Actually, most of the text on this page is about Fred Leuchter, and not Ernst Zundel. -- Modemac
Then remove excessive coments out of this page.
Okay, I will. Thank you. -- Modemac
Zündel never denied the holocaust, he states that it was grossly exaggerated. Sam [ Spade] 01:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Holocaust revisionism" is a euphemism. In any case, he was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a German court so describing him as a Holocaust denier is appropriate. AndyL 03:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I can't belaive that questioning history and facts has such results, it seems the text on this site is not very objective. While I do not agree with Zundell, it is crazy to assume he is wrong on no evidence at all!
Who wrote all that tripe above? Everything about his deportation from the US and Canada smelled of political pressure. His violent ways involved writing, printing and distributing pamphlets I hope Canadians have stopped trembling. Poor Germans - they all seem to need a nanny to check their reading list.
"Taking his first stab at stardom, Zundel, despite his German citizenship, placed his name in the 1968 leadership contest of the federal Liberal party (credential arrangements at Canadian political conventions were rather loose at that time). He described himself as a dark horse candidate, representing what he referred to as "the third element,"[24] i.e., ethnic groups whose ancestry was neither British nor French. Zundel also portrayed himself as a staunch anti- Communist, making, of course, no mention of his neo-Nazi views and associations; since he was not known publicly in this capacity - in fact, he was not known at all - neither did anyone else. In his autobiography, he speaks of his candidacy as though it had constituted the sensation of the day. "I was therefore the only non-Minister and outsider. the youngest candidate and also the first immigrant and German Canadian in Canada's history who had achieved this. This gave me the image of a maverick, a Skorzeny figure of politics."[25] In reality, no one cared who he was, his nomination attracted almost no attention, and he received not a single vote." [6] Jayjg | (Talk) 22:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is a text file from sone unknown, giving their personal opinion. He attracted a considerable amount of attention (to the point that several papers carried follow-up 'wheres he now?' articles for years to come: until he became infamous and everyone knew exactly where he was), and he only 'received not a single vote' in the same meaningless way that you and me 'recevied not a single vote' at the 68 liberal convention. But he did have the endorsement of a number of them pre-vote. Check a real source, e.g., page 1, Toronto Daily Star, April 6, 1968.
==
Please tell us how many votes Zundel recieved then?
AndyL 22:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found another source after my last edit. As Zundel is not listed as a candidate in the first ballot results on the Parliamentary website his dropping out prior to the first ballot is credible. AndyL 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can we have this lead section expanded to encompass all the main points? One line lead sections aren't too good in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He was taken by "local police". Local police in my part of the US do not deport you to a foreign country - nor do they even handle immigration cases. Should the "local police" section be changed to "FBI". How would local police even know you might be in a minor technical violation of an obscure immigration matter?
I agree that it's an interesting angle, but I think there's rather too much space devoted to it. Better to mention it in a paragraph or two and include a link to some external site with more detail. At the very least, the interview in its present form should go. It's not exactly a smoking gun, and it takes up a lot of space. -- Saforrest 20:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I've cut the interview excerpt down to the key question and answer. AndyL 03:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Prehapse he is Jewish, so what? Regardless anyone, including a jew, has a right to question history!!!
The word Arierausweis is most probably wrong, it should be Ariernachweis. The Ariernachweis is a big sheet of paper where local authorites had to certify that all your ancestors (up to ones granparents) were of "aryan" descent.
See: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/antisemitismus/ariernachweis/
An anonymous user deleted this section; I immediately restored it, but changed the title to "Zündel's Jewish Ancestry". I'm not against anonymous editors, but will insist on Wiki ettiquete - no major deletions without discussion. The title "Is Zündel Jewish" was crap, as there was never any evidence that he was - but there is ample evidence that his ancestry is Jewish, including a referenced admission by the man himself. CPMCE 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If his granparents' names and domicile are known it should be an easy matter for local people/records to decide their ethnicity. But who cares anyway, other than some wiki oddball editors.
I deleted the UFO reference from the intro paragraph and added a separate section. I think it is highly relevant and deserves a separate mention, particularly since there are plenty of indications that it was merely a publicity stunt, and it throws an interesting light on his personality.
-- Dietwald 11:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Why bias the article with pictures of him in an orange prison jump suit? There are hundreds of pictures of him available, why do you choose the worst one? Lokison 10:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He's most notable at the moment for being on trial. I don't think he's worn anything but prison garb for the past few years. Homey 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think this is a good way to put some good ole ad hominem into the article - it was getting too balanced for my tastes.
Including this in the article strikes me as something of a tanget and is not related to Zundel's biography. Homey 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Adjusted some dates and added more information surrounding the initial complaint against Zundel which led to the criminal charges in 1984.
Sources used for updates and corrections http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1999/pub/v3/1999fc24308.html http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/html/1992scr2_0731.html http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/holocaust-rev
Interesting comment - probably lifted from some other publication - about Judge Blaise'e damning decision. The first sentence of Judge Blaise's decision stamps the entire trial as a trumped up kangaroo court. Strange start to a damning decision. The entire USA/Canada part in this charade should be required reading for all North Americans for centuries - cowardly/highhanded/hypocritical/...it's hard to find the right words.
Any link to the trial transcript? I have read that reviews - news articles, etc - don't seem to match what actually happened - ie Biedermann testimony, etc.
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc....prejudice in a society
Perhaps that is Jayg's interpretation, but this less accurately describes the subject of Zundel's material. Would you agree that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech against the Crown? -- 155.247.166.29 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The decision seems to show the lack of intellect needed to be a lawyer.judge more than their understanding of the case. What is this anti-semtism when someone disagrees with the holocaust? It sounds even dumber in a legal decision than it does on wiki. You could absolutely love something but refuse to belive an obvious myth. I like Greeks but I doubt very much that the Greek gods really lived on Mt Olympus. Am I anti-greek? I like some Jews, don't like some - but what has that got to do with the holocaust ( is anti-semitism really not agreeing with jews on an issue - do you have a complete list of these issues by the way. The Supreme Court decision sounds only as stupid as a bunch of lawyers can when they try to be politically correct - surpassed only by a bunch of wikians.
Rereading the Zundel trial, I noticed that the first trials were glossed over quite quickly. If you need help in beefing up the trials please ask. The famous witnesses against Zundel I believe were embarrased - to your credit you did mention that one refused to try it again. The eventual Supreme Court apellate decision I believe favored him - some free speech thing. His last trial in Canada was more a sad affair that should embarrass the entire Canadian people - I am embarrassed for them, like a bad play.
I have just read about Zundel getting 5 years in the newspaper and as it had little info on him have read the Wiki artical and a few items from a quick search and it bothers me that the Wiki piece is very POV. Admittedly I know little of the man but in the interests of NPOV I feel the following points in some form need inclusion if true. The first point is quoted from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal itself while the second I have yet to read the original FOI documents. I don't believe any addition should be made without prior discussion though as it is a delicate subject.
"On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that "truth was not a defence to a discriminatory practice under s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act" in the case against Ernst Zündel. The tribunal, led by Claude Pensa, said the truth or falsity of Zundel's claims were not relevant to a finding under s. 13(1), and that the dignity of the complainants and the proceedings should not be diminished by allowing the Respondent to prove the truth of inherently offensive comments. The decision was taken after Counsel for the Commission, supported by the complainants and the interveners objected over 30 times after Mr. Christie, acting for the Respondent Mr. Zündel, sought to question Prof. Schweitzer on the 'truth' of the statements found on the Zundel site.
Mr. Freiman, for the Commission, relies on the judgement of Dickson J., as he then was in John Ross Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1991) 13 C.H.R.R. p. D/435 for the proposition that truth is not a defence to allegations of discrimination under s. 13(1) of the Act. We were also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Nealy v. Johnson (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6450, and Payzant v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, T.D. 4/94 released January 24, 1997."
"According to 90 pages of formerly "secret" documents released today (May 26, 2005) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI agents made the determination that Zündel did not have ties to international or domestic terrorism, in stark contradiction to the insistence by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service that he did, but withheld paperwork to that effect from Zündel's defense team because, according to one memorandum included in the FOIA release, "the FBI would just as soon Canada's problem not become ours."
Zündel was the subject of seven FBI counter terrorist investigations, including a 2003 investigation into Zündels' internet website, all of which were closed after investigators found no evidence of criminal activity. A 2003 FBI report described Zündel as a "tired old man intent on promoting himself and his life for his own personal gain" and found no links between Ernst and his wife and any illegal activities.
The FBI investigated Zündel for ties to terrorist groups but found no evidence of links and found he did not pose a security threat. The FBI classified most of the documentation they had on Zündel, as "Secret", to avoid it being released in FOIA before Zündels' trial in Canada and his deportation to Germany was completed." Wayne 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The FBI operates domestically within the US - not within Canada. Dimitroff 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By law the CIA can't operate inside the US and the FBI can't operate outside. Someday they may actually operate legally - that day is not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is the FBI is in no position to determine whether Zundel is a security risk in Canada or what his links in Canada are. Dimitroff 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't they Canadians use the FBI report? Has Canada released any evidence of Zundel's attempt to attack Canada - this would be Canadain humor if it wasn't true. Maybe Canada is safe at last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Zundel had no status in Canada and the country was not obliged to accept him. His application for "refugee status" was both ironic and pathetic. Dimitroff 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the CIA or FBI have any rights in Canada the fact remains that exclusion of the information makes the Canadian trial a Kangaroo court (so is relevant in the artical).
Far from being pathetic, an application for refugee status was appropriate and should have been accepted under Canadian law as he was being deported to face a jail sentence for crimes that are not illegal in Canada, which is the basis of the majority of refugee claims that are accepted. That his views are reprehensible should not be a factor if they pose no provable threat.
Wayne
05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do the research before making claims. Canada accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year. And yes there is more basis for refugees from the U.S. as around 5,000 US Americans a year are granted refugee status. Under Canadas Immigration and Refugee Protection Act someone can apply for refugee status if that person "has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion". That person can be rejected "for reasons of security, serious criminality or involvement in organized crime, or for violating human or international rights". Zundel certainly fits the application criteria. In fact he was rejected as a risk to security which the FBI and CIA both said he was definately not. That was why those reports were witheld from the defense and as such are relevant to the artical. NPOV must come before personal bias. Wayne 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, provide your source for your claim about German and US refugees to Canada. I can see refugees coming from Germany or the US as a "safe third country" and originally being from Sri Lanka or Burma coming to Canada via Germany though really these wouldn't be "German refugees" but Sri Lankan or Burmese refugees but I don't know of any German (or American) citizens or permanent residents who have been granted refugee status in Canada. Indeed, I recall an article in the paper about an American *claiming* refugee status and being rejected but that's all. The other possibility is that you are confusing immigrants with refugees. Dimitroff 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's another reason to doubt Wayne's claim:
"In 2000, Canada received 2,464 refugee claims from Hungarian nationals. This is about five times the total number of Hungarian claims made in all of Europe combined, for the same time period. At the present rate, it is projected that by the end of 2001, Canada will have received, from Hungarian citizens, almost double the number of refugee claims received from this group last year." [7]
Note these are refugee claims not claimants granted refugee status. This means that in 2000 there were approximately 500 refugee claims from all of Europe excluding Hungary (the number of claimants granted refugee status would be significantly lower - only about 40% of refugee claims are approved by the IRB, I suspect the percentage would be much lower for claimants from Europe). So if there were only 500 refugee claims from all of Europe, only a portion of which would be from Germany, how do you get the figure that Canada "accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year"? Please provide a source. Dimitroff 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The top 20 countries, by number of decisions finalized, were as follows (with acceptance rate for 2004, followed, for comparison purposes, by rates for 2003 and 2002):
Hm, I don't see Germany or the US on the list despite the fact that Wayne's stats would make the US 1st and Germany 7th. If Canada has granted refugee status to people from Germany and the US it would be less than 200 a year. I suspect the actual number is approximately zero, however. Dimitroff 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I mention in the post under the FBI heading below there are three categories of refugee. Although Germany is not listed, the U.S. is, with 7,000 in the humanitarian category for the period 2000 - 2005. The U.S. ranks 3rd (2005) in this category after China and Mexico. Wayne 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I said above you are confusing refugees from the US (ie permanent residents and US citizens granted refugee status in Canada) with refugees from other countries who are applying from the US as a safe third country. Those 7,000 are not Americans, they're from somewhere else but they've entered Canada from the US. Dimitroff 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
These two US agencies have no status in Canada and the Canadian government is not bound by their findings and there's no reason to believe that CSIS and the RCMP had a more thorough file on Zundel gathered in his four decades in the country than the CIA or FBI did based on his 6 years in the US. Also, Zundel's relationship with Canadian extremist groups may well be different than his relationship with US extremist groups ie he was a leader in Canada and almost a nobody in the US.
It is ironic that the same people who called for decades for Canada to stop accepting refugees did a 180 and demanded leniency and compassion when one of their own begs for refugee status. Zundel has no fear of torture in German prisons, or of being shot by the German state or killed by German police. This is the sort of thing refugee conventions are meant to deal with, not someone who is a mere fugitive from German justice.
All this shows, however, is what a complete incompetent Zundel is. If Wayne is right and the US has no problem with Zundel why did he not seek refugee status in the six years he lived in the US? (Wayne, do you honestly think the US would have granted it to him?) Being married to a US citizen why did he not seek US citizenship? Why was he late filing his papers when he knew his US visa was about to expire? Why did he not do something to retain his Canadian landed immigrant status after he left in 2000 rather than forfeiting it? And why did he flee Canada, because he was up before the Human Rights Tribunal, a body that can hand down a maximum fine of no more than $5000! Zundel is the mastermind of his own misfortune. It's his mistakes that have landed him in the mess he's found himself in and all of Wayne's cries of "Blame Canada" don't change that. Dimitroff 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I made a mistake. I used the CIC website and the page header said "Statistical Overview of the Temporary Resident and Refugee Claimant Population ... Population by Principal Country of Origin". The smaller print, I have just noticed says the figures I gave were for temporary residents.
You still overlook what a refugee is. There are three classes.
Convention refugee "A Convention refugee is a person who is outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group."
Person in need of protection "A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
Humanitarian and Compassionate Review (around 12% of refugees) "People who would suffer hardship if they were returned to their home country may apply to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds."
Zundel is obviously a Convention Refugee and qualifies for the review, he also may qualify for protection using the unusual treatment clause considering he was jailed for free speech. The fact that he is an idiot with rediculous ideas should not count against acceptance. The Canadian courts used the false claim that he was a threat to security to deport him. I never said that Canada was bound to accept the FBI findings but they are bound to allow them to be used as evidence by the defence and this was actively prevented. Wayne 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all you have no idea what was in the CSIS report so you are in no position to judge whether or not it is more complete than the FBI findings. Secondly you have no idea whether or not Judge Blais looked at and considered the FBI report along with the CSIS report. The FBI findings don't prove anything about Zundel's activity in Canada. Thirdly you have no expertise whatsoever in refugee law and its precedents. The Humanitarian and Compassionate Review section occurs at the pleasure of the government - since two ministers of the crown signed the security certificate against Zundel it's quite obvious the government had no willingness to grant Zundel a stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On need of protection, Germany does not torture its prisoners so that's out. On fear of persecution, when was the last time the US granted refugee status to someone fleeing a third world country because he was persecuted for being a communist, socialist or trade unionist? The US does not, as a rule, accept known communists as immigrants so why should Canada accept a known fascist? I ask again if his case is so strong why didn't Zundel apply for refugee status in the US? Dimitroff 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge. It was classified and that is the problem. As the judge said when asked what evidence existed against Zundel...."there is nothing in the unclassified materials”. What little "evidence" has been released by the CSIS is irrelevant as it is hearsay years old and involves extremist groups that no longer exist. Without any evidence and the defense not allowed to provide a defence, the trial is a Star Chamber. The Canadian security certificate (unclassified) actually says "no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence" and it's basis is that Zundel is a threat because he opposes multiculturalism. The Prime Minister of my own country opposes multiculturalism so should he be jailed? Zundel couldn't apply for refugee status in the US because it would have precluded him from applying in Canada and with 40 years residency there and the previous Canadian Supreme court ruling in his favour overturning a similar conviction in 1992, granting status should have been almost a forgone conclusion there. I'd never even heard of Zundel before reading about his conviction and the more I research the more I see human rights dissapearing. People like this can be defeated by using the truth against them, trampling on their rights makes us no better than them. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV which is the whole point of my arguement. Why knowing this, are so many so passionate about opposing changes to bios that support NPOV? Wayne 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge."
The judge saw the classified materials. That he said there was nothing in the unclassified materials doesn't mean there wasn't anything in the classified materials, otherwise he wouldn't have upheld the certificate. As for your claim that Zundel didn't apply for US refugee status because he hoped to do so in Canada that is as nonsensical as your earlier fatuous claims about German refugees in Canada. Zundel was in the US for three years and had no intention of returning to Canada (as he stated many times). In fact he forfeited his landed immigrant status in Canada both by his statements that he will never return to Canada and by his 3 year absence. So why didn't he apply for refugee status while in the US since he hoped to remain there permanently? Why didn't he get his immigration papers in order? Why didn't he seek out US citizenship? The man is a complete incompetent yet and all he does when he complains about his incompetence tripping him up is whine. Dimitroff 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most of the text on this page is about Fred Leuchter, and not Ernst Zundel. -- Modemac
Then remove excessive coments out of this page.
Okay, I will. Thank you. -- Modemac
Zündel never denied the holocaust, he states that it was grossly exaggerated. Sam [ Spade] 01:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Holocaust revisionism" is a euphemism. In any case, he was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a German court so describing him as a Holocaust denier is appropriate. AndyL 03:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I can't belaive that questioning history and facts has such results, it seems the text on this site is not very objective. While I do not agree with Zundell, it is crazy to assume he is wrong on no evidence at all!
Who wrote all that tripe above? Everything about his deportation from the US and Canada smelled of political pressure. His violent ways involved writing, printing and distributing pamphlets I hope Canadians have stopped trembling. Poor Germans - they all seem to need a nanny to check their reading list.
"Taking his first stab at stardom, Zundel, despite his German citizenship, placed his name in the 1968 leadership contest of the federal Liberal party (credential arrangements at Canadian political conventions were rather loose at that time). He described himself as a dark horse candidate, representing what he referred to as "the third element,"[24] i.e., ethnic groups whose ancestry was neither British nor French. Zundel also portrayed himself as a staunch anti- Communist, making, of course, no mention of his neo-Nazi views and associations; since he was not known publicly in this capacity - in fact, he was not known at all - neither did anyone else. In his autobiography, he speaks of his candidacy as though it had constituted the sensation of the day. "I was therefore the only non-Minister and outsider. the youngest candidate and also the first immigrant and German Canadian in Canada's history who had achieved this. This gave me the image of a maverick, a Skorzeny figure of politics."[25] In reality, no one cared who he was, his nomination attracted almost no attention, and he received not a single vote." [6] Jayjg | (Talk) 22:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is a text file from sone unknown, giving their personal opinion. He attracted a considerable amount of attention (to the point that several papers carried follow-up 'wheres he now?' articles for years to come: until he became infamous and everyone knew exactly where he was), and he only 'received not a single vote' in the same meaningless way that you and me 'recevied not a single vote' at the 68 liberal convention. But he did have the endorsement of a number of them pre-vote. Check a real source, e.g., page 1, Toronto Daily Star, April 6, 1968.
==
Please tell us how many votes Zundel recieved then?
AndyL 22:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found another source after my last edit. As Zundel is not listed as a candidate in the first ballot results on the Parliamentary website his dropping out prior to the first ballot is credible. AndyL 23:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can we have this lead section expanded to encompass all the main points? One line lead sections aren't too good in articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He was taken by "local police". Local police in my part of the US do not deport you to a foreign country - nor do they even handle immigration cases. Should the "local police" section be changed to "FBI". How would local police even know you might be in a minor technical violation of an obscure immigration matter?
I agree that it's an interesting angle, but I think there's rather too much space devoted to it. Better to mention it in a paragraph or two and include a link to some external site with more detail. At the very least, the interview in its present form should go. It's not exactly a smoking gun, and it takes up a lot of space. -- Saforrest 20:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I've cut the interview excerpt down to the key question and answer. AndyL 03:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Prehapse he is Jewish, so what? Regardless anyone, including a jew, has a right to question history!!!
The word Arierausweis is most probably wrong, it should be Ariernachweis. The Ariernachweis is a big sheet of paper where local authorites had to certify that all your ancestors (up to ones granparents) were of "aryan" descent.
See: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/antisemitismus/ariernachweis/
An anonymous user deleted this section; I immediately restored it, but changed the title to "Zündel's Jewish Ancestry". I'm not against anonymous editors, but will insist on Wiki ettiquete - no major deletions without discussion. The title "Is Zündel Jewish" was crap, as there was never any evidence that he was - but there is ample evidence that his ancestry is Jewish, including a referenced admission by the man himself. CPMCE 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
If his granparents' names and domicile are known it should be an easy matter for local people/records to decide their ethnicity. But who cares anyway, other than some wiki oddball editors.
I deleted the UFO reference from the intro paragraph and added a separate section. I think it is highly relevant and deserves a separate mention, particularly since there are plenty of indications that it was merely a publicity stunt, and it throws an interesting light on his personality.
-- Dietwald 11:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Why bias the article with pictures of him in an orange prison jump suit? There are hundreds of pictures of him available, why do you choose the worst one? Lokison 10:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
He's most notable at the moment for being on trial. I don't think he's worn anything but prison garb for the past few years. Homey 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think this is a good way to put some good ole ad hominem into the article - it was getting too balanced for my tastes.
Including this in the article strikes me as something of a tanget and is not related to Zundel's biography. Homey 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Adjusted some dates and added more information surrounding the initial complaint against Zundel which led to the criminal charges in 1984.
Sources used for updates and corrections http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1999/pub/v3/1999fc24308.html http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol2/html/1992scr2_0731.html http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/holocaust-rev
Interesting comment - probably lifted from some other publication - about Judge Blaise'e damning decision. The first sentence of Judge Blaise's decision stamps the entire trial as a trumped up kangaroo court. Strange start to a damning decision. The entire USA/Canada part in this charade should be required reading for all North Americans for centuries - cowardly/highhanded/hypocritical/...it's hard to find the right words.
Any link to the trial transcript? I have read that reviews - news articles, etc - don't seem to match what actually happened - ie Biedermann testimony, etc.
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, moral or political views, etc....prejudice in a society
Perhaps that is Jayg's interpretation, but this less accurately describes the subject of Zundel's material. Would you agree that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech against the Crown? -- 155.247.166.29 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The decision seems to show the lack of intellect needed to be a lawyer.judge more than their understanding of the case. What is this anti-semtism when someone disagrees with the holocaust? It sounds even dumber in a legal decision than it does on wiki. You could absolutely love something but refuse to belive an obvious myth. I like Greeks but I doubt very much that the Greek gods really lived on Mt Olympus. Am I anti-greek? I like some Jews, don't like some - but what has that got to do with the holocaust ( is anti-semitism really not agreeing with jews on an issue - do you have a complete list of these issues by the way. The Supreme Court decision sounds only as stupid as a bunch of lawyers can when they try to be politically correct - surpassed only by a bunch of wikians.
Rereading the Zundel trial, I noticed that the first trials were glossed over quite quickly. If you need help in beefing up the trials please ask. The famous witnesses against Zundel I believe were embarrased - to your credit you did mention that one refused to try it again. The eventual Supreme Court apellate decision I believe favored him - some free speech thing. His last trial in Canada was more a sad affair that should embarrass the entire Canadian people - I am embarrassed for them, like a bad play.
I have just read about Zundel getting 5 years in the newspaper and as it had little info on him have read the Wiki artical and a few items from a quick search and it bothers me that the Wiki piece is very POV. Admittedly I know little of the man but in the interests of NPOV I feel the following points in some form need inclusion if true. The first point is quoted from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal itself while the second I have yet to read the original FOI documents. I don't believe any addition should be made without prior discussion though as it is a delicate subject.
"On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that "truth was not a defence to a discriminatory practice under s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act" in the case against Ernst Zündel. The tribunal, led by Claude Pensa, said the truth or falsity of Zundel's claims were not relevant to a finding under s. 13(1), and that the dignity of the complainants and the proceedings should not be diminished by allowing the Respondent to prove the truth of inherently offensive comments. The decision was taken after Counsel for the Commission, supported by the complainants and the interveners objected over 30 times after Mr. Christie, acting for the Respondent Mr. Zündel, sought to question Prof. Schweitzer on the 'truth' of the statements found on the Zundel site.
Mr. Freiman, for the Commission, relies on the judgement of Dickson J., as he then was in John Ross Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1991) 13 C.H.R.R. p. D/435 for the proposition that truth is not a defence to allegations of discrimination under s. 13(1) of the Act. We were also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Nealy v. Johnson (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6450, and Payzant v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, T.D. 4/94 released January 24, 1997."
"According to 90 pages of formerly "secret" documents released today (May 26, 2005) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI agents made the determination that Zündel did not have ties to international or domestic terrorism, in stark contradiction to the insistence by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service that he did, but withheld paperwork to that effect from Zündel's defense team because, according to one memorandum included in the FOIA release, "the FBI would just as soon Canada's problem not become ours."
Zündel was the subject of seven FBI counter terrorist investigations, including a 2003 investigation into Zündels' internet website, all of which were closed after investigators found no evidence of criminal activity. A 2003 FBI report described Zündel as a "tired old man intent on promoting himself and his life for his own personal gain" and found no links between Ernst and his wife and any illegal activities.
The FBI investigated Zündel for ties to terrorist groups but found no evidence of links and found he did not pose a security threat. The FBI classified most of the documentation they had on Zündel, as "Secret", to avoid it being released in FOIA before Zündels' trial in Canada and his deportation to Germany was completed." Wayne 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The FBI operates domestically within the US - not within Canada. Dimitroff 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By law the CIA can't operate inside the US and the FBI can't operate outside. Someday they may actually operate legally - that day is not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 ( talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is the FBI is in no position to determine whether Zundel is a security risk in Canada or what his links in Canada are. Dimitroff 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't they Canadians use the FBI report? Has Canada released any evidence of Zundel's attempt to attack Canada - this would be Canadain humor if it wasn't true. Maybe Canada is safe at last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Zundel had no status in Canada and the country was not obliged to accept him. His application for "refugee status" was both ironic and pathetic. Dimitroff 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the CIA or FBI have any rights in Canada the fact remains that exclusion of the information makes the Canadian trial a Kangaroo court (so is relevant in the artical).
Far from being pathetic, an application for refugee status was appropriate and should have been accepted under Canadian law as he was being deported to face a jail sentence for crimes that are not illegal in Canada, which is the basis of the majority of refugee claims that are accepted. That his views are reprehensible should not be a factor if they pose no provable threat.
Wayne
05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do the research before making claims. Canada accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year. And yes there is more basis for refugees from the U.S. as around 5,000 US Americans a year are granted refugee status. Under Canadas Immigration and Refugee Protection Act someone can apply for refugee status if that person "has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion". That person can be rejected "for reasons of security, serious criminality or involvement in organized crime, or for violating human or international rights". Zundel certainly fits the application criteria. In fact he was rejected as a risk to security which the FBI and CIA both said he was definately not. That was why those reports were witheld from the defense and as such are relevant to the artical. NPOV must come before personal bias. Wayne 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, provide your source for your claim about German and US refugees to Canada. I can see refugees coming from Germany or the US as a "safe third country" and originally being from Sri Lanka or Burma coming to Canada via Germany though really these wouldn't be "German refugees" but Sri Lankan or Burmese refugees but I don't know of any German (or American) citizens or permanent residents who have been granted refugee status in Canada. Indeed, I recall an article in the paper about an American *claiming* refugee status and being rejected but that's all. The other possibility is that you are confusing immigrants with refugees. Dimitroff 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's another reason to doubt Wayne's claim:
"In 2000, Canada received 2,464 refugee claims from Hungarian nationals. This is about five times the total number of Hungarian claims made in all of Europe combined, for the same time period. At the present rate, it is projected that by the end of 2001, Canada will have received, from Hungarian citizens, almost double the number of refugee claims received from this group last year." [7]
Note these are refugee claims not claimants granted refugee status. This means that in 2000 there were approximately 500 refugee claims from all of Europe excluding Hungary (the number of claimants granted refugee status would be significantly lower - only about 40% of refugee claims are approved by the IRB, I suspect the percentage would be much lower for claimants from Europe). So if there were only 500 refugee claims from all of Europe, only a portion of which would be from Germany, how do you get the figure that Canada "accepts an average of 1,900 refugees from Germany each year"? Please provide a source. Dimitroff 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The top 20 countries, by number of decisions finalized, were as follows (with acceptance rate for 2004, followed, for comparison purposes, by rates for 2003 and 2002):
Hm, I don't see Germany or the US on the list despite the fact that Wayne's stats would make the US 1st and Germany 7th. If Canada has granted refugee status to people from Germany and the US it would be less than 200 a year. I suspect the actual number is approximately zero, however. Dimitroff 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I mention in the post under the FBI heading below there are three categories of refugee. Although Germany is not listed, the U.S. is, with 7,000 in the humanitarian category for the period 2000 - 2005. The U.S. ranks 3rd (2005) in this category after China and Mexico. Wayne 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And as I said above you are confusing refugees from the US (ie permanent residents and US citizens granted refugee status in Canada) with refugees from other countries who are applying from the US as a safe third country. Those 7,000 are not Americans, they're from somewhere else but they've entered Canada from the US. Dimitroff 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
These two US agencies have no status in Canada and the Canadian government is not bound by their findings and there's no reason to believe that CSIS and the RCMP had a more thorough file on Zundel gathered in his four decades in the country than the CIA or FBI did based on his 6 years in the US. Also, Zundel's relationship with Canadian extremist groups may well be different than his relationship with US extremist groups ie he was a leader in Canada and almost a nobody in the US.
