ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL, TORONTO, August 16, 2017. Friends of the late publisher and holocaust skeptic, Ernst Zundel, and supporters of free speech gather to celebrate a remarkable man.
ERNST ZUNDEL MEMORIAL REPORT & HOT INSIDE INFO ON CHARLOTTESVILLE
Jim Rizoli interviews Paul Fromm, Aug 18, 2017, discussing the Tribute to Ernst Zundel and the manufactured crisis that is called CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA, violence compliments of the Alt-Left.
Zuendel in 1968 with a full head of hair, and fluent in English and French as well as his native German, speaks at the Liberal Party leadership convention in 1968. He called for an end to German-bashing movies on Canadian tv. Of course, he was ignored by the sheeple — and they voted for the toxic narcissist Pierre Trudeau.
I dedicate this blog to a special supporter, a friend in need who’s a friend indeed …. whereas getting help from others is, well, like pulling teeth. 😉
……Michael Hoffman on Zundel
We have known few men who have loved our people and our civilization more than he did. It is not an exaggeration to say that he gave his life for love of them.
The great Ernst Zündel, whom I knew, died two days ago a heart attack (natural or induced, that is the question) in his native Calmbach in the famous Black Forest of Germany.
I rejoice in his wonderful karma, the result of a heroic, selfless life, committed to his race, his people and the truth. The angels now are giving him HIGH-FIVES!
Way back in the 1960s he was already getting active and actually was a speaker at, of all things, the Liberal Party convention in 1968, running for party leader! Zuendel got up and to the amazement of theblasé, denounced anti-German movies on TV. 😉 But he was a new face, and the now infamous Pierre Trudeau beat out him and the others.
Jim and Joe Rizoli Discuss Ernst Zundel in a Tribute, August 2017
Ernst Zündel: Unbowed
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.
Ernst Zundel — Pacifist Historian Denied U.S. Entry
- Ernst Zuendel cannot come home to join his wife, an American citizen, after serving his sentence in Germany for “thought crimes,” says the Department of Homeland Security, yet untold numbers of illegal aliens are allowed to “come home” repeatedly, even after committing felonies.
Ernst Zuendel, the internationally renowned historical revisionist and activist who has been persecuted by a number of Western governments for his political activism and historical research, has been denied entry to the United States after seeking to rejoin his wife in Tennessee, it was recently revealed.
Zuendel, 78, who has served jail time in Germany and Canada for questioning the official “Holocaust” narrative, had been attempting to obtain an immigrant visa to travel to the United States and live with his American wife, Ingrid Zuendel.
Under normal circumstances, a foreign national seeking an immigration visa to join an American spouse would find little difficulty in obtaining the visa. However, due to Zuendel’s views and imprisonment for thought crimes, he was deemed “inadmissible” by Ron Rosenberg, the chief of the Administrative Appeals Office of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which decided Zuendel’s fate.
In its ruling, the Administrative Appeals Office cited Zuendel’s 2007 conviction in Germany of 14 counts of “incitement to hatred” and one count of “violating the memory of the dead,” Orwellian thought crimes institutionalized in Germany and many other Western nations following World War II in an effort to criminalize political dissent and historical inquiry, particularly as it relates to the official narrative explaining WWII and the Jewish “Holocaust.” Zuendel served five years in prison in Germany after facing legal challenges in both Canada and the United States.
The DHS’s ruling also noted that Zuendel is “a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views” and contends that he has a “long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred” while agitating “for aggressive behavior against Jews.” Zuendel “has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions,” the ruling stated in an attempt to justify its decision to ban the historian from rejoining his elderly wife in America.
Of course, Zuendel’s previous political, historical, and educational activities—hysterically demonized and twisted by the Administrative Appeals Office’s characterization in its ruling—are not in any way illegal in the United States. Whatever one believes about WWII history, Zuendel, who is a pacifist, went to great lengths to document the controversial statements and perspectives he was publicly offering in a scholarly fashion.
Ingrid Zuendel, Ernst’s American wife who has long been involved with his political and historical activism, denied the U.S. federal government’s characterization of her husband as an inciter of hatred and instigator of aggressive behavior toward Jewish people.
“Canada has had a ‘hate law’ statute on its books for decades,” Ingrid explained to this newspaper in a recent interview. “If Ernst had been guilty of ‘racial hatred,’ he would have been charged decades ago. Ernst was never charged, much less convicted, of any hatred, much less racial hatred.”
Ingrid also disputed the notion that her husband ever advocated “aggressive behavior” toward Jews—or anyone else for that matter.
“Ernst has never been charged with ‘aggressive behavior,’ much less convicted for having acted aggressively against anyone. He is a pacifist with a sterling record of lifelong Ghandi-like conduct. We have FBI and other police reports that say so,” Ingrid told AFP. “Not only has Ernst never acted ‘aggressively,’ he has always counseled his supporters to conduct themselves peacefully, as a matter of moral principle as well as for tactical reasons.”
The latest legal setback for the Zuendels came as no surprise to Ingrid. They have been struggling for years now in the judicial system, only to be stymied at every opportunity.
“We were not surprised by the ruling of the DHS’s Administrative Appeals Office,” Ingrid explained to this reporter. “The courts are no longer the means of last resort to get justice in America. The courts have been co-opted and are corrupted to the core. Justice can no longer be had from the bench.”
She continued: “That doesn’t mean that we are giving up. There are other means than courts to win this most important battle in the courts of public opinion. The struggle for historical truth has never been just about what happened to Ernst Zuendel. It was and is about revealing false flags and self-serving lies as tools of control by the powers-that-be. It was and is about revealing historical lies as weapons of war wielded brutally by what is now referred to as the ‘deep state’ or the ‘shadow government.’”
Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel apparently wanted to move to the United States from Germany. (I say apparently because the decision on which I’m reporting, just posted on Westlaw but decided March 31 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Administrative Appeals Office, referred only to one E.C.Z., but both the initials and the facts described in the decision fit Zundel and likely no one else.) He would normally get an immigrant visa, because his wife of 16 years — who is about 80 years old — is a U.S. citizen. But he was classified as inadmissible because he has been convicted of foreign crimes for which the sentence was five years or more:
[I]n 2007 the Applicant was convicted in Germany of 14 counts of incitement to hatred and one count of violating the memory of the dead. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of five years in prison.
And though a waiver of inadmissibility was possible — because of extreme hardship to Zundel’s elderly wife — the office concluded that there was good reason to deny the waiver:
The negative factors in the Applicant’s case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. The record shows that the Applicant is a historical revisionist and denier of the Holocaust, distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record indicates further that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against Jews. Furthermore, the Applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades and has shown no regret or remorse for his actions. Thus, we find that the negative factors in the Applicant’s case outweigh the positive such that a favorable exercise of discretion is not warranted.
Now, I think there’s nothing unconstitutional under current First Amendment law about the decision to exclude Zundel. Various Supreme Court cases, of which the most relevant is Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), generally take the view that the First Amendment and similar constitutional provisions don’t apply to decisions on whether to let in an alien. American immigration law has long barred immigration by aliens who have been members of Communist parties; more recently, it has likewise barred immigration by anyone who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” The view seems to be: We have to live with schmucks who are already Americans, but that doesn’t mean we need to let in more. (Of course, the litigation over President Trump’s Executive Order might change this analysis: If the Supreme Court eventually concludes that the order discriminated based on the religious beliefs of most would-be visitors from certain countries, and that such discrimination violates the First Amendment, then — depending on the breadth of the Court’s rationale — that logic might equally apply to discrimination based on the political beliefs of would-be visitors and would-be immigrants, and might thus lead to an overruling of Kleindienst.)
But oddly, the decision suggests that Zundel might have had a legal right under existing law to immigrate after all (even if that right could constitutionally be taken away by a change in the law) — and that DHS’s Administrative Appeals Office might not fully understand American First Amendment law. The office stated,
A foreign conviction can be the basis for a finding of inadmissibility only where the conviction is “for conduct which is deemed criminal by United States standards.” Matter of Ramirez-Rivero, 18 I&N Dec. 135, 137 (BIA 1981).
(To give an example of the Ramirez-Rivero principle in action, one 2015 decision held that a 1997 Cuban conviction for “speculation and hoarding” couldn’t disqualify an alien from admissibility to the United States.) But as best I can tell from press accounts, Zundel’s speech that formed the basis of his German conviction would not have been “deemed criminal by United States standards.” Denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments is just not a crime under American law. Indeed, it can’t be made a crime, given the First Amendment.
But here’s what the office said as it went on:
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829 (1969).
But, as the office notes, the Brandenburg exception is limited to advocacy intended and likely to produce crime in the next few minutes, hours or at most days (see Hess v. Indiana ), the classic example being a speech to an enraged crowd outside a building, urging it to storm the building. To my knowledge, Zundel’s convictions don’t stem from such behavior.
So the exclusion of Zundel was itself not a First Amendment violation. But, based on Ramirez-Rivero — and certainly the office’s description of Ramirez-Rivero — it appears to have been a violation of American immigration law. And in the process of misapplying Ramirez-Rivero, the office seems to have erroneously concluded that Holocaust denial and the expression of anti-Semitic sentiments would be “deemed criminal by United States standards.” That strikes me as mistaken, though I’d be glad to hear any corrections or clarifications from readers who are more knowledgeable about immigration law than I am.