I don't yet have specifics about how Day Two of the
so-called Zundel Bail Hearings played out. Is anyone holding his breath?
I will let you know just as soon as I can.
We are making progress, however, in untangling that coil of
snakes responsible for the arrest of Ernst Zundel. Below is the tip of the
iceberg, especially as it pertains to wrongdoing by an appellate court of
the United States of America, the Sixth Circuit Court. Just a few days ago,
through another trickle of documents obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act, we managed to harvest a few additional names - and clues as
to how it was done. It looks as though not only one, but two court employees
were involved. But more about that later.
These days in America, whenever one places a political ad,
it amounts to a veritable dance on eggs - you can't say this, you can't say
that, you have to be sensitive to "minority" feelings. Against
that background, I managed to place Ad # 3 in the Washington Times. I could
not have done the same in the Washington Post, let's say - or better yet, in
one of Canada's national papers. However, I think that I managed to say
plenty.
This ad is to appear tomorrow - September 25 - full-page,
large format paper! No way can this be missed by the powers that be - and
the would-be powers that be:
An Open Letter to the Congressional Judiciary
Committee, headed by Congressman James Sensenbrenner, to investigate the
kidnapping of Ernst Zundel
This is the third in a series of ads planned to inform
America's leaders and the public at large about the arrest and detention
of my husband, Ernst Zündel.
My first ad, titled "An Open Letter to Vladimir Putin"
(6-12-03) was meant to illustrate that Stalinist tactics have come to
America. My second ad, titled "An Open Letter to the Senate and
Congress of the United States", (9-7-03) was a graphic description of
how a brutal, politically motivated kidnapping was carried out. This ad
takes my campaign for basic human rights yet one step further - to free my
husband, and to warn America.
I have been cautioned not to mention America's most
powerful taboo. Instead, I quote from a Letter to the Editor of the
Washington Times, written by one Nelson Marans, that was published in
response to my first two ads - it mentions the taboo for me:
While paid advertisements may be the financial lifeblood
for many newspapers, I would have hoped that The Washington Times would
have displayed more selectivity when confronted by an advertisement from a
Holocaust denier [page A7, Sunday]. Convicted of that crime in Germany and
guilty of spreading his message of hate throughout the world, Ernst Zundel
is not misunderstood and a victim, but instead an advocate of religious
and racial hatred. He supports the extermination of not only Jews, but
blacks and any other members of so-called inferior races. (Nelson Marans,
Silver Spring)
When a charge that serious is being made about an ad I
placed, I am entitled to a full reply. Moreover, I will pay for it so I
can state it fully. What I have to say, below, is part of the public
record and can be verified by anyone.
My husband has NEVER supported "... the extermination
of not only Jews, but blacks and any other members of so-called inferior
races." That is an allegation that is actionable! With this ad, in a
still semi-free America where an accused has the right, we all assume, to
set the record straight, I take this opportunity to do precisely that.
It is true that Ernst Zundel, a German nationalist, has
been a political activist all of his adult life, speaking up for his
people's maligned World War II generation. However, he was only six years
old at the end of World War II. He came to Canada while still a teenager
and lived there for more than four decades. He chose Canada because it did
not require conscription since, raised as a Christian, he abhorred war and
any kind of violence, and he has never changed his mind. As he has put it,
then and since, "I won't take up a gun at governments' behest to kill
another human being who has done me no harm."
With an innate artistic talent and excellent training in
graphic arts acquired in the ruins of bombed-out, postwar Germany, Ernst
very quickly became wealthy - and seriously concerned about an
increasingly hysterial crescendo of post-World War II propaganda against
the country of his birth.
At first, his activism was a part-time hobby. In 1967, he
decided to get into mainstream political action, largely in token protest
against ethnic vilification of the country that he loved. He was an
immigrant, the youngest candidate ever in the history of Canada to run for
political office as head of the Liberal Party. In an address to a live
audience of 25,000, he pleaded for an end to anti-German hate propaganda
and for Germany's reunification.
Shortly thereafter, to his amazement, his then pending
application for Canadian citizenship was turned down, even though his
record of conduct was spotless, and citizenship was routinely granted to
successful immigrants.
