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

their questioning.


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.




Ingrid's comments:


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.



Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute