A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Wed Dec 27 16:43:04 EST 2006
--
A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel
During the recent conference in Iran (Review of the Holocaust: Global
Vision) I was in prison in Mannheim, Germany interviewing Ernst
Zuendel. Labeled a "Holocaust denier," Ernst has been in jail for
almost four years without being charged with a violent crime or
without even being convicted of a non-violent one. He is 67 year old.
As a six-year old Ernst witnessed the Allied firebombing of Pforzheim
in which ten to twenty thousand German civilians were killed. As a
teenager he became a pacifist; at age 19 he moved to Canada to avoid
serving in the post-war German army. In Canada he worked as a
graphic artist and publisher specializing in 20th century German
history. Many of the books he republished questioned the Holocaust,
such as the underground booklet Did Six Million Really Die? by
Richard Harwood. Others he merely distributed, like The Rudolf
Report by Germar Rudolf, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of
Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack, and Jewish
Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question by David Duke. He
also sold books on UFOs and alternative medicines.
Ernst's interest in history and revisionism led him to dispute and
challenge specific "facts" about the Holocaust. He claimed
1. that Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic
cleansing, not extermination
2. that there were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third
Reich. (He did not deny
that there were gas chambers used for disinfection.)
3. there were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the alleged 55
million who died in WWII
Over the years such firmly held beliefs expressed in writing and
later on his wife's Internet site (www.zundelsite.org
<http://www.zundelsite.org/> ) caused him to be charged with
incitement. He was tried twice in Canada. In the middle of the
second trial in 1988, Ernst sent the first forensic team to
Auschwitz. It was this "Leuchter Expedition" and the subsequent
Leuchter Report that he believed revolutionized Holocaust
revisionism, taking it beyond the "he said, she said..." testimonies
and into the realm of solid forensic science.
Such endeavors made him the target of those who protect the standard
Holocaust narrative. He survived three assassination attempts,
including by arson and pipe bomb, and although he lived in Canada for
42 years, he was never able to gain Canadian citizenship even though
immigration officials had described his application as "flawless."
While some consider his views to border on heresy, freedom of speech
in both the United States and Canada protected his right to publish
and distribute the truth as he sees it. But neither our Bill of
Rights nor the pleadings of his lawyers could prevent his being
rendered by the United States, forced back to Canada, and then on to
Germany where denying or revising certain aspects of the Holocaust is
a crime.
The Latest Incarceration
On February 5, 2003, Ernst was arrested at his home in the mountain
region of eastern Tennessee. He was seized on the pretext that he
had violated immigration regulations, or had missed an interview date
with US immigration authorities, even though he had entered the US
legally, was married to an American citizen, had been checked out by
the FBI, had been given a health check, a work permit, and a social
security number, had no criminal record, and was trying to secure
status as a permanent legal resident.
After being held for two weeks, he was deported to Canada. For the
next two years -- from mid-February 2003 to March 1, 2005 -- he was
held in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre, on
the charge that he was a threat to national security. Like others
who suffer rendition, there was no bail, no public trial, and no
appeal. His mail was censored and the lights in his cell were kept
on day and night.
On March 1, 2005 Ernst was put in handcuffs and leg irons on a
private jet and deported from Canada to Germany where he has been
held as an Untersuchungsgefangener or a prisoner under investigation.
As in Canada, bail was again denied. On June 29, 2005, the state's
prosecutor, Mr. Grossman, formally charged him with inciting "hatred"
by having written or distributed texts that "approve, deny or play
down" genocidal actions carried out by Germany's wartime regime, and
which "denigrate the memory of the [Jewish] dead." The trial began
on November 8, 2005, eight months after he arrived in Germany.
Ernst is confined to his cell 22 ¾ hours per day. He has no access
to phone or Internet and he may not communicate anything about the
trial. He is able to receive two 30-minute visits per month, but all
conversations must be in German or must be conducted through a
prison-approved translator.
Still Ernst remains upbeat and convinced that he has made a
contribution to the truth surrounding WWII and the Holocaust. He
does not deny that millions of people suffered at the hands of the
Nazis, including millions of Jews, who were worked to death and
suffered from disease (especially typhus) and who were often
deliberately murdered both inside and outside of concentration camps.
But he does not regard Jewish suffering as unique. He considers his
efforts to tell the truth about the Holocaust as ground breaking and
is satisfied to let others continue the research.
Ernst believes that Zionists treat the Holocaust as a sword and a
shield to deflect criticism of their racist quest to build a Jewish
state in Palestine, a state in which over half the people today are
not Jewish, "the state" being defined as all the land currently
controlled by Israel, including West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan
Heights. He regards himself as a political prisoner of Zionists who
try to erase his contributions and punish him with defamation and
imprisonment.
A Day in Court
An admirer once described Ernst Zuendel as "an outgoing, good-humored
man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and
practical ability. He maintains this infectious spirit even under
very trying conditions. He is an unusually alert and sensitive
individual with a keen understanding of human nature. He inspires
confidence, loyalty and affection." On December 7, 2006 I witnessed
his trial in Mannheim and found this description to be uncannily
accurate.
On that particular day those in the courtroom included Ernst, three
judges, three jurors, a court reporter, three defense attorneys, four
armed guards, twenty-four spectators, and one prosecutor, Mr.
Grossman. Ernst wore an old blue suit with a red tie; he was
attentive; he often smiled approvingly when something was said with
which he agreed. The guards were friendly but disinterested. Facing
the court, all the participants sat on the left hand side, except the
state prosecutor who sat all by himself at a table on the right side.
The jurors and the court reporter sat in line with the judges on an
elevated platform along the front and the spectators sat in rows
along the back wall. No media were present.
The spectators were clearly there for Ernst. Most were German men in
their late 60s or 70s; there were also a couple of younger women.
Several men commented that they were proud of having been to every
court session with Ernst over the past 21 months. Although they had
not met him personally, they were following his trial closely and
were supportive of him. They were helpful to my American Jewish
colleague and me and guided us through the security outside the
courtroom and made sure we got front row seats so that we could fully
appreciate the courtroom experience. Many spoke English and had sons
and daughters in America. Most were retired but one younger man had
taken time off from work to witness this day of the trial.
Ernst and his attorneys have not been allowed to discuss or challenge
the veracity of the facts about the Holocaust, including facts that
Ernst disputes and about which he would like to submit scientific
evidence and expert-witness testimony. Offenkundigkeit, the German
version of judicial notice, precludes it. The court is only allowed
to consider if Ernst denied these particular facts and if so, when
and where and how. During our visit, one of Ernst's attorneys,
84-year old Dr. Herbert Schaller[1], read a lengthy and impassioned
statement saying that he believed in the same facts of the Holocaust
as does Ernst and by so stating this he too is guilty. He ended by
saying that in over 53 years of practicing law he had until now never
been guilty of the same crime as the man he was charged to defend.
The head judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, appeared tired, agitated, and
ready to explode.
Visiting Ernst in prison
It is not easy to visit Ernst Zuendel. He is allowed only two
30-minute visits per month, one hour if the visitor travels more than
100 km. Though I wrote and faxed the prison a dozen times beginning
in February 2006, the answer was always the same, no answer. But
through his wife, Ingrid, Ernst knew that a colleague and I wished to
visit him and he asked the judge to grant us permission to do so.
Finally on September 23rd Judge Meinerzhagen told Ernst to tell his
wife to tell me to fax him and formally request a visit. We were to
each include a copy of our résumés and a copy of our passports.
Another month passed before we received the visitation permission.
Once we had that document, stamped and signed by the judge, we were
able to make an appointment at the prison in Mannheim.
On arrival the guards filled out a long form on each of us. They
took our passports and had us put everything else in a locker. Then
we were searched, warned against speaking English, and told to cross
the courtyard to the visitation rooms. There we sat on one side of a
table with a plastic shield in the middle; they brought Ernst from
the other side and allowed him to sit across from us while a guard
sat at the end to monitor both parties. We asked if it was
permissible to shake hands and the guard smiled and said that would
be all right.
Ernst began by asking us to contact his wife and tell her that he
looked well and that he missed her. He had not been in contact with
her for several weeks and he was worried that she would be worried
about him. Then he asked if my colleague's family had discouraged
him from making this trip. My friend understood what Ernst was
asking, but he was unable to answer in German, so I had to tell Ernst
that indeed pressure had been put on us both not to have anything to
do with a Holocaust "denier."
We asked Ernst about life in prison and his relationship with guards
and other prisoners. He described a typical day and told us that he
had only limited contact with other prisoners, but that they were
friendly towards him. So too were the guards, especially because he
followed the rules and was a threat to no one. He often asked the
man monitoring our visit to corroborate what he was saying, almost as
if to include him in the conversation.
He talked about history and philosophy and about recent books he had
read. He praised the prison library, which he said was markedly
better than the one in the US jail in Tennessee, which had "only Tom
Clancy novels and one old book on the US Presidents." I had been
forced to leave my notes outside and though I had many questions, I
was not allowed to ask him anything about the trial, not even the
names of his attorneys.
The hour passed quickly and the guard soon told us we would have to
go. When we stood we looked questioningly at the guard and he nodded
to us. We shook hands with Ernst, slowly, he taking each of our
hands in both of his. They were big, soft, and warm; although Ernst
is only six years older than I, he reminded me of my father saying
goodbye when we last parted.
Holocaust Denial
Contrary to the warning given to people who currently tour Auschwitz,
"Holocaust denial" is not infectious. In many ways the term is used
as an epithet to discredit and demean those who question facts
surrounding the Holocaust. Nor is Holocaust denial anti-Semitic;
there are many Jews who question facts about the Holocaust and many
more who object to its being used to elevate Jewish suffering above
that of others.[2] Treating those who question the Holocaust as
heretics reveals the degree to which the Holocaust itself has become
a religion, a faith to be accepted and worshiped with spectacular
memorials, best-selling books, and mandatory curricula for school
children.
Ernst believes that Jewish groups have wanted him jailed for
promoting views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to
its interests. He claims that the only sustained and
institutionalized efforts to imprison him have come from this lobby,
which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish
Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the
League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith (with the Anti-Defamation
League, its counterpart in the US). It is noteworthy that even the
ACLU refused to defend his right of free speech.[3]
Ernst Zuendel is neither a monster nor a heretic. He is a man with
strong convictions and the courage to express them. He views himself
not as a Holocaust "denier," but rather as a Holocaust revisionist.
For that he has been rendered by the United States, which otherwise
professes to protect the right of free speech and the writ of habeas
corpus, and by Canada, both countries in which he broke no law. To
force him back to his birth country to be tried for a "crime" which
he never committed in Germany is unjust. Those who would incarcerate
revisionists like Ernst Zuendel and hold them, without bail, for
years on end to drain them of their resources and to silence them as
"Prisoners of Zion" could well be labeled as "justice deniers."
Daniel McGowan
Professor Emeritus
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
mcgowan at hws.edu <mailto:mcgowan at hws.edu>
December 28, 2006
________________________________
[1] Upon his release from prison in Austria on December 21, 2006, the
English historian David Irving said, "I have the fine oratory of my
84-year-old defense lawyer Dr. Herbert Schaller to thank for the
unexpected victory in the appeal court. I spent over 400 days in
solitary confinement in Austria's oldest prison, sentenced in
February to three years' jail for an opinion I expressed in two talks
seventeen years ago."
[2] Of the 63 participants at the recent conference in Tehran, six
were Orthodox rabbis.
[3] Perhaps Benjamin Ginsburg is correct when he infers that the ACLU
is an organization, which promotes Jewish interests. "In the realm
of lobbying and litigation, Jews ... play leadership roles in such
important public interest groups as the American Civil Liberties
Union and Common Cause.... Their role in American economic, social,
and political institutions has enabled Jews to wield considerable
influence in the nation's public life." ("The Fatal Embrace: Jews
and the State," p. 1)
More information about the Zgrams
mailing list