ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny: Now more than ever!
August 4, 2003
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Paul Fromm, who is the on-location legal representative for Ernst,
sent me the following, to which I would like to add a brief comment:
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Most people rely on the media for their news and information.
The following news story is an excellent example of how our mass
media keep us ignorant of essential facts.
Sometimes, they outright lie and slander, especially those
set up by the enemies of free speech for defamation and destruction.
Sometimes, it's more subtle.
I'd like you to examine Adrian Humphreys' report in the NATIONAL POST
(July 31, 2003). Humphreys was present through most of the three days
of the Zundel hearings this week. His is the most extensive report in
the mainline press. Unlike the CSIS rant against Zundel, it is
relatively free -- not entirely -- of loaded phrases "holocaust
denier", to be sure. It presents the facts in a reasonably balanced
On the surface, it appears complete and fair, but it isn't! I've
included my own report on the last day of the Zundel hearing. Three
important things happened: 1. Doug Christie asked the judge to recuse
himself for bias; 2. the judge granted the government's request for
yet another secret hearing, where the accused will be kept in the
dark as to the witnesses and evidence presented against him; and 3.
there was extensive discussion of Ernst Zundel's deteriorating
medical condition and the judge promised action to improve conditions
in prison where he's denied a pillow, herbal medication, a pen, a
chair, highlighters and post-it notes.
Is the light beginning to dawn?
The apparently fair report left the last two items out. These items
would enrage most people and make even many anti-Zundelites feel
sympathy toward him. However, the reader, unless he's on the
Internet, will never know these shocking facts.
Is Humphreys a slick propagandist? It's hard to say. We don't know
what he wrote. Perhaps, he wrote a full report and his editor trimmed
Regardless, the power to select, the power to omit, can sometimes be
an even more potent weapon for deceit than outright lies.
Next follows Adrian Humphrey's July 31, 2003 National Post write-up:
TORONTO - Ernst Zundel's lawyer yesterday asked the judge hearing the
national security case against the prominent Holocaust denier to step
down for showing "open hostility" toward his client.
Douglas Christie accused Mr. Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal
Court of Canada of "badgering and accusing the witness of lying" and
intervening during Mr. Zundel's testimony in a manner "more
aggressive than the prosecutors.''
"You have entered into the arena and expressed hostility to the
accused," Mr. Christie said at the start of yesterday's hearing, a
continuation of the lengthy detention review of Mr. Zundel. The
federal government has declared him a threat to national security as
the alleged patriarch of the violent white supremacist movement.
Mr. Christie gave as examples comments he said Judge Blais made
during Tuesday's cross-examination of Mr. Zundel, including telling
him to stop "snaking around" the facts; that he does not believe his
testimony about who runs the Zundel Web site; and that the more Mr.
Zundel talks, the less the judge believes him.
Judge Blais' reported remarks suggest he has made up his mind on the
matter prior to hearing all the evidence, Mr. Christie said in
making a formal motion for the judge to stand down.
He said a new judge should replace him, one who has not demonstrated
"open hostility" toward Mr. Zundel.
The issue of Judge Blais' impartiality is more crucial here than in
most court proceedings. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act governing national security certificate cases -- when the
government declares a non-citizen a threat to the nation and orders
him deported -- there is no appeal of the sole judge's decision.
"Without the means of other judicial supervision, it is all the more
reason to ensure that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias,"
Mr. Christie said. "You are, therefore, a court of last resort."
Donald MacIntosh, the lead lawyer for the government, rejected Mr.
Christie's claims, calling them "specious."
"No reasonable observer would draw those conclusions," he told Judge
Blais. "You were merely alerting the witness ... that you have some
He said Judge Blais has "demonstrated even-handedness" because the
judge has also interjected to redirect government lawyers during
Judge Blais said the issue was extremely serious and charted new
territory for the national security certificate process. As such, he
would need time to think about the motion. "It is very interesting,"
he said. "Interesting enough to think about."
After close to an hour deliberating in private, Judge Blais returned
to say he would continue with the bail portion of the review and
rule on the motion for him to step down after a transcript of the
previous day's hearing was available for review. He said he would
deliver a decision when the hearing resumes in September.
Outside of court, representatives of Canadian Jewish groups who are
monitoring the hearing expressed confidence in Judge Blais'
Anita Bromberg, in-house counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, said Judge
Blais is fair and astute. "I agreed with the judge's comments that
Zundel's attempts at avoidance on the issue of whether he exerts
control over the content of the Zundel Web site were simply not
Ms. Bromberg expressed dismay at Mr. Christie's motion, saying:
"Fairness is not only owed to Mr. Zundel but to all Canadians."
