, he said. Warman and others were stunned that the
third, and most recent case, was concluded in a mere two months, which he
sees as a sign that future cases will be dealt with in more timely ways,
now that precedents are clearly outlined.

Warman and Adler introduced examples of the most insidious hate material on
the Web, including sites that explicitly call for the annihilation of
Jewish civilization "root and branch" and which provide recipes for bombs
and offer clear encouragement to use the information, including specific
buildings and places of worship where the bombs could be most effective.

Warman noted that he is not dealing with sites that offer vague dissent.

"It's not 'I don't like Bob,' " he said. "It has to go much further than
that." He cited a Web site that carried the warning, "I'm coming for you,
kike, and there will be hell to pay."

The defence of free speech, though, inevitably rests on where the line is
drawn over what constitutes hate speech and who draws that line. In 2005, a
major international conference is to be held in Tunis, Tunisia, under the
guise of the United Nations, where all member countries will address the
issue and attempt to find common definitions of what is acceptable and what
constitutes unacceptable comment.

Some in the Vancouver audience worried that the Tunis conference could be
highjacked just as the Durban conference, which the UN convened to address
human rights concerns, was turned into a burlesque of hatred and prejudice.
Warman acknowledged that is always a possibility, but added it is the
responsibility of individuals and governments to press for a constructive,
balanced approach that can result in genuine, workable guidelines.

Though policing the Internet is generally perceived as akin to plugging a
dike with a finger, Warman and Adler share varying degrees of optimism that
it is not impossible.

The European Union is taking it very seriously, said Warman, and if it
reaches a point where universal guidelines are in place, it may become
possible to police the individuals responsible through immigration
processes. That is, while some small island or "rogue state" might opt not
prosecute under the guidelines, the hate-mongers who seek refuge on that
small island could be subject to arrest when they attempt to enter
countries that take Internet hate seriously. An example of universal (or
near-universal) agreement on standards of behavior is embodied in the World
Court, Warman said, a model that could extend to Internet hate.

Before it reaches that point, however, it may be possible to shut down
hate-mongers via corporate pressures. Explaining that Internet service
providers (ISPs) have responsibility for the content their subscribers
post, an appeal to the ISP could be all it takes to shut a site down. If
that doesn't work, there is a next level - the company that provides the
gateway from the local ISP to the Internet itself. These tend to be larger
corporations, like Telus in British Columbia, that have a better
understanding of their legal and moral responsibilities regarding hate laws
than do the mom-and-pop ISPs.

But cyber-sleuthing against hate is not without its personal risks, Warman
noted.

"The Human Rights Act makes it explicitly illegal to retaliate or to
attempt to retaliate against complainants or witnesses [in a tribunal
hearing]," said Warman. That doesn't mean retaliation is easy to stop from
happening though, as he found out.

Warman is a complainant in one of the three cases that has made its way
through the Human Rights Tribunal. When Warman first complained to the
Alabama-based ISP that hosted the Canadian-based hate site, the ISP
forwarded Warman's complaint directly to the hate-monger. The hate-monger
then proceeded, according to Warman, to virtually stalk him for the next
two years, sending e-mails to Warman's employers and associates accusing
him of pedophilia and murder. The Human Rights Tribunal ordered the Web
master to pay Warman $30,000 in damages, though Warman has been unable to
obtain a cent so far.

Still, Canadian law provides the Human Rights Tribunal with authority to
issue cease-and-desist orders that have the imprimateur of the Federal
Court of Canada, to levy fines up to $10,000 and to order payments as
damages to defamed individuals.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has made Internet hate a top priority, and
Adler described the work the Canadian office has done in identifying hate
sites originating in this country.

The Internet, Adler said, has fundamentally altered the very nature of
hate-mongering. Because pre-existing technologies like radio and television
were carefully and easily regulated, it was difficult for extremist ideas
to penetrate the mainstream body politic, forcing hate-mongers to resort to
paper handouts on a localized basis.

The Internet, on the other hand, has made it cheap and easy to reach
potential audiences of millions, which has globalized hate with stunning
speed. There are numerous sites that are blatantly hateful, such as the
Osama bin Laden-related site that allows Web surfers control over the
virtual cockpit of a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre, many
others that call for white supremacist revolutions and still more that urge
the elimination of entire peoples, most frequently Muslims and Jews.

But there is an entire other phenomenon of deceptive, devious and
sophisticated sites aimed at the young and uninformed. A student searching
for information on immigration can find sites that appear legitimate but
discuss issues from wildly racist perspectives. A Web site one might find
while doing a paper on Martin Luther King turns out, only after some
exploration, to be a smear on the civil rights leader and a justification
for white racial supremacists.

One site offered Aryan ova from white women for would-be parents with a
preference. Another uses impressive production values to add credibility to
what is in fact an anti-Semitic take-off on a Dr. Seuss classic: "One fish,
two fish, red fish, Jewfish." A teacher who does a search using the words
"Teaching tolerance" might find a professional-looking site that argues
that white children are victims of invidious, minority-inspired political
correctness. The perpetrator of a Haifa suicide bombing is depicted as a
martyr on another site, where her head, the only part of her body left
recognizable after the blast, is clearly visible in a photograph, along
with other scenes of the carnage, including red pools on the floor,
described as "blood of dirty Jews" and the comment "They deserve worse."

For those with the stomach, such images are a mouse-click away. Warman and
Adler say Canada's response to the matter has some lessons that could prove
valuable as the world at large begins to take more seriously the
proliferation of hate material on the Internet.

"There is progress being made," said Adler.

"I'm happy with where the state of Canadian law is," concluded Warman.

In the lead-up to the Tunis conference in two years, several preparatory
conferences will be held around the world to address cyberhate on regional
fronts. Canada's experience will inevitably rate a close examination as
delegates seek guidance.

Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and commentator.