- Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
-
- Today's and tomorrow's Zgram will deal with yet another
scurrilous brutality inflicted on Ernst Zundel - continuing detention,
courtesy of former CSIS boss, Judge Blair. Usually I try to avoid overlap
write-ups between what I send to my Zgram readers and what I include in
our monthly "Power" and "Germania" letters for our
active supporters. However, the content below ought to be shared with a
wider audience, as should the concomitant write-up by Paul Fromm, Director
of the Canadian C-FAR, reserved for tomorrow:
-
- [START]
-
- So there you have it. A victim is kidnapped and
incarcerated.
He is treated brutally throughout. He is mercilessly smeared and vilified
in mainstream media, where he is not allowed to state his point of view.
The agency that helped to put him there, as we now know from Freedom of
Information Act documents, knew that a bomb was sent to him - and did
nothing.
Its former boss, Judge Blais, says this: "CSIS is not on trial here.
SIRC is not on trial, either. I think this is a waste of time."
-
- Discerning "Power" readers might wonder whether
Judge Blais at long last saw the light about his own disgraceful handling
of the Zündel case in this circus of a trial and finally decided to
disqualify himself. Did he? Of course not!
-
- Not that the defense team didn't try! The Lindsays
[defense
attorneys] had carefully worked up a series of questions. They had been
repeatedly told such would not be allowed, on grounds that "it would
endanger the national security of Canada," to know what the specific
charges against Ernst were, who the witnesses were, what document might
have been used, etc.. Here is what Defense Attorney, Peter Lindsay asked
on the last day of the hearings:
-
- [START]
-
- My lord, the first question would be - and I would ask
your lordship that, in thinking about these questions, to think about
whether
there is any way that these would be injurious to national security. The
answer, in my respectful submission, is "no."
-
- Were any live witnesses called as part of the secret
evidence? Just yes or no.
-
- If so, how many were there? Were any of them expert
witnesses?
-
- With respect to the witnesses, did they testify as to
personal knowledge or as to hearsay? Was it first hand hearsay or second
hand hearsay or worse?
-
- Did any such witnesses have criminal records? Did any
of them have any apparent bias or animus with respect to Mr. Zündel?
What investigation was there, if any, of any bias or animus? Were any of
the witnesses from groups strongly opposed to Mr. Zündel remaining
in Canada?
-
- Were any such witnesses promised or given anything by
CSIS or the government?
-
- Did any witness offer any corroboration or documentation
to substantiate their testimony?
-
- Were any documents introduced as part of the secret
evidence?
How many documents?
-
- Were any such documents allegedly written by Mr.
Zündel
introduced? How many?
-
- How do we know that any such documents were in fact
actually
written by Mr. Zündel?
-
- Are any of those documents publicly available? If so,
why haven't they been disclosed?
-
- Apart from witnesses and documents, what other kinds
of evidence have been introduced as part of the secret evidence?
-
- How many days or hours of secret evidence have been
introduced?
How many days or hours of secret submissions have been made?
-
- Have there been secret submissions about public
evidence?
-
- I attach quite a bit of significance to this: In what
way has the secret evidence been introduced? Are witnesses sworn or
affirmed?
Are these examinations in chief followed by judicial questioning? Is the
evidence transcribed or are notes simply taken? How does it work, in a
general sense?
-
- Was some, all, or none of the secret evidence shown to
the ministers prior to the issuance of the security certificate against
Mr. Zündel? If the answer is not "all", did the evidence
not presented to the ministers exist in CSIS's hands or the Department
of Justice's hands as of May 1, 2003 or was it gathered later? If it was
not presented to the ministers, will your lordship consider it on the
security
certificate review and, if so, on what basis?
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel encouraging a
specific act of violence at any time since 1990, since that is the time
period when his supposed activities in relation to various security
started.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel funding a specific
act of violence at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel pulling the string
with respect to a specific act of violence at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel inspiring a
specific
crime at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel encouraging a
specific crime at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel being involved
in a specific crime since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel funding a specific
crime at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel pulling the
strings
with respect to a specific crime at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel inspiring any
act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel encouraging any
act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel being involved
in any act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel funding any act
of terrorism at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel pulling the
strings
with respect to any act of terrorism at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel inspiring anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel encouraging
anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel being involved
in anything that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since
1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel funding anything
that could endanger the security of Canada at any time since 1990.
-
- Provide one example of Mr. Zündel pulling the
strings
with respect to anything that could endanger the security of Canada at
any time since 1990.
-
- The court, based on these questions, in my respectful
submission, really has two choices: Number one, to provide all or at least
some of the answers to these 34 questions so that there can be some
opportunity
for both sides to meaningfully present a case and make submissions and
for the court to have at least a glimpse of a balanced case or, number
two, provide no answers, present no public case, and condemn Mr.
Zündel
by way of a secret trial. If you are going to do that, I respectfully
request
that you please cite some specific reason why it "would" - not
"could", but "would" - jeopardize national security
to answer any of these questions.
-
- Put very simply, my lord, with no answers and no public
case, [this] is effectively a secret trial, and I cannot make any more
useful submissions about detention in the context of evidence that is
totally
kept secret from me for reasons that are not, in my respectful submissions,
based on national security.
-
- [END]
-
- I call that drawing a line in the sand!