A promising mainstream political career thus cut short, he
turned to non-violent street activism, mostly picketing of movie houses
and print media. By then, he had a following of mostly European immigrants
from many different countries. His name became a household word, not only
in Canada but increasingly abroad. Never once did he or his supporters
resort to any form of violence, either in speech or in action. The record
speaks for itself.
In the early 1980s, the Canadian government arbitarily and
dictatorially denied Ernst his postal privileges. It ruined his lucrative
graphic arts studio but broadened his political appeal and brought him
scores of free speech supporters from all over the world.
After a prolonged and very costly legal struggle, he won
his postal privileges back. A Government-sponsored Postal Tribunal ruled
tersely that the Canadian government should keep its nose out of "...
a conflict between two peoples, the Germans and the Jews."
Next, his German passport was revoked and stayed revoked
for many years. Documents obtained by his attorneys through the Freedom of
Information Act revealed to his astonishment how much his ever more
vociferous opponents feared his Truth-in-History campaign, and how
seriously he was being taken by the powers in and behind several
governments. He says today: "Scales fell from my eyes!"
In November of 1983, a well-known, wealthy Holocaust
survivor brought criminal charges against Ernst for "spreading false
news" under the Canadian Code's ancient Section 177, a law that dated
from 12th Century England. More than 800 years ago, this law had protected
England's aristocracy from wandering minstrels chanting ditties against
the powers-that-be. Only twice had it been used in Canada.
Videos exist of the subsequent seven-week trial that show
how Ernst, his legal team and friends were being threatened, pushed,
beaten and spat on as they fought their way into the court house, while a
frenzied mob, waving sticks and brandishing canes, hissed and screamed
obscenities at the top of their lungs. One reporter from the Toronto Sun
wrote that Ernst was "...winning the battle of images by mere
contrast of behaviour."
Next, a bomb exploded in Ernst's garage. Jewish circles
contacted the media and claimed responsibility. Police chose not to follow
up.
Ernst Zundel lost that first trial, but upon appeal the
judge was found to be biased. A new trial was ordered. This trial
commenced in 1988. It lasted almost four months. Ernst paid for his
defense, as he had done before, and has done ever since. The tax payers of
Canada paid for the prosecution - by the millions!
Right at the start of this new trial, the judge took
judicial notice - which means, in layman's terms, that the historical
event known as the Holocaust, as claimed, was a historical
"given" - and could not be put to the test. This made a
conviction a foregone conclusion.
"Before this judge, in this court, the battle is
hopeless," Doug Christie, defense attorney, told Ernst. "I can't
win it for you."
"This one," replied Ernst, "is not for
myself. This one will be my gift to history."
This trial made history. It gathered court witnesses and
experts from all over the world - for no other reason than to document
their testimony in court transcripts. One crucial outcome was the Leuchter
Report, a global bestseller, obtained after a forensic investigative team
flew to Auschwitz in then still Communist Poland. The Leuchter Report was
a milestone.
Since judicicial notice precluded victory, Ernst lost this
trial as well, but after many appeals and a great deal of legal struggle
and yet more millions spent on both sides, the Supreme Court of Canada
exonerated him. After 9 years of costly litigation, the highest court in
Canada said this:
"Section 2(b) of the Charter protects the rights of a
minority to express its view, however unpopular it may be. ...The content
of the communication is irrelevant. The purpose of the guarantee is to
permit free expression to the end of promoting truth, political or social
participation, and self-fulfillment. That purpose extends to the
protection of minority beliefs which the majority regards as wrong or
false."
The highest court of Canada had spoken. In a sane world
this would have been the end. Ernst certainly believed it. Now he could
turn to his first love and do what he had always longed to do - open an
art gallery somewhere up in the mountains.
Within four days, he was re-charged - this time under
Canada's infamous Hate Laws. The government, however, refused to carry
through. There were several more attempts, always with a new twist, to
charge him with a hate crime. The charges never stuck, for he is not a
hateful man - and he has the record to prove it.
Thus having been cleared of all charges, Ernst decided to
re-apply for Canadian citizenship. The Globe and Mail reported that his
application was "flawless". Again he was turned down. Again, no
explanation.
In the fall of 1994, the Zundel-Haus, as it was known,
became the target of 24-hour telephone terror, violent demonstrations, and
postering of flyers across Toronto by the thousands with explicit
instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails. These flyers cited the
Zündel-Haus address and showed Ernst's face in the crosshairs of a rifle.
Police looked the other way and never charged anyone for incitement to
murder. Privately, Ernst was told by a policeman that the word had gone
out that $800 would get him "bumped off".
In the early morning of the 50th anniversary of Germany's
defeat and surrender, the Zundel-Haus went up in flames. Had Ernst been
home, he would have been killed. Invaluable documents, letters and books
were destroyed. Even though the arsonist was caught on video and his name
and whereabouts were known and turned over to the police, there was no
follow-up.
This act of violence was followed 10 days later first by
an AIDS-laced razor blade and then by a parcel bomb which, had it
exploded, would have killed everyone in a radius of 300 feet.
Ernst rebuilt the Zundel-Haus - bigger, better and
stronger - with the help of his freedom-of-speech friends from all over
the world.
Since criminal charges didn't stick, Ernst's opponents
turned to Human Rights legislation, focusing on cyberspace. It would go
too far, and be too tedious, to describe the subsequent 5-year cyberspace
censorship battle in various Canadian courtrooms, the outcome of which was
a Human Rights Tribunal Stalinist verdict: "Truth is no
defense"!
This ruling shocked Ernst to the core. If truth was no
defense, he knew there was no way he could win his case in the courts of
Canada. Moreover, he had made his mark. Historical revisionism had made
spectacular inroads. Revisionist papers, books, seminars, symposia were
sprinkled across hundreds of websites in cyberspace and seriously studied
in colleges and universities, even in the embassies of countries that
mattered. The information was out in the open - it would be up to the
people to draw their own conclusions. Ernst decided his part of the
struggle was done.
By that time, Ernst Zundel and I were married and had
settled in the hills of Tennessee, in looks reminiscent of his homeland in
the Black Forest. Here he would do what he had always longed to do -
create in his own gallery and use his talent to add beauty to the world.
Then came the arrest, out of nowhere! Why? Why now?
Ernst's censorship battles had lasted three decades. He
was known globally for his politically incorrect views, but with no
criminal record on the continent where he had lived all his adult life. He
was married to a U.S. citizen, seeking adjustment of status pursuant to a
properly filed application, whose presence in that capacity had been
authorized by the Attorney General. Suddenly, with no provocation, he was
brutally arrested and deported. Dictatorships act that way. Democracies
have procedural safeguards - including habeas corpus.
To make one's case before a judge is a basic American
right, enshrined in our Constitution. Additionally, Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 23 states that anybody in the custody of US law
enforcement must not be removed to another location, much less booted out
of the country, until a judge has heard the case. A court is expected to
rule on the facts as presented truthfully and fairly by both sides.
We asked that we be judged on all the facts and on the
merits of our arguments. We asked to have a district judge in Knoxville
hear the case. Within minutes, this court turned us down in a one-sentence
ruling, without any hearing.
The very next day, we appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court.
Four days later, our appeal was denied by a three-member panel of judges.
The order was signed by a Clerk.
And here comes the ghastly part that ought to make
America's judiciary shudder:
Through the Freedom of Information Act, we learned that
this Clerk, along with at least one other employee, resorted to ex parte
soliciting of information. In laymen's terms, employees of an appellate
court went outside the record to speed the deportation of a dissident -
one might say that they aided and abetted a political kidnapping!
At this point, we don't even know if the three judges
cited in the ruling of the deportation order knew about our motion for
stay of deportation. They may or may not have known. However, we are
surely entitled to find out. Who was behind this kidnapping - which was,
for all intents and purposes, an extradition in the guise of deportation?
Conscientious men will recognize the danger of a
precedent. The Sixth District Court ruling has given the jack boot to
habeas corpus, a due process safeguard preventing abuse. Baseless arrests
of inconvenient dissidents will be the outcome in the future unless this
abuse is stopped in its tracks.
Ernst Zundel has a flawless record of a kind and decent
man who refuses to live on his knees. He never preached or practiced
violence - he is the victim of repeated, politically motivated violence.
As his wife, I hereby formally petition the Congressional Judiciary
Committee, headed by Congressman James Sensenbrenner, to investigate the
misconduct of the 6th District Court. It is imperative that this abuse of
basic human rights be properly investigated and the misconduct be traced
and punished at its source.
Ingrid Rimland Zundel, Ed.D.