Len Rudner, a spokesman for the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the
judge's comments were focused and qualified. "I do not believe these
comments represent bias on the part of the justice. Just because the
motion was put forward in no way means that there was bias and in no
way means that Zundel will not get a fair trial."
Paul Fromm, a long-time activist with the far right who acts as a
legal representative for Mr. Zundel in Mr. Christie's absence, said
the judge's words call the process into question. "The comments made
to Mr. Zundel that the judge didn't believe him tainted the rest of
the trial. I don't think Ernst Zundel can be confident that he is
being given an impartial or unbiased hearing," he said.
Mr. Zundel was certified as a security threat and has been held in
solitary confinement while Judge Blais reviews the reasonableness of
the government's declaration. Mr. Zundel is slated for deportation
to his native Germany, where he faces a charge of inciting hatred.
Here I would like to put in a word for Adrian Humphreys. I
personally don't know this reporter, but I have in the past been
embarrassed by criticism from our own people about his write-ups. I
considered that criticism poorly focused and insulting, and I have
been impressed by his calm and rational replies.
Humphreys works for the National Post, a paper that has been anything
but fair in its coverage of the Zundel struggle. He has no editorial
control and certainly can't choose the headlines. That he got the
"snaking around" comment in by the judge is a feat. How would a Jew
feel if a judge told him in a hearing that the more he talked, the
less was he believable, that he was "snaking around"? You'd never
hear the end of it from B'nai Brith! And Paul Fromm is right - we
don't know how much might have been written about the request for
another hearing in camera, and about Ernst's very serious health
concerns, of which I only learned a few days ago. We cannot have the
Canadian public feel even a twinge of guilt, can we, for holding this
man in inhuman detention, now for six months already - when all he
"missed" was an "immigration interview" that was never scheduled to
begin with, and of which he was never aware? I thought this
write-up, truncated though it might have been, at least refrained
from calling him names!
And speaking of health concerns, here I want to add something else
that Ernst might be upset about that I am putting it out on the air,
but I have been sufficiently troubled that I feel I simply have to do
it. And it is this:
A supporter sent me a greatly enlarged color photo as part of one of
the media write-ups, and I don't like at all what it reveals. Ernst
has a look on his face I have never seen before. I don't know how to
describe it. There is a big red bruise on his face near his left ear
that even shows up on his ear itself, and there is a very noticeable
swelling protruding from out of his ear. There is also some blood
and a large blister on his lips. I asked him twice if he has been
physically abused. He denied it. He did not sound convincing to me.
He has repeatedly said in letters to supporters, "I am being treated
correctly." In my opinion, he is saying that too much, with too much
emphasis, over and over again. I have at least ten copies of such
letters with that statement.
He said to me when I pressed him about what I see in that picture,
"When that picture was taken, I was very disturbed." I should also
state, for the sake of fairness, that the photo was taken, as far as
I know, while he was still in Thorold, right after he asked SIRC to
look into the revelations in Covert Entry, the book that documents
CSIS knowledge of the 1995 parcel bomb that was sent to the
Zundel-Haus from Vancouver. Ernst came to that Thorold/Niagara Falls
hearing, not looking at anyone, not greeting anyone. His supporters,
some of them near tears, were very upset that he did not acknowledge
their presence. Immediately after the hearing, he was transferred to
Rexdale, one of Canada's most notorious and unpleasant prisons. The
first time he was allowed to call out, he said to me, with three
guards standing at his elbow, "Hess had it easy...", referring to
Rudolf Hess's lifelong incarceration at Spandau that ended in his
murder - at age 93, if I remember right.
When I pressed Ernst about the strange look on his face in that
picture and what looks like a large bruise on his face, in connection
with his odd behavior during that hearing, he avoided giving me a
direct answer but only said: "I have to obey rules. I was told not
to 'signal' to anyone. I was not allowed to wave or shake hands. If
prison rules are broken, it could mean weeks of no telephone or no
access to canteen materials. It would mean I could not write or draw
or call collect. These guards have strict rules, they are dealing
with violent criminals. I am probably the only dissident in all of
He added, but not energetically the way he often speaks, that I
should not "imagine" something that wasn't there, and he said
specifically, "I am not being beaten. I would tell you."
I'm not so sure.
You make of it what you will. I am so upset about this picture, I
feel like offering myself as a hostage so Ernst can get out and have
an honest doctor look at his condition and get a good feel for what
is going on. Or should we do what some Zundel supporters have
already offered - to alternately offer themselves as Prisoners of
Conscience Substitutes to register a public protest that WOULD get
adequate media attention?!
How many of you would be willing to volunteer to spend a week in the
slammer to know what it feels like, and to give Ernst Zundel some
relief? I would. I already know what it's like, since I did part of
my internship working with juveniles in detention. I can tell you,
jail is not a pleasant place - and what is happening inside does not
often get told on the outside.
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute