|
|
|
|
|
|
Ernst Zündel's Third 'Holocaust' Trial - continues at Mannheim, Germany
- continues on 9 March 2006
_____________________________
15 February 2006
Zundel's Lawyers Split Over Defense TacticsNational PostLawyers for a German man charged with denying the Holocaust split over tactics Thursday as the judge demanded an apology from a defence lawyer for disrupting proceedings. Prosecutors accuse Ernst Zundel, 66, of years of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust -- a crime in Germany -- in documents and on the Internet. Zundel, an apologist for Hitler who was deported from Canada last year and has also lived in the U.S. state of Tennessee, faces up to five years in prison if convicted. Proceedings have been slowed by a string of motions, objections and interruptions from defence lawyer Sylvia Stolz, prompting presiding judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen to accuse her of insulting the court and sabotaging the trial.From: cafe-bounces@canadafirst.net [
mailto:cafe-bounces@canadafirst.net] On Behalf Of cafe@canadafirst.netSent: Friday, 17 February 2006 11:53 AM
To: 'Paul Fromm'
Subject: Judge Fines & Jails Zundel Supporters
Judge Fines & Jails Zundel Supporters
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
On Wednesday, February 15, Day 2 of the Zundel Thoughts Crimes Trial in Germany, Judge Ulrich Meinerhagen rejected three defence motions asking that he recuse himself for bias; threatened Zundel’s personal defence lawyer Sylvia Stolz with prosecution is she questioned the “holocaust”; adjourned the trial for three weeks so that lawyers can study the authorship of posting on the Zundelsite; and fined three Zundel supporters for singing a nationalist verse from the German national anthem; and tossed a fourth Zundel supporter into prison for four days for insulting him.
The CBC (Feb. 15, 2006) reported: “Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen rejected the three motions, filed last week, citing another court's ruling that found there was no reason to doubt his neutrality.
Meinerzhagen also fined three spectators at the trial for singing a verse of the German national anthem, which has been banned since the end of the Second World War because of nationalistic lyric content. A fourth spectator was ordered jailed for four days for comparing the judge to a Nazi-era prosecutor.
Prosecutors accuse Zundel, 66, of years of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust - a crime in his native Germany
- in documents and on the Internet. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted.
The six-member defence team, whose motions and objections have slowed proceedings, has rejected the charges as the illegal acts of an "inquisition," but has not contested Zundel's alleged remarks.
Meinzerzhagen warned one defence lawyer she herself could face prosecution for casting doubt on the Holocaust and abusing procedures.”
The Associated Press (February 16, 2006) reported a rift between the spirited Mrs Stolz, Zundel’s lawyer of choice and the lawyers appointed by the State to defend Mr. Zundel: “Proceedings have been slowed by a string of motions, objections and interruptions from defence lawyer Sylvia Stolz, prompting presiding judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen to accuse her of insulting the court and sabotaging the trial. The two clashed anew Thursday, with Meinerzhagen saying he suspected Stolz wanted to ‘make proceedings impossible so that the trial collapses. He said the court would file a complaint to the relevant lawyers association asking them to take unspecified steps against her. ‘I didn't want to bend to your will, that was the point,’ Stolz retorted, turning to the gallery filled with Zundel sympathizers to accuse Meinerzhagen of wanting to ‘put a gag on me.’ She didn't respond to the judge's demand that she apologize.
Stolz is one of three defence lawyers who insist the court should examine evidence for the Holocaust. None of them have contested Zundel's alleged statements. However, Zundel is also represented by three court-appointed lawyers, who have taken a different tack. Lawyer Ludwig Bock told the court Thursday that it would have to examine the authorship of dozens of statements submitted by prosecutors. Meinerzhagen adjourned the trial for three weeks so that the participants can study the evidence.”
The fining of three Zundel supporters for singing verses from the German national anthem is truly pathetic. Germany where there is much support for the Danish cartoonists who lampooned radical Islam still doesn’t get it. Free speech must be across the board. You can’t ban lyrics that talk of the wider Germany, much of it stolen after WW II.
The controversial lyrics of Deutschland, Deutschland, Über Alles (Germany, Germany Before Others) read:
First stanza
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt! :|
Germany, Germany above all,
Above anything in the world,
When always, for protection,
We stand together as brothers.
>From the Meuse to the Neman,
>From the Adige to the Belt,
|: Germany, Germany above all,
Above anything in the world. :|
Second stanza
Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang
Sollen in der Welt behalten
Ihren alten schönen Klang,
Uns zu edler Tat begeistern
Unser ganzes Leben lang.
|: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang! :|
German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German songs
Shall continue to be held in high
Esteem all over the world,
And inspire us to noble deeds
All our lives.
|: German women, German loyalty,
German wine and German songs! :|
Answers.com explains: ” Das Lied der Deutschen ("The Song of the Germans", also known as Das Deutschlandlied, "The Song of Germany") has been used, wholly or partially, as the national anthem of Germany since 1922. The music was written by Joseph Haydn in 1797, … In 1945, at the end of World War II, Das Lied der Deutschen was banned by the victors, and for a time West Germany simply did not have an official national anthem. Though the colours of the national flag were taken into Article 21 of the (West) German constitution, the national anthem is not part of the constitution. On April 29, 1952, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer asked President Theodor Heuss in a letter to accept Das Lied der Deutschen as the national anthem, with only the third stanza sung on official occasions. President Heuss agreed to this on May 2 1952, but the decision was never formalized. Thus, West Germany officially continued to have no national anthem, but used the third stanza at occasions where a national anthem was needed. On 7 March 1990, the Constitutional Court declared only the third stanza of Hoffmann's poem to be protected as a national anthem under criminal law; Section 90a of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) makes defamation of the national anthem a crime, but does not specify what the national anthem is.
A popular myth stated that the use of the first two stanzas was illegal in West Germany, but this was never the case. The myth came into existence because singing them was considered an expression of extreme right-wing political views.”
And, also, we still need your support for the cause of one of the world’s most famous political prisoners. The Zundel case continues in Germany. Please send contributions to help Ernst Zundel’s defence to CAFÉ, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada or e-mail us your VISA number and expiry date.
---------------------
Zündel Lawyer Challenges Judge As 'Holocaust Denial' Trial Resumes A defence lawyer for longtime Canadian resident Ernst Zündel, a German white supremacist accused of repeatedly denying the Holocaust, challenged a judge Thursday to remove himself from the case over perceived bias. Zündel, 66, who emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001, returned to court Thursday to face charges of incitement, libel and disparaging the dead.
Zündel Trial Highlights Limits of Free Speech in Germany According to prosecutors, Ernst Zündel is one of the "most active" Holocaust deniers today. He began distributing Nazi and neo-Nazi propaganda in the 1970s and has written several books praising Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Since 1995, he has been associated with a Web site that carries his name and is one of biggest online repositories of Holocaust- denial propaganda. But Zündel, who was born in Germany's Black Forest region, was only able to engage in such activities because he was living outside of his native county, in Canada and the United States.http://www.dw- world.de/dw/article/0,,1896750,00.html?maca=en-rss- en-all-1124-rdf
A Stimulating Radio Appearance by Mark Weber Is the Institute for Historical Review interested in correcting mistakes in the recording of history or are they Jew baiting 'Holocaust Deniers'? Mark Weber, Executive Director of the IHR tells us that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Zionists, that Iran's call to " wipe Israel off the face of the map" is just a bit of Middle Eastern urban renewal and oh by the way, England started World War Two by picking on Hitler. That'll teach 'em to kill Jesus.....A real feast for the Mel Gibson crowd.http:/ /www.audiomartini.com/index.html
------------------------------------
Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060215/w021522.htmlTrial resumes for German extradited from Canada on Holocaust-denial charges
10:42:02 EST Feb 15, 2006
MANNHEIM, Germany (AP) - The trial of Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel, who was deported from Canada to face charges in Germany, resumed Wednesday with the judge rejecting defence motions seeking his removal for alleged bias.
Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen rejected the three motions, filed last week, citing another court's ruling that found there was no reason to doubt his neutrality.
Meinerzhagen also fined three spectators at the trial for singing a verse of the German national anthem, which has been banned since the end of the Second World War because of nationalistic lyric content. A fourth spectator was ordered jailed for four days for comparing the judge to a Nazi-era prosecutor.
Prosecutors accuse Zundel, 66, of years of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust - a crime in his native Germany
- in documents and on the Internet. He faces up to five years in prison if convicted.
The six-member defence team, whose motions and objections have slowed proceedings, has rejected the charges as the illegal acts of an "inquisition," but has not contested Zundel's alleged remarks.
Meinzerzhagen warned one defence lawyer she herself could face prosecution for casting doubt on the Holocaust and abusing procedures.
Supporters of Zundel say he is a peaceful man being denied the right of free speech.
Zundel emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Canadian officials rejected his attempts to obtain citizenship in 1966 and 1994.
Zundel then moved to Tennessee. He was deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations, and then to Germany in 2005 as a danger to national and international security.
--------------------------
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=369beac9-4e6f-4c62-bc0d-63001d3c0bf4&k=65990Zundel's lawyers split over tactics
Stephen Graham, Associated Press
Published: Thursday, February 16, 2006
MANNHEIM, Germany -- Lawyers for a German man charged with denying the Holocaust split over tactics Thursday as the judge demanded an apology from a defence lawyer for disrupting proceedings.
Prosecutors accuse Ernst Zundel, 66, of years of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust -- a crime in Germany -- in documents and on the Internet. Zundel, an apologist for Hitler who was deported from Canada last year and has also lived in the U.S. state of Tennessee, faces up to five years in prison if convicted.
Proceedings have been slowed by a string of motions, objections and interruptions from defence lawyer Sylvia Stolz, prompting presiding judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen to accuse her of insulting the court and sabotaging the trial.
The two clashed anew Thursday, with Meinerzhagen saying he suspected Stolz wanted to "make proceedings impossible so that the trial collapses."
He said the court would file a complaint to the relevant lawyers association asking them to take unspecified steps against her.
"I didn't want to bend to your will, that was the point," Stolz retorted, turning to the gallery filled with Zundel sympathizers to accuse Meinerzhagen of wanting to "put a gag on me."
She didn't respond to the judge's demand that she apologize.
Stolz is one of three defence lawyers who insist the court should examine evidence for the Holocaust. None of them have contested Zundel's alleged statements.
However, Zundel is also represented by three court-appointed lawyers, who have taken a different tack.
Lawyer Ludwig Bock told the court Thursday that it would have to examine the authorship of dozens of statements submitted by prosecutors. Meinerzhagen adjourned the trial for three weeks so that the participants can study the evidence.
Another of the court-appointed lawyers said outside the court that Stolz's approach was "catastrophic."
"For me it's a betrayal" of Zundel's interests, Hans-Ullrich Beust said.
However, Stolz, who has denounced the court as a "tool of foreign domination," said she had her client's complete trust.
"The only chance for Mr. Zundel and for Germany is that the arbitrariness is uncovered," she said outside the court. "The verdict has already been decided."
Supporters of Zundel, who wrote a book called The Hitler We Loved and Why and distributed neo-Nazi materials from Canada, says he is a peaceful man being denied his right to free speech.
He has yet to address the court.
===============
From: cafe-bounces@canadafirst.net [
mailto:cafe-bounces@canadafirst.net] On Behalf Of cafe@canadafirst.netSent: Sunday, 12 February 2006 3:11 PM
To: 'Paul Fromm'
Subject: Let Ernst Zundel and David Irving Go Home
Let Ernst Zundel and David Irving Go Home
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
This is a powerful editorial and speaks for itself. However, even the free speech sentiments of the author are muddied by lies and misinformation.
Neither Ernst Zundel nor David Irving is a “holocaust denier.” The average person reading this term imagines that a “holocaust denier” believes than no Jew died in WW II. Clearly, anyone believing that is a fool or badly intentioned. “Holocaust denier” is a term of vilification applied to anyone bold enough to question some of the claims of the new state religion of “The Holocaust”, which some European nations (France, Germany, Austria, and
others) enforce with the same intolerance of religious dissent to be found in the Taliban’s Afghanistan.
Both Ernst Zundel and David Irving have questioned some of the claims of the “Holocaust” religion and have challenged the manipulative uses to which this religion has been put to control whole nations by guilt.
Neither Zundel nor Irving has ever preached hatred, injury or suppression of their opponents and, thus, are, in no way, “filled with hate,” as the editorial suggests.
CAFÉ is collecting money to assist both Ernst Zundel’s and David Irving’s defence. Send an e-mail with your VISA and expiry date or mail your cheque to Canadian Association for Free Expression, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada. Indicate to which of these political prisoners you wish your donation directed.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Press Action.com
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/irving01062006/Friday, January 06, 2006
Let Ernst Zundel and David Irving Go Home "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech.”
-Deborah Lipstadt, on historian David Irving Ernst Zundel and David Irving may be filled with hate, but they should not be treated as criminals. The German and Austrian governments are the ones who have committed outrageous crimes by jailing these men for voicing their opinions about the Holocaust.
Zundel and Irving may be two of the world’s most infamous Holocaust deniers.
But they have not initiated physical violence against anyone. They have not ordered others to commit violence.
Instead, Germany has put Zundel on trial for operating the Zundelsite website, which contains statements that the Holocaust is a fiction. It’s illegal in Germany to be a Holocaust denier. In November, Irving was arrested in Austria for two speeches he made in 1989, during which he allegedly claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. It’s illegal in Austria to be a Holocaust denier.
The governments of Germany and Austria want to send Zundel and Irving to prison for many years for publicly expressing these beliefs.
Many liberal democracies around the world have passed laws that allow them to fine or imprison people for making public utterances that don’t conform exactly to the official version of the Nazi Holocaust. Canada didn’t like what Zundel said or wrote about the Holocaust. Last spring, Canadian officials shipped Zundel to Germany where they knew he would face prosecution for his speech. Zundel had immigrated to Canada from Germany in
1958 at the age of 19.
Instead of creating free and open societies, the governments involved in the prosecution of Zundel and Irving are carrying on the ignoble traditions of the Nazis by targeting people for their beliefs. Who are the nations confronting Germany, Austria and Canada for their roles in these grave injustices? There are none.
In fact, many are following these nations’ example. In France, Bruno Gollnisch, a professor at Lyon University, deputy leader of the extreme right French party, National Front, and a member of the European parliament, is facing charges before a French court for Holocaust revisionism. The charges relate to comments made in October 2004 suggesting the existence of Nazi gas chambers was “up to historians to decide.”
However obscene one might deem the opinions of Zundel and Irving, their decision to speak their minds does not impinge on the freedom of others. The prosecuting governments, however, have the official capacity to deny people their freedom by rounding them up for the crime of publicly expressing scandalous beliefs. And Germany, Austria and Canada have taken full advantage of this authority.
The Nazis developed a policy of intimidation. The wrong comment overheard by a Nazi official could have dire consequences. Hitler’s police state worked on the rule that if you said nothing, no harm could come to you. If you had doubts about the way Germany was going, you kept them to yourself
—or paid the price.The Nazis practiced an extreme form of totalitarian control. Today’s enforcement of anti-hate speech laws obviously does not compare to what occurred in Nazi Germany. But the control exercised by these modern-day governments is founded on the belief that states have the fundamental right to punish individuals or groups who dare to say what the overwhelming majority of people might believe is preposterous.
In remembrance of the millions of people who died at the hands of the Nazis and their confederates, governments should be exerting less control over their populations, not imprisoning people for expressing their beliefs.
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute
