ERNST ZUNDEL, (April 29, 1939 – August 5, 2017) R.I.P.
Publisher and free speech wqarrior, Ernst Zundel, who spent 7 years in jail in two countries for challenging the Hollywood version of World War II, died suddenly of a heart attack, Saturday, August 5, at his home in Bad Wildbad in Germany’s Black Forest.
And so a great champion of the truth is lost to us. His battle for the freedom of speech will never be forgotten nor will the shameless way in which he was treated by Canada and his mother country Germany, for simply exercising his God given right to freely express his thoughts.
Rest in Peace brother Ernst.
YOU TUBE THOUGHT POLICE BLOCK AN ALISON CHABLOZ VIDEO
Apologies for the mass email once again, and apologies to those of you who took the time to respond to my previous updates and have yet to receive any personal reply. My bail terms and accompanying inconveniences limit my Internet usage to mobile-only, but I promise to try and sort through my messages and respond as time and data allowance permit.
Today and yesterday I received yet more email notifications from YouTube regards ‘action taken’ on my videos following ‘legal complaints’. Please see below YouTube’s updated list of countries where my videos are now blocked :
Like Amazon, YouTube is ignoring UK law, no doubt following pressure from the Israel Lobby. This now brings the total of potential viewers blocked from viewing my songs and other videos to well over 300 million.
If Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism had not brought a private criminal prosecution against me for (((Survivors))) at the end of 2016, it’s reasonable to think that my video would still be floundering around the 6,000 view mark. Instead, the grand total is now over 30k. As plenty of other users have noticed, YouTube also regularly culls the number of views. For this particular video – the total is now frozen at 30,666 !
To celebrate, I have uploaded two songs to Vimeo which are available with a password. One is an old number of mine ‘Social Media Queen’ updated for 2017 – I’m now banned from so many online platforms, would the enemy be trying to force an early abdication? 😉
The second is one of my most recent rants ‘Too extreme for the BNP’. Clearly, I AM too extreme for Twitter and YouTube, but for the BNP as well ? (*rolls eyes).
Mark my words, they’ll be going after my PayPal account next..
Patriotic wishes to all,
The following story is an abridged open letter which I sent to the Mayor and Council of Jasper on July 8, 2017. Their email addresses are at the bottom, if you care to write to them. There is much irony in this story, especially in light of the fact that the award pictured here was given to me by the very organization which denied me a busking permit.
A Chronology of Promises & Broken Promises, Steps & Missteps
This story begins about 5 years ago. I made a presentation to Town Council that busking should be allowed in Jasper. It was not legal to busk at the time. I made the case that this little mountain town within a national park and world heritage site was a perfect place for busking, and that it would be a win-win-win situation. It would be good for the musicians, good for the tourists, and good for the town aesthetic. My presentation was well received, and the councillors enthusiastically assured me they would work on making it happen.
It took some time, but finally in 2016, the busking program was launched. To be specific it was Busking Pilot Project #2. Pilot Project #1 occurred during the Arts Days weekend late September 2015, and I took part in that. My band, the “Fiddle River Band”, played on the Saturday afternoon, and it was a great success. People were dancing on the sidewalk.
The 2016 Pilot Project was the first time that busking licences would be sold, and musicians could busk all summer, with a few guidelines stipulating where, when and how long.
Imagine my surprise then when I went to buy my licence, and was sent the curt email,
in light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.
There it was, clearly stated, that it was because of my thoughts that I was not going to be allowed to play my violin on the streets of Jasper.
That was last year. What came next? A season of surveys, meetings, emails, new process, newspaper articles, auditions, vetting buskers, guidelines, and rules.
Winter of 2016 – 2017
In response to numerous queries last summer by both myself and Prof Tony Hall from the University of Lethbridge, the town manager responded that there would be a survey in the fall to determine the success and what problems, if any, arose from the busking project, and then they would be in a position to answer our questions.
Autumn came and went, and there was not much action. There was a general satisfaction survey which included two questions on busking, and another survey for the business community more specifically related to busking.
On February 14th, 2017, busking was on the agenda of the Committee-of-the-Whole Council meeting. I requested a spot on the agenda. Marianne Garrah and Dave Baker of the Habitat for the Arts were also in attendance and made a presentation before mine.
I took note of Marianne Garrah’s comment that the vetting process for buskers should be based on talent and musical ability. This was noted in the minutes. To my understanding, that statement by Garrah was a tacit admission that they had erred the previous summer when they denied me a busking license based on my thoughts. This gave me confidence that this summer would be different.
At the same time, Councillor Gilbert Wall declared openly that I should not be allowed on the streets to busk, and that he could not separate my violin playing from my ideas. It was written about in both newspapers, as being “the elephant in the room” and “given what we know…” – how ominous – Councillor Wall made it clear that there must be “an out”, for them to be able to shut me out.
April 11 2017 Committee of the Whole minutes state that the management of the Busking Pilot Project for 2017 would once again be handed over to the Habitat for the Arts. They also stated that the selection committee should be comprised of people who are qualified to assess musical abilities.
During subsequent meetings, a clear outline of process was made for the busker vetting and selection process. There would be a panel of 5 judges. A point system would be used. Habitat for the Arts would choose a song from the auditionee’s set lists. If the performer “seems shaky on one song you may ask them to perform another song”. The performance would be recorded and sent to other judges who presumably could not all come together at the same time because of busy schedules.
This process implies open visibility of the panel. Several of the guidelines make it clear that this was to be a live audition process. For example, one guideline states
Judges are encouraged to interact with performers (but not for too long, just enough to make them feel comfortable).” Another states: “If a performer doesn’t show up, move on to the next performer on the list.”
After the May 2nd meeting, I immediately struck up a correspondence with the Habitat people to indicate my interest in auditioning for the purpose of acquiring a busking licence. I went in person, and I emailed.
When will the auditions take place?
Where should I show up?
How will I find out when they take place?
Will there be an announcement in the paper?
Will they email me? Phone me?
Responses to my attempts at communication were either absent or slow.
Finally I was told that I could simply send them a clip electronically. Pardon me???
What happened to the whole “select a song and if they are shaky pick another one, and please interact but not too much….” scenario? What was going to be a live audition in front of a panel of judges turned into an anonymous “send in your tape”.
I asked Marianne Garrah in person, “This process is open and transparent, correct? The judges’ identities should be public, yes?” She agreed. I asked who the judges are. She started to name them and after naming two, she hesitated, reconsidered, and said,
uhhhhh, I can’t remember who the others are, it’s not really my thing. This is not my project…
End of May, still no buskers on the streets of Jasper.
June – I left town for about two weeks, and when I returned, there were indeed buskers on the street, but only just.
I tried to visit the Habitat several times, to no avail, as nobody was there. I emailed, and asked when I could please pick up my permit, assuming of course that there would be no problem passing the audition process, having sent them the link to my music samples. They all had assured me that they knew I could play. And they did say it was based on talent and musical ability.
Imagine once again my surprise when I received the following unsigned email.
For 2017 the Jasper Busking program has been designed such that a ‘no meet’ e-committee of community minded individuals are given sound/youtube/audition files provided by the artists. Those files are listened to with the intent of realizing three things: skill of the artist (5potential criteria points), potential enjoyment by the listener (5potential criteria points), and to gain a preception [sic] of the artists stage presence (5potential criteria points). Those criteria points are calculated over the 5 community members and to be warranted a licence the total must equal at least 55 (or 11 out of 15 from each response).
Unfortunately the results that came back to Habitat from the committee did not reflect that total for you. Your application for 2017 has been declined.
Habitat for the Arts
for the Jasper Municipal 2017 Busking Pilot Project
Who are these faceless nameless “community minded individuals”? They made rules and guidelines, then broke them all. Live audition process turned into electronic transmission to who knows who, and whoever they are, they reached their objective to keep Monika out. No accountability. No transparency. No legitimate reason was given. They got their way and evaded responsibility. Anonymous judges, faceless nameless individuals, awarding insufficient (zero?) points to one of the best-known musicians in this little town, is rather Kafkaesque, is it not?
What did all of this amount to? New process after endless deliberations and meetings, it was all a big facade and nothing more. They did not quite know what to do with Monika Schaefer. They knew they could not openly deny me a license based on lack of musical abilities. They stated it many times, that it was not my music that bothered them, rather, it was my thoughts. My musical background and involvement in this community is extensive and well-known. In fact, some would say I had acquired local celebrity status as a violinist and fiddler, who was in much demand at community functions and fundraisers, both as performer and occasionally also as judge during competitions.
They must have struggled with this problem, because in spite of declaring at the May 2nd council meeting that they would like to see buskers on the streets of Jasper by the May long weekend, they did not appear until some time during the second week of June. I happened to be out of town then – how convenient.
False Diversity Project
Jasper advertises its Diversity Project while advancing ideological exclusiveness.
The Fitzhugh newspaper reported (March 16, 2017 article page 3 and editorial page 6) that I was the subject of debate in deliberations about a proclamation designating Jasper an “inclusive community”. The Mayor warned that the proclamation could have unforeseen consequences.
It seems to me that inevitably we will run into the elephant in the room that councillor Gilbert Wall spoke about a week ago, that is when you proclaim to be inclusive without limitation then you are forced to confront those with whom you might have the most profound disagreements. ~Mayor Richard Ireland
All the while there is the absolute assumption that I am guilty of a crime – a thought crime. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong – should that even be relevant for the acquisition of a busking licence? Did we once pride ourselves on having freedom of speech in Canada?
Various agencies in the town of Jasper have designated themselves judge, jury and enforcers against the alleged thought crimes of Monika Schaefer. All the while, there is never so much as a glimmer of introspection, not the slightest interest in making enquiries into the issues which I have raised. In fact, the opposite is true. The ferocious attack against me is designed to frighten anyone else from looking.
There is simply a blanket acceptance of the prevailing dogma, and anyone who dares question is guilty of “racial incitement”. The very act of questioning is criminalized. The nasty little label “hate speech” is applied, and that’s that. Evidence is not required when something is “self-evident”. The Doctrine of Judicial Notice allows courts to recognize as “fact” matters that are “common knowledge”. The victors write the history books, so when they say it is so, then it is so. They determine what becomes “common knowledge”.
Inclusive community is a fraudulent concept in Jasper. Diversity in Jasper does not include thoughts.
Dear Mayor and Councillors, is this what you call due process? Is this not an EXACT fulfillment of some of my concerns expressed earlier in the winter? I thought we had reached an understanding that playing music should have NOTHING to do with a person’s views. Are you going to stand by and support the Habitat in their fraudulent project? Is this your legacy, turning the righteous town of Jasper, all-inclusive Jasper, into a narrow thought-policing agency?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are not being respected here in this little town in the midst of a National Park and a World Heritage Site.
The Jasper Diversity Project is a sham. The Jasper busking program is a farce. The proclamation of Inclusive Community is a joke. And most especially, the Habitat for the Arts Values and Principles Statement, all about “learning never stops…, embrace new challenges and ideas…, grow through knowledge exchange and support…” earns all three descriptors: sham, farce and a joke.
sent to Mayor and Council:
as well as to the Habitat for the Arts:
please copy to:
Dave Baker: betabake@
Mark Fercho: mfercho@
Bob Covey: bob@
Paul Clarke: editor@
Monika Schaefer: monika_schaefer@
A homage to Ernst Zündel
July 5, 2017
As the reader will have heard, in France, the person in charge of “Bocage” has taken a final bow with the 6,000th newsletter under that name. Thus ends an endeavour remarkable for its range and for the mass of work devoted, since 1979, to informing us on developments in historical revisionism.
This newsletter no. 6,000 salutes a prestigious hero of revisionism, Ernst Zündel, born in Germany in 1939. Those who, given their relatively young age, do not know just who this amazing figure is can ask us for a brief biography.
- Zündel has shown such energy, such inventiveness and such disinterestedness that one may rightly assert that, without him, revisionism would never have been able toamass so many victories, victories that have resounded throughout the world.
When finally the collapse of the “Jewish Holocaust” myth comes about, the tribunal of History will have to render justice to a sizeable number of revisionists and, to begin with,the Frenchman Paul Rassinier and the German Ernst Zündel, who never met but who, united in heart and spirit in one and the same truly heroic venture, haveindeed fought not only for the honour of their respective homelands but also for the honour of Europe as a whole.
Bocage, July 1, 2017
Our final message will be a tribute to Ernst Zündel, the German-Canadian revisionist to whom revisionism owes so much!
For revisionists, Ernst Zündel has played an unparalleled role: with his leaflets, his periodicals – always punctual – in English and German, his help in disseminating so many books in various languages, his radio and television broadcasts, his videos, he has been everywhere, and always present to inspire the movement. In 1990, thanks to a formidable undertaking organised as he knows how, our cause achieved a particularly fine victory: the elimination from the plaques at Auschwitz of the figure of four million dead,replaced later by that of a million and a half.
And it is above all he who, in the manner of anorchestral conductor, masterfully coordinated his two trials in Toronto (1985 and 1988), bringing revisionists and opponents of revisionism from all over the world there,especially in the 1985 trial, in order finally to organise a courtroom confrontation between the two camps (needless to say, when subjected to the inflexible cross-examination of barrister Douglas Christie, advised by Professor Faurisson, the opponents bit the dust so hard that a man like, for instance, Raul Hilberg, the “Pope of exterminationism”, would refuse to return for the 1988 trial!). We think anyone wishing to be informed about revisionism should begin by reading Michael Hoffman’sThe Great Holocaust Trial, published by Independent History & Research
Therefore an end had to be put to Ernst Zündel’sexuberant and iconoclastic activity and it was on February 5, 2003 that this “hero” (the word is Professor Faurisson’s) was literally abducted at his Tennessee home; from that date, i.e. for the past 14 years, this manwas to find himself gagged, completelyunable to express himself on the subject thatwas his life’s work: to cleanse Germany, his country of origin, of the false accusations by which she is overwhelmed. After 7 years in prison, amongst which 2 in Canada in conditions close to torture and the rest in Germany, he would have to pass a probationperiod of 3 years, but the 10 years of silence were not to stop there: in order to maximise his chances of obtaining the right to return to his house in Tennessee, he would carry onmaintaining anear-complete silence for 4 years… and our readers will indeed have noted that at our end wedidour best to respect that silence.
Alas, on March 31of this year the dreaded final decision was issued: while the door stays open to so many migrants, the United States, through the voice of a certain Ron Rosenberg, chief of the Administrative Appeals Officeof the US Citizen and Immigration Services, which acts by delegation of theDepartment of Homeland Security, refusedthe eminent revisionist entry to its territory for all time, thus forbidding him foreverfrom returning to his own home there,beside his wife! However, the law is clear: a person convicted abroad who seeks entry to the United States is to be barred only if the conducthaving led to conviction is “deemed criminal by United States standards”; but “denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments [which in fact E. Zündelhas never done – Bocage] is just not a crime underAmerican law”, noted UCLA law professor Eugene Volokhin a Washington Post column published, cynically, on April 24, Ernst Zündel’s birthday!
It was only onMay 9 that we received a copy of thatiniquitousruling signed “Rosenberg”:readers who wishto have their own copy mayrequest itfrom us.
On May 17 we asked E. Zündel for his reaction, and he replied as follows:
Hi! I have read and reread that US ruling by Ron Rosenberg and am ever more disgusted.
I am so disgusted by this hypocritical charade that I find it nearly impossible to force myself to write something about it!
So here goes:
I had engaged a top immigration lawyer with over thirty years of practicalexperience with immigration law in the USA. This lawyer handled my casefrom the beginning!
I followed all his advice and US rules and regulations to the letter.
All things progressed well, I already lived with my wife in the USA at our own property, running our publishing business; I had been granted a work permit, a social security number, had a comprehensive health check-up, including x-rays, aids test,in short, I was fingerprinted by the FBI, even interrogated by a special agent of theFBI, passing all tests required, with flying colours. There was only one more visit to be undertaken with an immigration official beforeI would be granted permanent residence and could live and work in the USAfor the rest of my life!
We were able to obtain my FBI file after my arrest and deportation!The special agent of the FBI, called Scott Nowinski, recommended to his headquartersthat they close the Zündel file, assuming that I would be given residency status!
Ingrid and I carried on with our lives, being reassured by the attorneys that all
was only a matter of time and routine!
We were totally taken by surprise, when out of the clear blue sky I wasarrestedduring a workday without warning, while framing paintings for my soon to be opened art gallery! The US officials did not allow me to call my attorney, and they did not have an Arrest Warrant!
Instead they claimed that I had overstayed my visa, an obvious and blatant concocted lie, their cover story! In order to deport me from the USA.
Due to this deportation, which came after the events of 9/11 (the attacks onthe World Trade Center and the Pentagon),I was imprisoned in Canada, todetermine my status for two years! Then I was declared a security threat to the nation of Canada, where I had lived peacefully and productively for 42 years, and was declared persona non grata by Canada.
I was deported to Germany, arrested on the steps of the plane which had flown meacross the ocean in handcuffs from Canada and immediately imprisoned in Mannheim!
There I was tried in Court for my writings and broadcasts done in the USA, whichwere perfectly legal in America.
After a lengthy and grotesque trial in Mannheim I was convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years under Germany’s controversial holocaust-related post war laws!
I lost all appeals, served every minute of the five-year sentence, plus another three years of “probation”, and was finally released on March 1, 2010!
We, my wife Ingrid and I, fought in the US courts for 14 years, trying to return to the USA. Virtually always lost, also lost all appeals.We spent untoldsums on legal fees and court proceedings!
The end result is the ruling by Homeland Security, signed by one Ron Rosenberg, which follows! There is also a critical review of this decision, by a US law professor from Los Angeles University by the name of Volkovh (?),whichclarifies matters somewhat!
The Zündel case reveals a great deal about the state of justice and human rights in America today!
There is a vast gap in the USA between their “reality” and American propaganda!
* * *
Ernst Zündel continues to describe himself as unvanquished and defiant,and he will not bend!
Colour photo above: Ernst Zündel, in Toronto in the 1980s, displaying before Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter, Robert Miller and DitliebFelderer the building plans of the five Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria, discovered by R. Faurisson in Poland on March 19, 1976. Those plans, kept hidden until then, enabledthe creation of scalemodels making it obvious thatthe alleged gigantic homicidal gassingoperations were physically impossible. See, in this regard, 1) An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek (Poland) prepared by Fred A. Leuchter on April 5, 1988, 193 p.; 2) Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel– 1988, edited by Barbara Kulaszka, 1992, viii-564 p.
CAFE Invited to Brian Ruhe Free Speech Picnic at Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver
Brian Ruhe hosted a great picnic on Kitsilano Beach today.. We talked a lot about wider distribution of YOUR WARD NEWS.
CAFE PROTEST PEEL BOARD’S PROPOSAL TO GAG CITIZEN DELEGATIONS
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
July 25, 2017
THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS
RE: “Bylaw addition would give chairman more power over delegates” (Mississauga News, July 20, 2017)
I fear that, like the ancien regime, the Peel District School has grown out of touch and arrogant.
Recently, they arbitrarily cut off delegations wishing to discuss special treatment of Muslim students.
Now, a new bylaw proposal seems even more ham-handed in stifling opinions they don’t like. It says, in part: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance … or behave in a manner that is not consistent with … the Ontario Human Rights Code, may by ordered to discontinue the presence and/or leave the board room … or premises.”
In other words, parents and taxpayers, shut up but don’t forget to send in your August property tax installment that pays for the Board, and make sure it reaches us on time.
“Offensive language” is utterly subjective and, in an increasingly diverse and divided society, someone is likely to take offence at almost any remark.
Even more preposterous is the decision to turf people whose comments, presumably, are not consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code. And the Board chairman is to make a snap decision to cut off a speaker? Nothing is contrary to the OHRC until a complaint has been launched, a hearing held where evidence pro and con and submissions pro and con are made and a finding of forbidden discrimination made.
Chairman Barbara McDougald, ironically, in your report clarifies the sinister censorship aims of this proposed bylaw. “An example of a delegate who could be asked to leave the property would be in individual who publicly describes another person in a ‘hateful way'”. Really? “Hateful” is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Our community encompasses strong and antagonistic views which will clash.
We’re the taxpayers. It’s the Board who spends our money hugely who should shut up and listen to the taxpayers. And, no we shouldn’t have to doff our caps and bleat, “May I?”
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Board bylaw addition would give chair power to kick delegates off property
Recommendation prompted by past disruptions over Muslim prayer issue
NEWS Jun 07, 2017 by Jason Spencer Mississauga News
A recommended addition to Peel District School Board by-laws around delegations would give the chair the power to have a delegate removed from the building if their public address contravenes the Ontario Human Rights Code. – Metroland file photo
A recommended addition to Peel District School Board bylaws tighten control over delegations.
The current board bylaw about delegations indicates, for example, that anyone who comments on the character of an identifiable individual such as a trustee during their delegation could be asked by the chair to stop and/or leave the room.
However, the hornet’s nest that was the Muslim prayer issue in the Peel board this school year has prompted an addition to section G-3 that looks to crack down on delegates who veer into offensive territory.
The suggested addition, which trustees vote on June 19, reads: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance, resist the rules of the board, disobey the decision of the chair or of the board, or behave in a manner that is not consistent with board policies and the Ontario Human Rights Code, may be ordered by the chair to discontinue the presentation and/or leave the board room or meeting room or premises.”
If passed, it appears chair Janet McDougald, who does not have a legal background, would then be permitted to determine if a delegate contravenes the OHRC in their delegation — and, if she thinks so, that individual could be removed from the property.
Asked if she is in a position to make that determination, she replied, “I think the chair, as long as they understand what the human rights code says, then they’re capable of interpreting it.”
McDougald told The News she does not have a fulsome understanding of the OHRC, but, if the bylaw addition passes, she would familiarize herself accordingly.
“I won’t know the entire code, but I will certainly understand the parts of the code that would relate to this particular activity of delegations,” she said.
Any issue interpreting legislation, she said, the chair would likely seek legal counsel.
McDougald does not think that having the power to throw a delegate out of the building is overstepping any bounds.
An example of a delegate who could be asked to leave the property would be an individual who publicly describes another person in a “hateful way,” regarding their culture, race or background, she said, adding that delegates should disagree respectfully.
A change to a board operating procedure around how religious accommodation for Muslim students is handled came into effect last September. That change, which involved students no longer being able to write their own Friday prayer sermons, stirred up the Muslim community.
The board reversed its decision in January, which then drew the ire of those opposed to the Muslim faith, or any religion in public schools.
The intensity rang out over the next four months, as board meetings were packed with critics who wanted Muslim prayer out of Peel board schools.
The board continually reiterated that they were required under the OHRC to provide religious accommodations to the point of undue hardship.
Disruptions eventually tapered off in April when new security measures required attendees to provide photo identification before entering a meeting.
Board bylaws and policies are examined annually by the trustee review committee.
Another recommended bylaw change involves the chair being able to determine the length of the public question period at meetings.