-
- As I was reading this document, dated September 22, 2004,
I wondered how on earth even a man without a conscience could wiggle out
of that one! I guess I had forgotten chutzpah - and chutzpah writ large
is what you can read in this amazing piece of scurrility, which is Judge
Blais's answer. Condensed below, this is the reason why Ernst needs to
be kept in detention:
-
- [START]
-
- (Section 4) Pursuant to subsection 83 (2) of the Act,
after 6 months, the Court has the duty to reexamine whether the detention
of Mr. Zündel should continue.
-
- (Section 9) Counsel to Mr. Zündel and his
predecessor
suggested many times that different witnesses would testify. At the last
minute, Counsel for Mr. Zündel decided not to bring those witnesses
to testify.
-
- (Section 10) The witnesses which Counsel for Mr.
Zündel
wanted to bring forward to testify included a former counsel for Mr.
Zündel,
who is now a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the leader
of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a leader of B'nai Brith Canada, an author
and a journalist for the Globe and Mail. All those subpoenas were quashed
after a hearing and are the subject of another decision rendered on June
23, 2004.
-
- (Section 11) In my decision of January 21, 2004, I
indicated
that Mr. Zündel did not provide evidence of his real relationship
with the individuals and the organizations that are mentioned in the
summary
that was provided to Mr. Zündel in May 2003.
-
- (Section 12) Mr. Zündel decided not to address those
issues and not to clarify his relationship with those individuals and
organizations.
Mr. Zündel decided to demonstrate that he is more or less a victim
of a vendetta by CSIS against him, and tried by different allegations to
demonstrate that CSIS has a strong bias against him and is determined to
deport Mr. Zündel at any price.
-
- (Section 16) As I stated in a previous decision, it is
no secret that the Canadian Jewish organizations placed a lot of pressure
on ministers and different levels of government, insisting that different
measures should be taken against Mr. Zündel; for example, the Canadian
Jewish organizations exerted a lot of pressure to ensure that the Canadian
government would not allow Mr. Zündel to reenter the country from
the United States. In fact, they did not succeed.
-
- (Section 18) In fact, the question that has to be
addressed
is not whether there was pressure, but rather, whether the certificate
issued by the ministers is reasonable.
-
- (Section 19) We are not there yet. The hearing on the
reasonableness of the certificate is still ongoing. Nevertheless, I have
a duty to reexamine whether the detention should continue.
-
- (Section 20) Finally, counsel for Mr. Zündel
suggests
that the evidence that is provided in camera about Mr. Zündel creates
an unbalanced position and an untenable position to respond.
-
- (Section 21) Mr. Lindsay suggests that he should be
allowed
to ask questions about the secret evidence which is classified information,
and if answers are provided to those questions, it would be easier for
him to adequately represent his client.
-
- (Section 22) In fact, Mr. Lindsay suggests that unless
he gets some answers to those questions, it will be very difficult if not
impossible for him to make meaningful submissions about the reasonableness
of the certificate, and "on the issue of detention."
-
- (Section 23) Mr. Lindsay decided to read those questions
in making his own representation and I can assure Mr. Lindsay right now
that those questions will be taken into consideration when the Court hears
counsel for the ministers in camera. The Federal Court of Appeal has
explained
the burden of proof on the review of detention.
-
- " The onus is always on the minister to demonstrate
there are reasons which warrant detention or continued detention. However,
once the minister has made out a prima facie case for continued detention,
the individual must lead some evidence or risk continued
detention."
-
- I would agree with counsel for the Ministers that even
though counsel for Mr. Zündel has shown dissatisfaction with the
disclosure
of the evidence, Mr. Zündel has received adequate disclosure in this
case. Mr. Zündel has received full disclosure consistent with Section
78 of the Act. The disclosure was consistent with principles of natural
justice and fairness. In fact, referring to paragraph 20 of my decision
of January 21, 2004, I indicated that there was, at the time of that
decision,
reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Zündel was a danger to national
security or to the safety of any person. I based my findings, at the time,
on the fact that although Mr. Zündel had virtually no history or
direct
personal engagement in acts of serious violence, his status within the
Right Supremacist Movement was such that adherents would be inspired to
carry out his acts pursuant to his ideology. The ministers believed that,
by his comportment as leader and ideologue, Mr. Zündel intended
serious
violence to be a consequence of his influence. . (Section 27)
-
- In assessing carefully the evidence that was provided
since that very decision of January 21, 2004, I have no hesitation to
conclude
that Mr. Zündel failed to provide evidence that there are no
reasonable
grounds to believe that he is a danger to national security or to the
safety
of any person. . (Section 28)
-
- Being satisfied that Mr. Zündel should remain in
detention because the Ministers have provided evidence that there are
reasonable
grounds to believe that he is a danger to national security or to the
safety
of any person, it will not be necessary to determine whether he is unlikely
to appear at a proceeding or for removal. No new evidence was even provided
by any party regarding this question. (Section 29)
-
- Therefore, THIS COURT ORDERS that:
-
- Mr. Zündel's detention by continued in accordance
with subsection 83(3) of the Act until the designated judge again rules
in regard to the continuation of the detention. "Pierre Blais"
- Judge
-
- [END]
-
- I don't know what you might see in this judgment - but
I see Comrade Stalin grinning!
-
- (Note: The full transcript will be placed on the
Zundelsite,
www.zundelsite.org, shortly. )
|
