CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

 

CAFE Seeks Leave to Appeal McCorkill Decision to the Supreme Court of Canada: Free Speech, Freedom of Belief & Property Rights at Stake

KELOWNA, BC., August 25, 2015. Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression announced today that CAFE had,  instructed its lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal against decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal nullifying the bequest of the late Robert McCorkill to the U.S. National Alliance.

“The July 30 decision by the Court of Appeals was dismissive and failed to deal with the substantive arguments and submissions both by CAFE’s lawyer and John Hughes, counsel for the  executor of the estate. In the end, there was no legal precedent for scrutinizing the character of the recipient,” Mr. Fromm said. “This case is crucial for freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights,” Mr. Fromm added.

The Court of Appeals decision was short and uninformative.

The brief two paragraph decision concluded: “Having regard to the application judge’s comprehensive reasons and his determination that  the bequest was void as it was against public policy, we can find no justification to interfere. We are in substantial agreement with the essential reasons of the application judge.

The final paragraph then slapped CAFE with $3,000 in costs ($9,000 total) to each of the parties supporting the nullification of the will on the grounds it was against public policy.

The bequest was deemed “contrary to public policy” because of the politically incorrect ideas of the National Alliance, racial views which are entirely legal in the U.S. where the NA is headquartered.

“After extensive consultations with our supporters in Canada and the U.S., CAFE decided to take this very costly step and seek leave of the Supreme Court to appeal this horrific decision which stomps on free speech and property rights,” said Mr. Fromm.

The Supreme Court grants leave in about only 10 per cent of cases. “However, ” said Mr. Fromm, “this case is of national importance. Its opens the door to endless litigation whenever a bequest is made to a controversial person or organization. It nixes the right of a person to dispose of his property as he sees fit.”

“We were assured by the lawyer for the Attorney General of New Brunswick during the original application that this was a once in a lifetime decision.”

Yet, Mr. Fromm noted, just eight months later, in the Spence case,  an Ontario judge tossed out a will where a Negro preacher disinherited a daughter who had a mixed-race child in favour of her sister who had adhered to her father’s racial views.

The executor for the estate is now appealing this decision.

“This is one of the most serious cases in which CAFE has ever been involved,” said Mr. Fromm. “However, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and property rights are on the line. In the words of Martin Luther, ‘Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.” (Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.)

____________________________________________________________

This appeal is a huge and costly undertaking. CAFE needs your support urgently.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   I believe property rights and the right of freedom of belief and freedom of expression are worth fighting for. Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE appeal the nullification of the the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance  to the Supreme Court of Canada.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#___________________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

Shame on Tim Horton’s

Shame on Tim Horton’s

Tim Horton’s is an iconic and very successful Canadian company. Personally, I like their coffee and prefer it to the wildly overpriced and bitter swill poured out at Starbucks, which, to add insult to injury is fanatically pro-homosexual and pro-Israel.

That being said, Tim Horton’s really disappoints.

1. It is notorious for using Temporary Foreign Workers instead of Canadians. I confronted the Board of Directors about this at their May, 2014 shareholders’ meeting in Toronto. They refused to give me an assurance that, in Canada, “they’d keep employment Canadian.”

2. In February of this year, CAFE exposed and denounced Tim Hortons for having filters in many of its restaurants that filter out “White supremacist” websites, oh, yes, and porn too, as an afterthought. You cannot access Stormfront or American Renaissance. CAFE’s protest resulted in a snotty insolent reply from corporate headquarters. Jon Domanko, Senior Corporate Counsel, provided this reply to a lawyer we asked to protest this policy to Tim Hortons: “In reference to your note below, let me respectively [he may mean ‘respectfully”!] decline your request to change the Tim Hortons Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to wifi available Tim Hortons Restaurants. As a private entity providing a wifi service to guests, it is our contention that it is entirely appropriate to request that guest expressly consent to be bound by the Acceptable Use Policy prior to using the wifi service. If our guests do not agree with the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy they are free not to use the service.” Contrary to Domanko’s assertion, this is not an honour system. Tim Hortons plain and simple has a censorship filter in place.

3. Now it’s clear Tim Hortons continues to censor access to certain sites, including Arthur Topham’s Rqadicalpress.com. I have sadly come to the conclusion that many Big Businesses are heartless and hostile to White interests. They are no friends of free speech or Canadian workers, but huge fans of cheap foreign labour. And have you noticed the shameless support and promotion of the homosexual agenda by our major banks and their advertising promoting and featuring miscegenation — mixed race couples.

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada

By
Arthur Topham

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada by Arthur Topham

Will it ever end? Everywhere we turn these day on the Internet someone is trying to censor you. Now it appears that one of Canada’s oldest coffee outlets, Tim Hortons, has also joined the Zionist Jews in deciding who they will allow their customers to visit online while they’re having coffee and a donut.

Over the past while I’ve had a number of readers email me telling me that when they’re in Tim Hortons they can’t access my website and when they try to they get the following message pop up on their screen:

“inappropriate content”???!!! Says who? Is there someone working in this coffee venue who sits and views every website on the net and makes some subjective, arbitrary decision that they don’t like RadicalPress.com and so they simply block it to spare their thousands of customers from seeing the site?

Well I certainly don’t think there’s anything “inappropriate” on my site and so on August 11, 2015 I sent an email to Tim Hortons at the address they provide in their pop-up window TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com saying:

Dear Tim Hortons WiFi,

It has been brought to my attention by a number of my readership both here in British Columbia and also in Alberta that when frequenting your coffee outlets they are unable to access my website RadicalPress.com.

Being a regular visitor to one of your outlets in Quesnel, British Columbia where I live and run my publishing business I have also experienced this. Here is a screen shot of what readers and I see when we go to visit my site and read articles and news stories which I have been publishing online for the past 16 years. (see above)

I am not sure where you have received your information that there is “inappropriate content” on my site but my educated guess is that whatever software you are using for your WiFi system has erroneously and/or possibly intentionally included my website for purely political reasons.

I have ran a publishing business here in British Columbia since June of 1998 and have been online since 1999. While Radical Press is known to be a part of the Alternative News media rather than the Mainstream media this does not imply that the content on my website is somehow “inappropriate”. It may be contrary to the Mainstream media but then that is perfectly legitimate in a free and democratic society such as Canada is.

I would therefore request that you please unblock my website so that your customers can not only enjoy your fine coffee but also whatever news sites that they, of their own free will, choose to visit while they are in your restaurant.

Since realizing that you are censoring my business I have stopped visiting my local Timmy’s and now spend my money at Starbucks instead. I would like to be able to buy your coffee and donuts as I have been doing for many many years but of course I expect you to respect my right to remain in business as well.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
radical@radicalpress.com
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

The next day, August 12, 2015 I received the following email from TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com:

Good day,

Thank you for your email.
We have received your request and it is in the process of being reviewed.

TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

I immediately replied saying, “Thank you for your prompt reply. I will await your review.”

By August 16 I still had no response and so I wrote again saying:

Dear TimHortonsWiFi,

It is my understanding that you are in the coffee and food industry and not in the business of censoring websites that are legitimate business enterprises.

I feel that you’ve had more than sufficient time to come to what ought to be a very simple solution which is to unblock my site.

We in the Alternative News Media don’t take too kindly to harassment and censorship as that is the main reason why we exist because the mainstream media isn’t doing its job.

I will ask you civilly once again to unblock my site and should I not get a clear answer from you within 48 hours then you will have to bear the consequences of your irresponsible actions.

You have absolutely NO reason to be doing this and ought to be ashamed of your undemocratic, communist tactics.

The next day, August 17, I received an identical reply as I did the first time I contacted them telling me that my “request is in the process of being reviewed”.

Again I replied by stating:
It’s apparent that you either have a robot responding to my emails or else you are not serious in attending to my concerns regarding your censorship actions against my website.

As I stated I would like my site unblocked within 48 hours.

By August 19, 2015 there was still no reply forthcoming from TimHortons so I sent them one final email stating:

Dear TimHortons,

This is my final gesture of good will. You need to ask yourselves whether or not it’s worthwhile for you to be censoring other business’s websites.

I have yet to go online with my planned campaign of telling Canadians and the world at large about your illegal and unethical practises and the boycott of your business.

The following graphic is but a sample of what you will have to deal with.

Please reconsider your position and respond to me immediately or else I will take it that you are determined to block my site.
As of August 22, 2015 and numerous requests I’ve yet to hear back and so I’m taking my concerns online as I advised Tim Hortons.

Obviously whoever is in charge of dealing with blocked sites on Tim Hortons wifi is asleep at the wheel and in dire need of a Extra Large Triple Triple dark roast in order to wake them up.

This is where you, dear friends on Facebook and readers elsewhere can lend me a hand. It won’t cost you a cent. All you need to do is take a moment of your time and send Timmy a brief email asking them to unblock RadicalPress.com. When you do that please bcc me a copy of your email atradical@radicalpress.com so I can get an idea of how many requests are being sent to them.

I’m hoping that if they start to receive more requests than just from me that they will unblock the site.

Also, Tim Hortons is on Facebook as well so maybe those of you on FB might pop over to their page and post a comment regarding this matter.

Let’s see if we can help them to change their minds.

Tim Horton’s is an iconic and very successful Canadian company. Personally, I like their coffee and prefer it to the wildly overpriced and bitter swill poured out at Starbucks, which, to add insult to injury is fanatically pro-homosexual and pro-Israel.

That being said, Tim Horton’s really disappoints.

1. It is notorious for using Temporary Foreign Workers instead of Canadians. I confronted the Board of Directors about this at their May, 2014 shareholders’ meeting in Toronto. They refused to give me an assurance that, in Canada, “they’d keep employment Canadian.”

2. In February of this year, CAFE exposed and denounced Tim Hortons for having filters in many of its restaurants that filter out “White supremacist” websites, oh, yes, and porn too, as an afterthought. You cannot access Stormfront or American Renaissance. CAFE’s protest resulted in a snotty insolent reply from corporate headquarters. Jon Domanko, Senior Corporate Counsel, provided this reply to a lawyer we asked to protest this policy to Tim Hortons: “In reference to your note below, let me respectively [he may mean ‘respectfully”!] decline your request to change the Tim Hortons Acceptable Use Policy as it relates to wifi available Tim Hortons Restaurants. As a private entity providing a wifi service to guests, it is our contention that it is entirely appropriate to request that guest expressly consent to be bound by the Acceptable Use Policy prior to using the wifi service. If our guests do not agree with the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy they are free not to use the service.” Contrary to Domanko’s assertion, this is not an honour system. Tim Hortons plain and simple has a censorship filter in place.

3. Now it’s clear Tim Hortons continues to censor access to certain sites, including Arthur Topham’s Rqadicalpress.com. I have sadly come to the conclusion that many Big Businesses are heartless and hostile to White interests. They are no friends of free speech or Canadian workers, but huge fans of cheap foreign labour. And have you noticed the shameless support and promotion of the homosexual agenda by our major banks and their advertising promoting and featuring miscegenation — mixed race couples.


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada

By
Arthur Topham

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada by Arthur Topham

Will it ever end? Everywhere we turn these day on the Internet someone is trying to censor you. Now it appears that one of Canada’s oldest coffee outlets, Tim Hortons, has also joined the Zionist Jews in deciding who they will allow their customers to visit online while they’re having coffee and a donut.

Over the past while I’ve had a number of readers email me telling me that when they’re in Tim Hortons they can’t access my website and when they try to they get the following message pop up on their screen:

“inappropriate content”???!!! Says who? Is there someone working in this coffee venue who sits and views every website on the net and makes some subjective, arbitrary decision that they don’t like RadicalPress.com and so they simply block it to spare their thousands of customers from seeing the site?

Well I certainly don’t think there’s anything “inappropriate” on my site and so on August 11, 2015 I sent an email to Tim Hortons at the address they provide in their pop-up window TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com saying:

Dear Tim Hortons WiFi,

It has been brought to my attention by a number of my readership both here in British Columbia and also in Alberta that when frequenting your coffee outlets they are unable to access my website RadicalPress.com.

Being a regular visitor to one of your outlets in Quesnel, British Columbia where I live and run my publishing business I have also experienced this. Here is a screen shot of what readers and I see when we go to visit my site and read articles and news stories which I have been publishing online for the past 16 years. (see above)

I am not sure where you have received your information that there is “inappropriate content” on my site but my educated guess is that whatever software you are using for your WiFi system has erroneously and/or possibly intentionally included my website for purely political reasons.

I have ran a publishing business here in British Columbia since June of 1998 and have been online since 1999. While Radical Press is known to be a part of the Alternative News media rather than the Mainstream media this does not imply that the content on my website is somehow “inappropriate”. It may be contrary to the Mainstream media but then that is perfectly legitimate in a free and democratic society such as Canada is.

I would therefore request that you please unblock my website so that your customers can not only enjoy your fine coffee but also whatever news sites that they, of their own free will, choose to visit while they are in your restaurant.

Since realizing that you are censoring my business I have stopped visiting my local Timmy’s and now spend my money at Starbucks instead. I would like to be able to buy your coffee and donuts as I have been doing for many many years but of course I expect you to respect my right to remain in business as well.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
radical@radicalpress.com
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

The next day, August 12, 2015 I received the following email from TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com:

Good day,

Thank you for your email.
We have received your request and it is in the process of being reviewed.

TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

I immediately replied saying, “Thank you for your prompt reply. I will await your review.”

By August 16 I still had no response and so I wrote again saying:

Dear TimHortonsWiFi,

It is my understanding that you are in the coffee and food industry and not in the business of censoring websites that are legitimate business enterprises.

I feel that you’ve had more than sufficient time to come to what ought to be a very simple solution which is to unblock my site.

We in the Alternative News Media don’t take too kindly to harassment and censorship as that is the main reason why we exist because the mainstream media isn’t doing its job.

I will ask you civilly once again to unblock my site and should I not get a clear answer from you within 48 hours then you will have to bear the consequences of your irresponsible actions.

You have absolutely NO reason to be doing this and ought to be ashamed of your undemocratic, communist tactics.

The next day, August 17, I received an identical reply as I did the first time I contacted them telling me that my “request is in the process of being reviewed”.

Again I replied by stating:
It’s apparent that you either have a robot responding to my emails or else you are not serious in attending to my concerns regarding your censorship actions against my website.

As I stated I would like my site unblocked within 48 hours.

By August 19, 2015 there was still no reply forthcoming from TimHortons so I sent them one final email stating:

Dear TimHortons,

This is my final gesture of good will. You need to ask yourselves whether or not it’s worthwhile for you to be censoring other business’s websites.

I have yet to go online with my planned campaign of telling Canadians and the world at large about your illegal and unethical practises and the boycott of your business.

The following graphic is but a sample of what you will have to deal with.

Please reconsider your position and respond to me immediately or else I will take it that you are determined to block my site.
As of August 22, 2015 and numerous requests I’ve yet to hear back and so I’m taking my concerns online as I advised Tim Hortons.

Obviously whoever is in charge of dealing with blocked sites on Tim Hortons wifi is asleep at the wheel and in dire need of a Extra Large Triple Triple dark roast in order to wake them up.

This is where you, dear friends on Facebook and readers elsewhere can lend me a hand. It won’t cost you a cent. All you need to do is take a moment of your time and send Timmy a brief email asking them to unblock RadicalPress.com. When you do that please bcc me a copy of your email atradical@radicalpress.com so I can get an idea of how many requests are being sent to them.

I’m hoping that if they start to receive more requests than just from me that they will unblock the site.

Also, Tim Hortons is on Facebook as well so maybe those of you on FB might pop over to their page and post a comment regarding this matter.

Let’s see if we can help them to change their minds.

RCAF Veteran and Former Canadian Diplomat Ian Macdonald Blasts Tim Hortons & Backs Free Speech on WiFi for Arthur Topham & Radicalpress.com

RCAF Veteran and Former Canadian Diplomat Ian Macdonald Blasts Tim Hortons & Backs Free Speech on WiFi for Arthur Topham & Radicalpress.com

 
August 24, 2015
 
Manager, Public Relations
Tim Horton’s Inc
 
Dear Sir or Madame
 
Re:  censorship of WiFi content in Tim Horton’s outlets
 
Your company is well-known around the world as a genuine Canadian symbol and as such carries the responsibility of reflecting and supporting Canadian values.
 

 
One of the most important – if not the most important value – is freedom of speech.  Successive Governmentshave dedicated the country to its preservation and over one hundred thousand patriots have given their lives in its defence, including comrades and relatives of the writer.  For this hard fought freedom to be trashed by dubiously-motivated individuals who in all likelihood have sacrificed little or nothing in building a democratic society in Canada, is both a betrayal and an insult to your clients as well as your esteemed company and the country, especially Veterans.
 
 
 
I recommend strongly, therefore that you reconsider your censorship of Arthur Topham’s Radical Press. I know Arthur to be 100% patriotic, a conscientious freedom-fighter and righteous in all his endeavours.  He deserves acclaim, not abuse.
 
Yours truly,
 
Ian V. Macdonald
ex-RCAF
Canadian Foreign Service rtd
Member, Dominion Command, Royal Canadian Legion
Author “OTTAWA – the Golden Years” etc

Hear Paul Fromm on James Edwards’ “The Political Cesspool” Show Tonight

Hear Paul Fromm on James Edwards’ “The Political Cesspool” Show Tonight

 
Mr. Fromm discusses being targetted and harassed by the Department of Homeland Security
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
Join us this evening when James Edwards breaks down the latest happenings in the Donald Trump campaign, including last night’s massive rally in Alabama, as well as a Trump related topic that nobody else in the media has covered. Paul Fromm and Mark Weber will also appear as guests.  Click here (or here) to listen live online. (Saturdays, 6pm – 9pm CST) 
 
The Political Cesspool Radio Program broadcasts live each Saturday evening (6:00 pm – 9:00 pm Central Time) from AM 1600 WMQM Radio in Memphis, Tennessee. We are syndicated nationwide to the AM / FM affiliate stations of the Liberty News Radio Network. Our program also simulcasts online and our library of broadcast archives can be accessed on demand.
 
* NEW WAYS TO LISTEN LIVE! ONLINE (Saturday, 6-9pm Central) * We are always working hard to deliver to you a better and more accessible product. Please take the time to familiarize yourselves with a couple of additional listening options for our online audience! Select the option that best suits you and be sure to bookmark it for future reference.
 
* CALL FROM ANYWHERE * Just dial (712) 432-5339 and listen to The Political Cesspool Radio Program from any phone during our weekly live show!
 
* ARCHIVE LINKS * If you missed our live show, click here to access our most recent program podcasts, or click here to access the complete broadcast archive dating back to 2004.

Edmonton “Hate” Squad Are Now Book Critics — Target Veterans Today Author

Edmonton “Hate” Squad Are Now Book Critics — Target Veterans Today Author

 
Being a member of one of Canada’s ignominious “hate squads” means snooping on the Internet looking for “hate” — views your political masters or noisy minority thought police don’t like. It means hassling skinheads. But all of this is pretty thin stuff to justify your pay cheque when your colleagues are out on patrol and actually facing danger investigating violent people or unpredictable drug addicts.
 
So now the “hate squad” has taken up literary criticism.
 
One of CAFE’s associates attended an August 16 lecture in Edmonton by Kevin Barrett editor of U.S.-based website Veterans Today. Our colleague reported that he noticed a Negro from the Edmonton Police “hate squad” and his female sidekick in the audience. Comically, the Negro our friend reported, “was  dressed like a hip hop follower.”
 
Apparently, the thought police at B’nai Brith had complained and sicked the “hate squad” dress-up  artists on the visiting U.S. conspiracy theorist. Here is a more complete report from Veterans Today (August 18, 2015)
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Canadian police target conspiracy theorists

Hate Squad cracks down on book talk

by Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor,  with Anthony Hall

Edmonton, Alberta

The Edmonton Police Department’s  Hate Speech Squad has launched an investigation of a scholarly book that questions the War on Terror.

BANNED-IN-CANADAOn August 16th, two undercover EPD officers attended a book talk at the Rossdale Community League Hall in downtown Edmonton. The officers were investigating  We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11, which has apparently elicited complaints from B’nai Brith Canada.

Out of uniform and posing as ordinary audience members, the Hate Police officers watched my book talk.  During the intermission between my lecture and the subsequent presentation by University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall, the officers flashed their badges and identified themselves as members of the Hate Speech Squad. They said they had received a complaint referencing “conspiracy theories” and “anti-Semitism.” (How a scholarly book that includes essays by several highly accomplished and reputable Jewish contributors, as well as one by an even more Semitic Arab Muslim, can be called “anti-Semitic” is a mystery.)

The lead officer told me: “I didn’t see any problems with anything I heard during your lecture.” On behalf of the Department, he accepted an autographed copy of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo dedicated “To the Edmonton Police Department Hate Speech Squad – thank you for thinking freely.” The officer said the book will be placed in the Departmental Library.

The Edmonton PD’s We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo investigation raises interesting questions. Are Canadian police departments now charged with giving a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to books and book talks? Are Hate Speech Squad officers getting training in literary criticism, investigative journalism and historiography so they can serve as competent peer reviewers and censors? Had the officers disapproved of the lecture, could they have arrested us? If they later read the book and dislike it, will it be banned in Canada? Conversely, if they like it, might they offer a blurb: “Terrific stuff! Certified 100% hate free by the Canadian hate police!”

But seriously, folks: Doesn’t the policing of books and book talks have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom? And how and why did this particular book draw the attention of the Hate Police?

“The person who stated you were involved in hate crimes is Amanda Hohmann” emailed Joanne David, the Edmonton event organizer, to Anthony Hall. Amanda Hohmann is the Coordinator of the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents.

Professor Hall was outraged: “They call themselves the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitism. Auditing! We live in an era of auditing fraud. The banksters are experts in disguising what’s going on through creative bookkeeping. It’s interesting that the concept of audit is now being applied to policing people’s ideas.”

So who was responsible for sending the Hate Police to our book talk? Anthony Hall was unable to get a straight answer:

“I called the B’nai Brith office but wasn’t able to speak to Amanda Hohmann. I asked to speak with CEO Michael Mofton and Senior Legal Counsel David Matas. I indicated it is a serious matter and that I have never been associated with a hate speech crime. So I want to know who complained, what is the nature of the complaint, is there  a text involved? It seems that someone said that our speaking was going to somehow be a violation of some hate speech principles. I wanted to know what the rules are, if there are any rules. Are people just free to snitch anonymously? Can people turn in their partner because they’re mad at him or her? It gets to the whole essence of the Global War on Terror, that people are subject to these repressions. They don’t know what they’re accused of, who is doing the accusing. There’s no due process. It’s an authoritarian police state atmosphere, an East German Stasi type of worldview. And this is creating maximum dissension, distrust and suspicion of one another. And this seems to be the agenda of neocon tyranny. Here we are right in the midst of an election. These issues are front and center. Bill C-51, now the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015, is like the Canadian Patriot Act. (Bill C-51 was passed in the wake of Canada’s 9/11, the Ottawa shooting of 10/22/2014.)

As of this writing, B’nai Brith has not returned Professor Hall’s phone calls asking for an explanation. Neither, for that matter, have the Edmonton Hate Police:

“I called the Edmonton Police Department. I couldn’t even find out the name of the officers. They gave me the phone number of the Hate Speech Unit. I called and left a message, but they haven’t gotten back to me.”

Richard Awid, manager of the Rossdale Community Center in Edmonton, said there had been several complaints asking him to cancel the event. The complaints were apparently vague and unsubstantiated. Awid, to his credit, stood his ground and allowed the book talk to proceed.

En route to Jasper with Anthony Hall

The Edmonton talk was the final episode of my five Canadian events with Anthony Hall. Two days earlier, our talk in Jasper was introduced by a forceful disclaimer disassociating the owner of the venue – the United Church of Canada – from the event.

Anthony Hall writes:

“This experience we went through in Jasper and especially in Edmonton seem to be a prelude to the kind of relationships  we can expect with the police, the government, and one another. This kind of thing is going to make the university as we’ve known it impossible. I can foresee security clearances for classes and Hate Police officers sitting in.”

In today’s Orwellian world, it seems that critical inquiry is being redefined as hate speech, radicalization, or even  terrorism.

The B’nai Brith Canada website states: “In the future, the League will explore further use of legal means to halt or disrupt the operations of known terrorist organizations with representatives in Canada. The B’nai Brith legal department will play a key role in this effort.”

Are scholarly books now considered a form of terrorism?

Anthony Hall adds: “I find it very troubling that there is this notion of ‘radicalization,’ that everyone just nods their heads assuming it means something. Are universities being defined as agents of radicalization, and professors considered their representatives?”

THE ZÜNDEL TRIALS (1985 AND 1988)

The Zündel Trials (1985 and 1988)

On May 13, 1988, Ernst Zündel was sentenced by Judge Ronald Thomas of the District Court of Ontario, in Toronto, to nine months in prison for having distributed a Revisionist booklet that is now 14 years old: Did Six Million Really Die?

Ernst Zündel lives in Toronto where, up until a few years ago, he worked as a graphic artist and advertising man. He is now 49 years old. A native of Germany, he has kept his German citizenship. His life has known serious upsets from the day when, in about 1981, he began to distribute Did Six Million Really Die?, a Revisionist booklet by Richard Harwood. The booklet was first published in 1974 in Great Britain where, a year later, it was the focus of a lengthy controversy in the literary journal Books and Bookmen. At the instigation of the Jewish community of South Africa, it was later banned in that country.

In Canada, during an earlier trial in 1985, Zündel had been sentenced to 15 months in prison. That sentence was thrown out in 1987. A new trial began on January 18, 1988. I participated in the preparations for it and in the unfolding of those judicial proceedings. I devoted thousands of hours to the defense of Ernst Zündel.

François Duprat: A Precursor

In 1967, François Duprat published an article on “The Mystery of the Gas Chambers” (Défense de l’Occident, June 1967, pp. 30-33). He later became interested in the Harwood booklet and became actively involved in its distribution. On March 18, 1978, he was killed by assassins armed with weapons too complex not to belong to an intelligence service. Responsibility for the assassination was claimed by a “Remembrance Commando” and by a “Jewish Revolutionary Group” (Le Monde, March 23, 1978, p. 7). Patrice Chairoff had published Duprat’s home address in the Dossier Néo-Nazisme. He justified the assassination in the pages of Le Monde (April 26, 1978, p. 9) by citing the victim’s Revisionism: “François Duprat is responsible. There are some responsibilities that kill.” In Le Droit de vivre, the publication of the LICRA (International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), Jean Pierre-Bloch expressed an ambiguous position: he criticized the crime but, at the same time, he let it be understood that he had no pity for those who, inspired by the victim, would start out on the Revisionist path (Le Monde, May 7-8, 1978).

Pierre Viansson-Ponté

Eight months before Duprat’s assassination, journalist Pierre Viansson-Ponté had launched a virulent attack against the Harwood pamphlet. His chronicle was entitled: “Le Mensonge” (The Lie), (Le Monde, July 17-18, 1978, p. 13). It was reprinted with an approving commentary in Le Droit de vivre. Six months after the assassination, Viansson-Ponté took up the attack once more in “Le Mensonge” (suite) (The Lie-Continued) (Le Monde, September 34, 1978, p.9). He passed over the assassination of Duprat in silence, made public the names and home towns of three Revisionist readers, and called for legal repression against Revisionism.

Sabina Citron Versus Ernst Zündel

In 1984, Sabina Citron, head of the Holocaust Remembrance Association, stirred up violent demonstrations against Ernst Zündel in Canada. An attack was made on Zündel’s home. The Canadian postal service, treating Revisionism the way it treats pornography, refused him all service and all right to receive mail. Zündel only recovered his postal rights after a year of judicial procedures. In the meantime, his business has failed. At the instigation of Sabina Citron, the Attorney General of Ontario filed a complaint against Zündel for publishing a “false statement, tale or news.” The charge was based on the following reasoning: the defendant had abused his right to freedom of expression; by distributing the Harwood pamphlet, he was spreading information that he knew was false; in fact, he could not fail to be aware that the “genocide of the Jews” and the “gas chambers” were an established fact. Zündel was also charged with publishing an allegedly “false” letter, which he had written himself.

The First Trial (1985)

The first trial lasted seven weeks. The jury found Zündel not guilty regarding the letter he had himself written but guilty of distributing the Harwood booklet. He was sentenced by Judge Hugh Locke to 15 months in prison. The German consulate in Toronto confiscated his passport and the West German government prepared a deportation action against him. In Germany itself, West German authorities had already carried out a series of large-scale police raids on the houses of all his German correspondents. In 1987, the United States forbade him entry to its territory. But in spite of all that, Zündel had won a media victory: day after day, for seven weeks, the entire English- speaking Canadian media covered the trial, with its spectacular revelations. The public learned that the Revisionists had first class documentation and arguments, while the exterminationists were in desperate straits.

Their Expert: Raul Hilberg

The prosecution expert in the first trial was Raul Hilberg, an American professor of Jewish descent and author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), which Paul Rassinier discussed in Le Drame des Juifs européens (The Drama of the European Jews). Hilberg began his testimony by explaining, without interruption, his theory about the extermination of the Jews. He was then cross-examined by Zündel’s lawyer, Douglas Christie, who was assisted by Keltie Zubko and myself. Right from the start it was clear that Hilberg, who was the world’s leading authority on the Holocaust, had never examined a single concentration camp, not even Auschwitz. He had still not examined any camp in 1985 when he announced the imminent appearance of a new edition of his main work in three volumes, revised, corrected and augmented. Although he did visit Auschwitz in 1979 for a single day as part of a ceremonial appearance, he did not bother to examine either the buildings or the archives. In his entire life he has never seen a “gas chamber,” either in its original condition or in ruins. (For a historian, even ruins can tell tales). On the stand he was forced to admit that there had never been a plan, a central organization, a budget or supervision for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He also had to admit that since 1945 the Allies have never carried out an expert study of “the weapon of the crime,” that is to say of a homicidal gas chamber. No autopsy report has established that even one inmate was ever killed by poison gas.

Hilberg said that Hitler gave orders for the extermination of the Jews, and that Himmler gave an order to halt the extermination on November 25, 1944 (such detail!). But Hilberg could not produce these orders. The defense asked him if he still maintained the existence of the Hitler orders in the new edition of his book. He dared to answer yes. He thereby lied and even committed perjury. In the new edition of his work (with a preface dated September 1984), Hilberg systematically deleted any mention of an order by Hitler. (In this regard, see the review by Christopher Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,”Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294). When he was asked by the defense to explain how the Germans had been able to carry out an undertaking as enormous as the extermination of millions of Jews without any kind of plan, without any central agency, without any blueprint or budget, Hilberg replied that in the various Nazi agencies there had been “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”.

Witness Arnold Friedman

The prosecution counted on the testimony of “survivors.” These “survivors” were chosen with care. They were supposed to testify that they had seen, with their own eyes, preparations for and the carrying out of homicidal gassings. Since the war, in a series of trials like those at Nuremberg (1945-1946), Jerusalem (1961), or Frankfurt (1963-65), such witnesses have never been lacking. However, as I have often noted, no lawyer for the defense had ever had the courage or the competence necessary to cross-examine these witnesses on the gassings themselves.

For the first time, in Toronto in 1985, one lawyer, Douglas Christie, dared to ask for explanations. He did it with the help of topographical maps and building plans as well as scholarly documentation on both the properties of the gases supposedly used and also on the capacities for cremation, whether carried out in crematory ovens or on pyres. Not one of these witnesses stood the test, and especially not Arnold Friedman. Despairing of his case, he ended by confessing that he had indeed been at Auschwitz-Birkenau (where he never had to work except once, unloading potatoes), but that, as regards gassings, he had relied on what others had told him.

Witness Rudolf Vrba

Witness Rudolf Vrba was internationally known. A Slovak Jew imprisoned at Auschwitz and at Birkenau, he said that he had escaped from the camp in April 1944 with Fred Wetzler. After getting back to Slovakia, he dictated a report about Auschwitz and Birkenau, and on their crematories and “gas chambers”.

With help from Jewish organizations in Slovakia, Hungary and Switzerland, his report reached Washington, where it served as the basis for the U.S. Government’s famous “War Refugee Board Report“, published in November 1944. Since then every Allied organization charged with the prosecution of “war crimes” and every Allied prosecutor in a trial of “war criminals” has had available this official version of the history of those camps.

Vrba later became a British citizen and published his autobiography under the title of I Cannot Forgive. This book published in 1964, was actually written by Alan Bestic, who, in his preface, testified to the “considerable care [by Rudolf Vrba] for each detail” and to the “meticulous and almost fanatic respect he revealed for accuracy.” On November 30, 1964, Vrba testified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. Then he settled in Canada and became a Canadian citizen. He has been featured in various films about Auschwitz, particularly Shoah by Claude Lanzmann. Everything went well for him until the day at the Zündel trial in 1985 when he was cross-examined mercilessly. He was then shown to be an impostor. It was revealed that he had completely made up the number and location of the “gas chambers” and the crematories in his famous 1944 report. His 1964 book opened with a purported January 1943 visit by Himmler to Birkenau to inaugurate a new crematorium with “gas chamber.” Actually, the last visit by Himmler to Auschwitz took place in July of 1942, and in January 1943 the first of the new crematories was still far from finished. Thanks, apparently, to some special gift of memory (that he called “special mnemonic principles” or “special mnemonical method”) and to a real talent for being everywhere at once, Vrba had calculated that in the space of 25 months (April 1942 to April 1944) the Germans had “gassed” 1,765,000 Jews at Birkenau alone, including 150,000 Jews from France. But in 1978, Serge Klarsfeld, in his Memorial to the Deportation of the Jews from France, had been forced to conclude that, for the entire length of the war, the Germans had deported a total of 75,721 Jews from France to all their concentration camps. The gravest aspect of this is that the figure of 1,765,000 Jews “gassed” at Birkenau had also been used in a document (L-022) at the main Nuremberg trial. Attacked on all sides by Zündel’s lawyer, the impostor had no other recourse than to invoke, in Latin, the “licentia poetarum,” or “poetic license,” in other words, the right to engage in fiction. His book has just been published in France (1987); this edition is presented as a book by “Rudolf Vrba with Alan Bestic.” It no longer includes the enthusiastic preface by Alan Bestic, and the short introduction by Emile Copfermann notes that “with the approval of Rudolf Vrba the two appendices from the English edition have been removed.” Nothing is said about the fact that those two appendices had also caused Vrba serious problems in 1985 at the Toronto trial.

The Second Zündel Trial (1988)

In January 1987, a five-judge appeals court decided to throw out the 1985 verdict against Ernst Zündel for some very basic reasons: Judge Hugh Locke had not allowed the defense any influence in the jury selection process and the jury had been misled by the judge on the very meaning of the trial. As for me, I have attended many trials in my life, including some carried out in France during the period of the “Purge” at the end of and after World War II. Never have I encountered a judge so partial, autocratic and violent as Judge Hugh Locke. Anglo-Saxon law offers many more guarantees than French law but it only takes one man to pervert the best of systems. Judge Locke was such a man.

The second trial began on January 18, 1988, under the direction of Judge Ronald Thomas, who is a friend, it seems, of Judge Locke. Judge Thomas was often angry and was frankly hostile to the defense, but he had more finesse than his predecessor. The ruling by the five-judge appeal court also inhibited him somewhat. Judge Hugh Locke had imposed numerous restrictions on free expression by the witnesses and experts for the defense. For example, he forbade me to use any of the photos I had taken at Auschwitz. I had no right to use arguments of a chemical, cartographical, or architectural nature (even though I had been the first person in the world to publish the plans for the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematories). I was not allowed to talk about either the American gas chambers or the aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz and Birkenau. Even the testimony of the eminent chemist William Lindsey was cut short. Judge Ronald Thomas did allow the defense more freedom, but at the outset of the trial, he made a decision, at the request of the prosecution, that would tie the hands of the jury.

Judge Thomas‘s Judicial Notice

In Anglo-Saxon law, everything must be proved except for certain absolutely indisputable evidence (“The capital of Great Britain is London,” “day follows night”… ) The judge can take “judicial notice” of that kind of evidence at the request of one or the other of the contending parties; Prosecuting Attorney John Pearson asked the judge to take judicial notice of the Holocaust. That term then has to be defined. It is likely that, had it not been for the intervention of the defense, the judge could have defined the Holocaust as it might have been defined in 1945-1946. At that time, the “genocide of the Jews” (the word “Holocaust” was not used) could have been defined as “the ordered and planned destruction of six million Jews, in particular by the use of gas chambers”.

The problem for the prosecution was that the defense advised the judge that, since 1945-1946, there have been profound changes in the understanding of exterminationist historians about the extermination of the Jews. First of all, they no longer talk about an extermination but about an attempted extermination. They have also finally admitted that “in spite of the most erudite [sic] research” (Raymond Aron, Sorbonne colloquium, July 2, 1982), no one has found any trace of an order to exterminate the Jews. More recently, there has been a dispute between the “intentionalists” and the “functionalists.” Both agree that they have no proof of any intent to exterminate, but “intentionalist” historians nevertheless believe that one must assume the existence of that intent, while “functionalist” historians believe that the extermination was the result of individual initiatives, localized and anarchic: in a sense, the activity created the organization! Finally, the figure of six million was declared to be “symbolic” and there have been many disagreements about the “problem of the gas chambers”.

Obviously surprised by this flood of information, Judge Ronald Thomas decided to be prudent and, after a delay for reflection, decided on the following definition; the Holocaust, he said, was “the extermination and/or mass-murder of Jews” by National Socialism. His definition is remarkable for more than one reason. We no longer find any trace of an extermination order, or a plan, or “gas chambers,” or six million Jews or even millions of Jews. This definition is so void of all substance that it no longer corresponds to anything real. One cannot understand the meaning of “mass-murder of Jews.” (The judge carefully avoided saying “of the Jews”.) This strange definition is itself a sign of the progress achieved by historical revisionism since 1945.

Raul Hilberg Refuses to Appear Again

One misfortune awaited Prosecutor John Pearson: Raul Hilberg, in spite of repeated requests, refused to appear again. The defense, having heard rumors of an exchange of correspondence between Pearson and Hilberg, demanded and got the publication of the letters they exchanged and in particular of a “confidential” letter by Hilberg which did not hide the fact that he had some bitter memories of his cross-examination in 1985. He feared being questioned again by Douglas Christie on the same points. To quote the exact words of his confidential letter, Hilberg wrote that he feared “every attempt to entrap me by pointing out any seeming contradiction, however trivial the subject might be, between my earlier testimony and an answer that I might give in 1988.” In fact as I have already mentioned, Hilberg had committed perjury and he may have feared being charged with that crime.

Christopher Browning, Prosecution Witness

In place of Hilberg there came his friend Christopher Browning, an American professor who specializes in the Holocaust. Admitted as an expert witness (and paid for several days at the rate of $150 per hour by the Canadian taxpayer), Browning tried to prove that the Harwood pamphlet was a tissue of lies and that the attempt to exterminate the Jews was a scientifically established fact He had cause to regret the experience. During cross-examination, the defense used his own arguments to destroy him. In the course of those days, people saw the tall and naive professor, who had strutted while he stood testifying, seated, shrunken in size, behind the witness stand like a schoolboy caught in a mistake. With a faint and submissive voice, he ended up acknowledging that the trial had definitely taught him something about historical research.

Following the example of Raul Hilberg, Browning had not examined any concentration camps. He had not visited any facility with “gas chambers.” He had never thought of asking for an expert study of the “weapon of the crime.” In his writings he had made much of homicidal “gas vans,” but he was not able to refer to any authentic photograph, any plan, any technical study, or any expert study. He was not aware that German words like “Gaswagen,” “Spezialwagen,” “Entlausungswagen” (delousing van) could have perfectly innocent meanings. His technical understanding was nil. He had never examined the wartime aerial reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz. He was unaware of all the tortures undergone by Germans, such as Rudolf Hoss, who had spoken of gassings. He knew nothing of the doubts expressed about some of Himmler’s speeches or about the Goebbels diary.

A great follower of the trials of war criminals, Browning had only questioned the prosecutors, never the defense lawyers. His ignorance of the transcript of the Nuremberg trial was disconcerting. He had not even read what Hans Frank, former Governor General of Poland, had said before the Nuremberg tribunal about his “diary” and about “the extermination of the Jews.” That was inexcusable! As a matter of fact, Browning claimed to have found irrefutable proof of the existence of a policy of exterminating the Jews in the Frank diary. He had discovered one incriminating sentence. He did not know that Frank had given the Tribunal an explanation of that kind of sentence, chosen beforehand from the hundreds of thousands of sentences in a personnel and administrative journal of 11,560 pages. Furthermore, Frank had spontaneously turned over his “diary” to the Americans when they came to arrest him. The sincerity of the former Governor General is so obvious to anyone who reads his deposition that Christopher Browning, invited to hear the content, did not raise the least objection. One last humiliation awaited him.

For the sake of his thesis, he invoked a passage from the well-known “protocol” of the Wannsee conference (20 January 1942). He had made his own translation of the passage, a translation that was seriously in error. At that point, his thesis collapsed. Finally, his own personal explanation of a “policy of the extermination of the Jews” was the same as Hilberg’s. Everything was explained by the “nod” of Adolf Hitler. In other words, the Fuhrer of the German people did not need to give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of the Jews. It was enough for him to give a “nod” at the beginning of the operation and, for the rest, a series of “signals”. And that was understood!

Charles Biedermann

The other expert called by the prosecution (who had taken the stand before Browning) was Charles Biedermann, a Swiss citizen, a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, most importantly, the director of the International Tracing Service (ITS) in Arolsen, West Germany. The ITS has an unbelievable wealth of information about the fate of individual victims of National Socialism and, in particular, of former concentration camp inmates. I believe that it is at Arolsen that one could determine the real number of Jews who died during the war. The prosecution did not benefit from this experts testimony. On the contrary, the defense scored numerous points on cross-examination. Biedermann recognized that the ICRC had never found any proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the German camps. The visit by one of its delegates to Auschwitz in September 1944 had done no more than conclude the existence of a rumor on that subject. To his embarrassment, the expert was obliged to admit that he was wrong in attributing to the National Socialists the expression “extermination camps”. He had not noticed that this was a term coined by the Allies.

Biedermann said that he was not familiar with the ICRC reports on the atrocities undergone by the Germans just before and just after the end of the war. In particular, he knew nothing about the terrible treatment of many German prisoners. It would seem that the ICRC had nothing about the massive deportations of German minorities from the east, nothing on the horrors of the total collapse of Germany at the very end of the war, nothing about summary executions and, in particular, the massacre by rifle, machine gun, shovels and pickaxes, of 520 German soldiers and officers who had surrendered to the Americans at Dachau on April 29, 1945 (even though Victor Maurer, ICRC delegate, was apparently there).

The International Tracing Service included among those “persecuted” by the Nazis even indisputably criminal prisoners in the concentration camps. He relied on the information supplied by a Communist organization, the “Auschwitz State Museum.” Beginning in 1978, in order to prevent all Revisionist research, the International Tracing Service closed its doors to historians and researchers, except for those bearing a special authorization from one of the ten governments (including that of Israel) which oversee the activity of the International Tracing Service. Henceforth the Tracing Service was forbidden to calculate and publish, as it had done until then, statistical evaluations of the number of dead in the various camps. The annual activity reports could no longer be made available to the public, except for their first third, which had been of no interest to researchers.

Biedermann confirmed a news story that had filtered out in 1964 at the Frankfurt trial: at the time of liberation of Auschwitz, the Soviets and the Poles had discovered the death register of that complex of 39 camps and sub-camps. The register consisted of 38 or 39 volumes. The Soviets keep 36 or 37 of those volumes in Moscow while the Poles keep two or three other volumes at the “Auschwitz State Museum,” a copy of which they have furnished to the International Tracing Service in Arolsen. But neither the Soviets nor the Poles nor the International Tracing Service authorize research in these volumes. Biedermann did not even want to reveal the number of dead counted in the two or three volumes of which the ITS has a copy. It is clear that, if the content of the death register of Auschwitz were made public, it would be the end of the myth of the millions of deaths in the camp.

No “Survivor” Witnesses for the Prosecution

The judge asked the prosecutor whether he would call any “survivors” to the witness stand. The prosecutor answered no. The experience of 1985 had been too embarrassing. The cross examination had been devastating. It is regrettable that at the trial of Klaus Barbie in France in 1987 and at the trial of John Demjanjuk in Israel in 1987-1988, no defense lawyer has followed Douglas Christie’s example in the first Zündel trial (1985): Christie had shown that by carefully questioning witnesses about the gassing process itself, one could destroy the very foundation of the “extermination camp” myth.

The Witnesses and Experts for the Defense

Most of the witnesses and experts for the defense were as precise and concrete as people like Hilberg or Browning had been imprecise and metaphysical. The Swede Ditlieb Felderer showed about 380 slides of Auschwitz and of the other camps in Poland. The American, Mark Weber, whose knowledge of the documents is impressive, engaged in clarifications of several aspects of the Holocaust, in particular the Einsatzgruppen.* The German Tjudar Rudolph dealt with the Lodz ghetto and visits by the ICRC delegates at the end of 1941 to Auschwitz, Majdanek and other camps.

Thies Christophersen had been in charge of an agricultural research enterprise in the Auschwitz region in 1944. He visited the Birkenau camp several times to requisition personnel there and never noticed the horrors usually described. On the witness stand he repeated point by point what he had written about the camp, starting in 1973 with a 19-page report (Kritik, No. 23, p. 14-32). The Austrian-born Canadian Maria Van Herwaarden was interned at Birkenau starting in 1942. She saw nothing, either close up or from a distance, that resembled mass murder, although she confirmed that many of the inmates had died of typhus. The American Bradley Smith, a member of a “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,” spoke about his experience in more than 100 question-and-answer interviews on American radio and television on the Holocaust issue.

The Austrian Emil Lachout commented on the famous “Muller Document,” which, since December 1987, has thrown the Austrian authorities into disarray. The document, dated October 1, 1948, revealed that even then, Allied commissions of inquiry had already rejected the stories of homicidal “gassings” in a whole series of camps, including Dachau, Ravensbrück, Struthof (Natzweiler), Stutthof (Danzig), Sachsenhausen, and Mauthausen (Austria). The document specifically confirms that confessions of Germans had been extorted by torture and that testimonies by former inmates were false.

Dr. Russell Barton recounted his horrified discovery of the camp at Bergen-Belsen at the time of liberation. Until that moment he had believed in a deliberate program of extermination. Then he noted the fact that, in an apocalyptic Germany, the piles of corpses and the walking skeletons were the result of the frightful conditions of an overcrowded camp, ravaged by epidemics, and almost entirely deprived of medicine, food, and water because of Allied bombings.

The German Udo Walendy outlined the many forgeries he had discovered, in wartime atrocity photographs and other documents, either altered or forged by a team headed by a British propagandist called Sefton Delmer. J.G. Burg, a Jew who lives in Munich, told of his experiences in the war and confirmed that there had never been any policy for the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis.

Academics like the Chinese professor Dr. K.T. Fann, a Marxist, and Dr. Gary Botting, who lost his teaching position at Red Deer College (Alberta) as a result of testifying at the Zündel trial in 1985, testified that the Harwood booklet was essentially a work of opinion, and hence not subject to legal prohibition. Jürgen Neumann, a close associate and friend of Zündel, testified as to Zündel’s state of minds when the booklet first was published. Ernst Neilsen testified on the obstacles he encountered at the University of Toronto to open research on the Holocaust. Ivan Lagacé, director of the crematory at Calgary, demonstrated the practical impossibility of the numbers alleged by Hilberg to have been cremated at Auschwitz.

For my part, I appeared as an expert witness for nearly six days. I concentrated particularly on my investigations of the American gas chambers. I recalled that Zyklon B is essentially hydrocyanic acid and that it is with this gas that certain American penitentiaries execute those who have been condemned to death.

In 1945 the Allies should have asked specialists on American gas chambers to examine the buildings, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, which were supposed to have been used to gas millions of people. Since 1977, I have had the following idea: when one deals with a vast historical problem like that of the reality or the legend of the Holocaust, one must strive to get to the core of the problem; in this case the central problem is Auschwitz and the core of that problem is a space of 275 square meters: the 65 square meters of the “gas chamber” of crematorium I at Auschwitz and, at Birkenau, the 210 square meters of the “gas chamber” of crematorium II. In 1988, my idea remained the same: let us have expert studies of those 275 square meters and we will have an answer to the vast problem of the Holocaust! I showed the jury my photos of the gas chamber at the Maryland State Penitentiary in Baltimore as well as my plans for the Auschwitz gas chambers and I underlined the physical and chemical impossibilities of the latter ones.

A Sensational Turn of Events: The Leuchter Report

Ernst Zündel, in possession of the correspondence I had exchanged in 1977-78 with the six American penitentiaries outfitted with gas chambers, gave attorney Barbara Kulaszka the job of getting in touch with the chief wardens of those penitentiaries in order to see if one of them would agree to appear in court to explain how a real gas chamber operates. Bill Armontrout, chief warden of the penitentiary at Jefferson City (Missouri), agreed to testify and in doing so pointed out that no one in the USA was more knowledgeable about the functioning of gas chambers than Fred A. Leuchter, an engineer from Boston. I went to visit Leuchter on February 3 and 4, 1988. I found that he had never asked himself any questions about the “gas chambers” in the German camps. He had simply believed in their existence. After I began to show him my files, he became aware of the chemical and physical impossibility of the German “gassings” and he agreed to examine our documents in Toronto.

After that, at Zündel’s expense, he left for Poland with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand, from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the homicidal “gassings” and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.

On April 20 and 21, 1988, Fred Leuchter appeared on the witness stand in the Toronto courtroom. He told the story of his investigation and presented his conclusions. I am convinced that during those two days I was an eyewitness to the death of the gas chamber myth, a myth which, in my opinion, had entered its dead throes at the Sorbonne colloquium on “Nazi Germany and the Extermination of the Jews” (June 29 to July 2, 1982), where the organizers themselves began to grasp that there was no proof of the existence of the gas chambers.

In the Toronto courtroom emotions were intense, in particular among the friends of Sabina Citron. Ernst Zündel’s friends were also moved, but for a different reason: they were witnessing the veil of the great swindle being torn away. As for me, I felt both relief and melancholy: relief because a thesis that I had defended for so many years was at last fully confirmed, and melancholy because I had fathered the idea in the first place. I had even, with the clumsiness of a man of letters, presented physical, chemical, topographical and architectural arguments which I now saw summed up by a scientist who was astonishingly precise and thorough.

Would people one day remember the skepticism I had encountered, even from other revisionists? Just before Fred Leuchter, Bill Armontrout had been on the witness stand, where he confirmed, in every detail, what I had said to the jury about the extreme difficulties of a homicidal gassing (not to be confused with a suicidal or accidental gassing). Ken Wilson, a specialist in aerial photographs, had shown that the homicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz and Birkenau did not have gas evacuation chimneys, which would have been indispensible. He also showed that I had been right in accusing Serge Klarsfeld and Jean-Claude Pressac of falsifying the map of Birkenau in the Auschwitz Album (Seuil Publishers, 1983, p. 42). Those authors, in order to make the reader believe that groups of Jewish women and children surprised by the photographer between crematories II and III could not go any farther and were thus going to end up in the “gas chambers” and those crematories, had simply eliminated from the map the path which. in reality. let up to the “Zentralsauna,” a large shower facility (located beyond the zone of the crematories), where those women and children were actually going.

James Roth, director of a laboratory in Massachusetts, then testified on the analysis of the 32 samples, the origin of which he was unaware of: all the samples taken in the homicidal “gas chambers” contained a quantity of cyanide which was either unmeasurable or infinitesimal, while the sample from the disinfection gas chamber, taken for comparison’s sake, contained an enormous amount of cyanide (the infinitesimal quantity detected in the former case can be explained by the fact that the supposed homicidal gas chambers were in fact morgues for preserving bodies; such morgues could have been occasionally disinfected with Zyklon B).

David Irving

The British historian David Irving enjoys great prestige. Zündel thought of asking him to testify, but there was a problem: Irving was only partly a Revisionist. The thesis that he defended, for example, inHitler’s War (New York, The Viking Press, 1977) can be summed up as follows: Hitler never gave an order for the extermination of the Jews; at least up to the end of 1943 he was kept in ignorance of that extermination; only Himmler and a group of about 70 or so persons were aware of it; in October 1944 Himmler, who wanted to get into the good graces of the Allies, gave an order to cease the extermination of the Jews.

I had met Irving in Los Angeles in September of 1983 at the annual convention of the Institute for Historical Review, where I challenged him by asking several questions about proof to support his thesis. Then I published an article entitled “A Challenge to David Irving” in The Journal of Historical Review(Winter 1984, p. 289-305, and Spring 1985, p. 8 and 122). I tried to convince this brilliant historian that logically he could no longer be satisfied with a semi-Revisionist position. To begin with, I challenged him to produce Himmler’s order to stop the extermination, an order which never actually existed. Later on, I learned from various sources that Irving was undergoing a change that moved him in the direction of Revisionism.

In 1988, Zündel became convinced that the British historian was only waiting for a decisive event to take a final step in our direction. After arriving in Toronto, David Irving discovered in rapid succession the Leuchter report and an impressive number of documents that Zündel, his friends and I had accumulated over the course of several years. The last reservations or the last misunderstandings melted away in the course of a meeting. He agreed to testify on the stand. In the opinion of those who were present at the two trials (1985 and 1988), no single testimony, except that of Fred Leuchter, caused such a sensation. For more than three days, David Irving, engaging in a sort of public confession, took back all that he had said about the extermination of the Jews and without reservation adopted the Revisionist position. With courage and honesty, he showed how an historian can be brought to revise profoundly his views on the history of the Second World War.

The Zündel Story

Ernst Zündel had promised that his trial would be “the trial of the Nuremberg Trial” or “the Stalingrad of the ‘exterminationists'”. The unfolding of those two long trials proved him right, even though the jury, “instructed” by the judge to consider the Holocaust as an established fact “which no reasonable person can doubt,” finally found him guilty. Zündel has already won. It remains for him to make it known to Canada and to the entire world. The media black-out of the 1988 trial was almost complete. Jewish organizations campaigned vigorously for such a blackout, and even went so far as to say that they did not want an impartial account of the trial. They did not want any account of it at all. The paradox is that the only publication which reported relatively honestly about the trial was The Canadian Jewish News. Ernst Zündel and the Leuchter report have left a profound mark on history; both will be remembered for many years to come.

December 1, 1988

* Weber also clarified the meaning of the term “Final Solution” (emigration or deportation, but never extermination of Jews): the testimony of Judge Konrad Morgen; the tortures of Rudolf Höss and Oswald Pohl; the true history of revisionism; and the concessions made year after year by the exterminationists to the Revisionist viewpoint.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

First published in The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pages 417-431.

Posted by N N

Labels: “Did Six Million Really Die?”Arnold FriedmanDavid IrvingDouglas ChristieErnst ZündelFrançois DupratFred LeuchterHilbergHugh LockePierre Viansson-PontéRonald ThomasSabina CitronVrba

German Bashing Beats Crime Control for Homeland Security

German Bashing Beats Crime Control for Homeland Security

In the same week, one of tens of thousands of criminal illegals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had failed to apprehend,murdered a California woman in broad daylight, the same department denied entry to a Canadian political activist who is also a director of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

On July 1, Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year old woman, was walking with her father after dinner on Pier 14 in San Francisco. They were approached by Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, who had seven felony convictions and had been deported five times. For no apparent reason, Sanchez shot Miss Steinle in the head. She died in her father’s arms, crying: “Dad, help me, help me.”

Somehow DHS had failed to keep this violent illegal out and protect Americans. Even worse, San Francisco has declared itself a “sanctuary city” and refuses to enforce laws against illegals. Sanchez had actually been apprehended several months before he murdered Miss Steinle for pot possession and distribution. However, the City of San Fransisco refused to honor a “detainer” order from ICE and Sanchez walked free.

Far different was DHS handling of Paul Fromm, who had been invited to be the keynote speaker at a meeting of the American Freedom Party in Tehchapi, California. Passing through pre-clearance at Toronto’s Pearson Airport on his was to Los Angeles, June 26,. Mr. Fromm was confronted by agents who made it plain that he was being hassled and turned down because of his politics.

When asked what his purpose for travelling was, Mr. Fromm replied that he was speaking to the American Freedom Party near Bakersfield. “That’s a White supremacist group.” he was informed.

Sent to secondary inspection, he was detained for three hours. When he was finally questioned, the issue of “White supremacy” again came up. Mr. Fromm said the AFP is not White Supremacist and does not seek to impose American ways on other countries and is, in fact, isolationist. Relying in Wikipedia, the agent said that Mr. Fromm or the AFP had “totalitarian affiliations.”

Mr. Fromm was then asked to prove he was not being paid by the AFP. He said it was hard to prove a negative. He was told to provide information about the conference “who, what, where, when” and that there was no remuneration. He was also told to provide tax slips that show employment in Canada.

Mr. Fromm rebooked his flight to an evening flight, returned to his Port Credit home and obtained copies of the necessary tax slips and a detailed invitation FAXed by AFP president William Johnson.

When he returned to catch his flight, he was sent immediately to secondary inspection without even a question being asked. Clearly, they were waiting for him. The bored agent who examined him showed no interest in the documentation he’d been asked to provide. His luggage was searched and some patriotic flags noted. The agent then told him he’d need a visa to enter the U.S. Most Canadians do not need a visa.

The AFP speaking engagement was missed. The next weekend Mr. Fromm had been invited to speak at Freedompalooza to be held in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He applied for a visa on-line and obtained an expedited interview, June 30, still hoping to be able to fulfil the speaking engagement.

On attending the visa office at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, Mr. Fromm was fingerprinted and then seen by an agent.

He explains: ” She asked me why I was applying for a visa. I showed her the sheet that instructed me that I needed one. I told her that I had looked at the Section of the INA on my sheet and could not see how it applied to me.”

“That’s their way of saying they don’t didn’t want you in the United States,” she advised him in a matter-of-fact manner. “You had Nazi flags” in your suitcase, she said. Mr. Fromm told her there were no Nazi flags.

She, then. asked him when he came from Germany.” I told her I was born in Colombia, as it says on my passport. My Canadian born parents had been working in the oil business there. A few minutes later, she asked whether my father had served in the German Army. I told her no. My late father was a Canadian and served in the Royal Canadian Navy in WW II and my mother had served in the Canadian Army as a nurse.”

After some consultation the agent said that further information and a further administrative review would be necessary to issue the visa. The process would take three months.

Mr. Fromm missed Freedompalooza and has had to cancel several other speaking engagements this summer in the U.S.

“I feel that I’m the victim of German-bashing,” Mr. Fromm says. “If I had a long criminal record and had snuck in from Mexico, there would have been no problem.”

See a more complete account on this recent video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5BLgc7y6g

Frederick Fromm's photo.

ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY CHARGES LEVANT FOR MISCONDUCT FOR DISRESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY CHARGES LEVANT FOR MISCONDUCT FOR DISRESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

 

 
 

Ezra Levant is a Zionist, a self-promoter and a bit of a loudmouth. However, going back to his college days at the University of Alberta when he came to the defence of Ron Gostick’s Canadian League of Rights when an unholy tag team of communist professor David Lethbridge and the head of the Alberta Human were trying to pressure hotels not to host the League;s annual meeting, Levant has been a consistent supporter of free speech.

He was an outspoken opponent of the pernicious Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.. He used his bully pulpit on Sun News to skewer human rights commission censors and other menaces to free speech. More recently he has been a consistent defender of traditionalist Christian Trinity Western University against Christian hating law societies in Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C. who have announced they will not recognize the credentials of graduates of TWU’s law school because students and faculty have to take a pledge to practise sobriety and to  refrain from sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage.

Sadly, as we have pointed out in increasingly politically correct and fanatically Canada. the price of dissent is unemployment and poverty. His enemies are now seeking To get Levant disciplined or disbarred for being rude to our new commisars, human rights commissioners.

Levant explains.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

 
 

Ezra Levant: ‘Crazy’ prosecutions

Republish Reprint

Ezra Levant, Special to Financial Post | July 23, 2015 3:42 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

This October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

Canadian PressThis October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency

Here we go again.

This October I will be prosecuted for one charge of being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission” and two charges that my “public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.”

Because last year I wrote a newspaper editorial calling Alberta’s human rights commission “crazy.”

Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is — not in China or Russia.

I’ve been through something like this before. In February of 2006, I was the publisher of the Western Standard magazine. We ran a news story on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the deadly Muslim riots that followed. Being a news magazine, we included photos of the cartoons to show the central element of the story.

Muslim activists filed “hate speech” complaints against the magazine, and me personally, for reporting this legitimate news story. What followed was straight out of Kafka: a 900-day investigation by no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers for the thought crime of publishing news “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” Truth was not a defence; journalism was not a defence. The commission had invented a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

I spent $100,000 on legal fees before the commission dropped the charges against me — because it was taking such a beating in the media. Even the provincial cabinet minister in charge of the commission at the time, the Hon. Lindsay Blackett, told reporters the commission had become a “kangaroo court.” I guess he’s allowed to say that, but I’m not.

Over time human rights commissions have gotten much more scrutiny, and the federal human rights commission even had its censorship powers repealed by Parliament. But last year, Alberta’s commission stumbled back in the news. A Czech immigrant had failed the provincial engineering exam three times, so he complained to the commission that the exam was “discriminatory.” In a shocking ruling, it agreed and ordered Alberta’s engineering profession to lower its standards and pay the complainer $10,000.

I have an opinion about that. I think it’s: crazy. You may have the same opinion and, if you’re not a lawyer, you’re allowed to express it. I expressed it anyway. After all, I was a journalist and hadn’t practiced law in many years. My job was to express my opinion. Sun News hired me, as a journalist, to do exactly that.

This time the commission didn’t come for me. But one of its prosecutors did. Arman Chak filed a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about my column. Even though I haven’t practiced law in years, I’m still a lawyer. That was his angle.

At first, the Law Society dismissed his complaint without even a hearing, as it does with other nuisance complaints filed against me over the years by my political opponents. It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency.

Alberta benchers aren’t always so fastidious about courtesy. Earlier this year Dennis Edney, Omar Khadr’s lawyer, stood outside the Edmonton court house, blaming Khadr’s legal situation on the legal system’s anti-Muslim “bigotry.” But like Chak, Edney is a law society bencher himself. He is not being prosecuted. Nor should he be — we need passionate lawyers, zealously advocating for their clients, even if they’re sometimes prickly.

To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented. Unlike Edney and his court-house remarks, I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada. They include politicians like Peter MacKay and Thomas Mulcair. Sometimes these politician-lawyers are polite. Sometimes they aren’t. Two years ago, my fellow member of the Law Society of Alberta, an opposition politician named Rachel Notley, compared the Alberta Energy Regulator to a “banana republic.” It’s a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the human rights commission. But it’s unthinkable that the Law Society would have prosecuted her for being “discourteous” to a government agency. Because we live in a democracy and value public debate.

Well, I do too. And I’m going to keep calling the human rights commission “crazy” for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me — that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?

_____________________

Canadian Journalist Faces Jail Time
For Calling Government Agency ‘Crazy’
by Sputnik News
July 24, 2015
Canadian lawyer and media personality Ezra Levant, who was cited by the Law Society of Alberta for remarks he made about the province’s human rights commission, said his prosecution is “crazy.”

In a March 2014 Toronto Sun opinion column titled “Next stop, crazy town,” Levant called out the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s ruling that the province’s engineering exam “discriminated” against an immigrant who failed the test three times. Levant also slammed the commission’s order to Alberta’s engineers to pay him $10,000 and lower their standards.

“But with human rights commissions, when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, you haven’t,” Levant wrote. “The crazy keeps going down. You gotta get out your shovel and dig to get to the crazy that’s underneath the crazy.”

Lawyer and then-Alberta Human Rights Commission member Arman Chak launched a complaint to the Law Society that same month, saying Levant’s comments were “inappropriate and unbecoming” of a lawyer, even though Levant had not practiced law in years.

The complaint was initially dismissed without a hearing, with the Law Society ruling that Levant was acting as a journalist when he made the statements about the Commission. But Chak appealed last fall, and the panel granted his appeal seven months later, paving the way for a hearing on the citations in October.

Interestingly, a month after Chak appealed the Law Society’s ruling in Levant’s favor, he was dismissed from the Human Rights Commission. Chak has since sued the Commission for wrongful termination and defamation.

In an opinion column published Thursday in Canada’s Financial Times, Levant writes: “Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is – not in China or Russia.”

“To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented,” he wrote. “I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada.”

Levant said that he values public debate, and is “going to keep calling the human rights commission ‘crazy’ for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me – that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?”

Topham “Hate Trial” to Proceed Oct. 26; Charter Argument Postponed

Topham “Hate Trial” to Proceed Oct. 26; Charter Argument Postponed
Dear Radical Press Reader,
It has been close to a month now since I last posted an article. This is a rather long time given the usual amount of information regularly furnished to the site and it requires further explanation.
Since the end of April I have been caring for an older brother of mine who came down with a serious case of melanoma (skin cancer). Being on his own and handicapped and living in North Vancouver I had little choice but to spend a great deal of time away from my home in Cottonwood, B.C. (approximately 700 km NE of Vancouver).
My dear brother David passed away on July 1st and since that time I’ve been dealing with all the legal matters associated with his death. All of this has taken a heavy toll on my time and energy and prevented me from carrying on with my normal line of work, i.e. exposing the Zionist New World Order agenda and defending myself against the spurious, politically-motivated Sec. 319(2) CCC “hate crime” criminal charges that were brought against me back in May of 2012 thanks to the machinations of B’nai Brith Canada and its agents working for the Jewish lobby.
It was during one of my trips to the coast that I attended the hearing being held in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver in June. That event and the outcome of it will be the subject of my next Legal Update. Suffice it to say here that the judge hearing the case, Justice Butler, declined to allow the Charter challenge to proceed prior to the pending trial set for October 26th, 2015.
What this means is that the case will proceed to trial although it is still uncertain as to whether or not the actual date set will remain fixed. This is due to the fact that now that the Charterapplication has been refused and the majority of the funds raised in order to pay counsel to represent me at the hearing are exhausted I am faced with having to raise another substantial amount of money in order to retain counsel for the actual trial in the fall. What that amount will be is not determined at this point. My current counsel was acting on my behalf on what in legalese is called a “limited retainer” which means that he was hired only to deal with the Charter application. The trial itself, which could run for ten days, will require additional funding upwards of possibly $40,000.00. The exact amount is still undetermined at this stage but it means that I will have to re-apply for another Rowbotham application in order to assist me in paying the cost of hiring counsel.
The procedure for doing a Rowbotham was initiated back in June when I approached the local Legal Aid office here in Quesnel and, as per their unreasonable policies, was refused based upon the amount of donations that I was receiving at the time. I then wrote to the provincial office in Vancouver requesting that they reconsider their decision and I am currently awaiting word from the head office. When they reply and refuse me a second time (which they inevitably do) then I can proceed with the Rowbotham application. Time of course is running out and it does take time to jump through all the legal hoops involved in applying for funding in this manner for the Attorney General’s office is not about to assist me in hiring counsel when, at the same time, they are hell-bent on convicting me of this spurious, politically-motivated “hate” charge. So the outcome of this next stage of developments is still very tentative and uncertain. If I cannot come up with the funds then I will be left with only one recourse and that will be to represent myself.
My GoGetFunding account is still active for those who may wish to assist in helping me to defray the cost of retaining their constitutional right to freedom of speech here in Canada. It will be a tough row to hoe to raise another $35 to $40 thousand dollars to fight this Zionist-created creature in the courtroom but one way or another the challenge must be met if Canadians wish to retain their most valued and fundamental right.
One final word on the planned Legal Update. I’m still not sure of my schedule over the next month or so as I am awaiting word from the lawyer who is dealing with my brother’s estate. I am currently at home but could be forced to return to North Vancouver any day and then my ability to focus on the update will undoubtedly be delayed.
My apologies to readers for all of this extra hindrance and the lack of posts. Hopefully this will return to normal in the next while.

 

Sincerely,
 
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Capilano University Instructor Fired for Free Speech Videos