The possibility of Judeo-Christianity sooner or later having no choice but to confront just who their masters are - and were! - is becoming ever more fascinating to me as I watch the brand of Christianity that I know best - the contemporary Mennonite church.
I grew up with stories and rumors even in the early Fifties that our leadership was mole-infested with political-theological informants, and that it was a commonly known practice for the "Invisible Hand" to move in carefully selected spooks (who usually held the purse strings) so as to single out a target to pursue and demonize.
This never failed. It struck the Fear of the Lord into the rest of the obedient sheeple and cowed them into silence and conformity to orthodoxy - a Christian form of "political correctness" practiced even in the jungles of Paraguay, which started in the early 30s and long before I moved there as a child. In fact, the model for my "villain" in "The Wanderers", my first ethnic novel, was exactly such a man about whom rumors never stopped that he was an informant for powerful but shady men in churchly garb in the United States and Canada.
In days to come, there will be more to comment on pertaining to this topic. Today I will merely give you an outline of what happened to just such a political target.
The story itself is too long and too complex for my Zundelsite format - let me just say, for now, that one old, cancer-riddled man named Johann Dueck, of Mennonite extraction and living in St. Catharines, Canada, was said to have been the familiar "war criminal" who had, supposedly, fought in the Wehrmacht in his youth and had committed vaguely specified atrocities.
After years of agony, endless court battles, ruinous legal bills, brutal ostracizing by many members in his own congregation, and endless stigmatizing in the Canadian media, the victim won in court. It finally was proved he never did what was alleged he did - and had been smeared with in the media relentlessly.
The Globe and Mail ran an extensive feature exonerating Mr. Dueck, and two days ago there was a telling editorial:
Pursuing Johann Dueck
_Globe_andMail_ (email@example.com) Editorial | February 23, 1999
The story of Johann Dueck is a sobering tale. It testifies to the time-sensitive nature of justice, but it also shows how political expediency can undermine individual rights.
In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada observed that so much time had passed since the Second World War that many war-crimes cases were bound to fail due to the fragility of evidence. Long delays afflict both the prosecution and defence in arguing cases based on vague memories, lost documents and deceased witnesses.
In response, then justice minister Allan Rock changed tack in pursuing alleged former Nazis and collaboraters. Canada would use denaturalization and deportation as weapons against most accused people, a process that requires much weaker proof of fraudulently entering Canada and that permits no legal appeal. It was with this blunt tool that Ottawa charged Mr. Dueck, a resident of St. Catharines, and sought his deportation.
In the end, the government's evidence that Mr. Dueck helped Nazi police in Ukraine kill civilians suffered all the faults of time long passed in Communist countries. He was clearly innocent of the charges, but had endured a legal and personal nightmare.
If justice delayed is justice denied, 57 years later halfway around the world denies a great deal of justice, indeed. Is further lowering the hurdle because the evidence is weak the act of an admirable state? <end>
Good question. There is a well-known parallel. One of the better known Canadian columnists, Christie Blatchford*, was the very one who kicked loose the avalanche of physical threats, emotional pain and horrendous financial hardship befalling Mr. Zundel when someone in the paper hierarchy found out that he had applied for the second time for Canadian citizenship.
The result was a vicious editorial titled "Citizen Zundel? No way!"
Did the Globe and Mail try to ferret out the truth? No. It was joining the chorus.
In the Dueck case as in the Zundel case, the lapdog media mavens speak out of both corners of their mouths. We take these quotes right from the horse's mouth:
* The editors of the Globe and Mail must have known that ". . . political expediency can undermine individual rights." Did they speak up and do an interview with Mr. Zundel?
* The editors of the Globe and Mail must have been aware that ". . . justice minister Allan Rock changed tack . . ." because a legal avenue was closed." Was there a follow-up?
* Their sorry lapdog scribblers must have known that ". . . Canada would use denaturalization and deportation as weapons against most accused people, a process that requires much weaker proof of fraudulently entering Canada and that permits no legal appeal." Where was the Globe and Mail's professional interest?
Like Mr. Dueck, Mr Zundel is innocent of the charges leveled against him. This has been definitively proven in court, over and over again. He, too, has endured a legal and personal nightmare. Never once has the Globe and Mail spoken up devisively. And now the Globe and Mail asks rhetorically: "Is further lowering the hurdle because the evidence is weak the act of an admirable state?"
Lowering the hurdle? A fine, descriptive phrase. In fact, that is exactly what the Jewish leadership has done with the full cooperation of the government and its beholden agencies like "Human Rights Commissions". How about lowering the hurdle with ". . . truth is not a defence . . . "? How about ". . . rules of criminal evidence do not apply. . . "? How about "Hearsay is allowed. . . "
Where is the media outcry?
And watch how the Canadian government will further "lower the hurdle" with their new, revised, improved censorship rules under the soon-to-be passed new Canadian Hate Laws. Not once do these media attack poodles - always yapping at the ankles of what they are told is "hate" and "anti-Semitism" - mention that in each and every case, the agitation has come from the shrill Jewish Lobby who interprets all criticism of their actions and power grabbing censorship as "hate" and "anti-Semitism."
Fair people watch all this. Whole ethnic communities are noticing. The competition has the scent. It is high noon. It's later than high noon. The media commentators have an obligation and a duty to perform - which is to do their research so as to tell the truth!
And now we want to know:
"Is slushing Holocaust Hokum all over Canada in feature after feature in the Globe and Mail - while denigrading Mr. Zundel who tries to clean it up - the act of an admirable national paper?"
Thought for the Day:
"Since lemmings on juries have decided that tobacco companies are responsible for irresponsible use of tobacco leading to disease and/or death; and since gun manufactures are now going to be blamed for the growing crime rate in AmeriKa, shouldn't publishers of Dictionaries be held accountable for "Hate-Speech"?
(Quote sent to the Zundelsite)
*I have just been told that Blatchford wrote the article "Citizen Zundel? No way!" while she was with the Toronto Sun. She later worked for the Toronto Star and is now with the National Post.
Back to Table of Contents of the Feb. 1999 ZGrams