It is ironic that the same people who called for decades for Canada to stop accepting refugees did a 180 and demanded leniency and compassion when one of their own begs for refugee status. Zundel has no fear of torture in German prisons, or of being shot by the German state or killed by German police. This is the sort of thing refugee conventions are meant to deal with, not someone who is a mere fugitive from German justice.
All this shows, however, is what a complete incompetent Zundel is. If Wayne is right and the US has no problem with Zundel why did he not seek refugee status in the six years he lived in the US? (Wayne, do you honestly think the US would have granted it to him?) Being married to a US citizen why did he not seek US citizenship? Why was he late filing his papers when he knew his US visa was about to expire? Why did he not do something to retain his Canadian landed immigrant status after he left in 2000 rather than forfeiting it? And why did he flee Canada, because he was up before the Human Rights Tribunal, a body that can hand down a maximum fine of no more than $5000! Zundel is the mastermind of his own misfortune. It's his mistakes that have landed him in the mess he's found himself in and all of Wayne's cries of "Blame Canada" don't change that. Dimitroff 00:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like I made a mistake. I used the CIC website and the page header said "Statistical Overview of the Temporary Resident and Refugee Claimant Population ... Population by Principal Country of Origin". The smaller print, I have just noticed says the figures I gave were for temporary residents.
You still overlook what a refugee is. There are three classes.
Convention refugee "A Convention refugee is a person who is outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a particular social group."
Person in need of protection "A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
Humanitarian and Compassionate Review (around 12% of refugees) "People who would suffer hardship if they were returned to their home country may apply to remain in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds."
Zundel is obviously a Convention Refugee and qualifies for the review, he also may qualify for protection using the unusual treatment clause considering he was jailed for free speech. The fact that he is an idiot with rediculous ideas should not count against acceptance. The Canadian courts used the false claim that he was a threat to security to deport him. I never said that Canada was bound to accept the FBI findings but they are bound to allow them to be used as evidence by the defence and this was actively prevented. Wayne 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all you have no idea what was in the CSIS report so you are in no position to judge whether or not it is more complete than the FBI findings. Secondly you have no idea whether or not Judge Blais looked at and considered the FBI report along with the CSIS report. The FBI findings don't prove anything about Zundel's activity in Canada. Thirdly you have no expertise whatsoever in refugee law and its precedents. The Humanitarian and Compassionate Review section occurs at the pleasure of the government - since two ministers of the crown signed the security certificate against Zundel it's quite obvious the government had no willingness to grant Zundel a stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On need of protection, Germany does not torture its prisoners so that's out. On fear of persecution, when was the last time the US granted refugee status to someone fleeing a third world country because he was persecuted for being a communist, socialist or trade unionist? The US does not, as a rule, accept known communists as immigrants so why should Canada accept a known fascist? I ask again if his case is so strong why didn't Zundel apply for refugee status in the US? Dimitroff 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge. It was classified and that is the problem. As the judge said when asked what evidence existed against Zundel...."there is nothing in the unclassified materials”. What little "evidence" has been released by the CSIS is irrelevant as it is hearsay years old and involves extremist groups that no longer exist. Without any evidence and the defense not allowed to provide a defence, the trial is a Star Chamber. The Canadian security certificate (unclassified) actually says "no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence" and it's basis is that Zundel is a threat because he opposes multiculturalism. The Prime Minister of my own country opposes multiculturalism so should he be jailed? Zundel couldn't apply for refugee status in the US because it would have precluded him from applying in Canada and with 40 years residency there and the previous Canadian Supreme court ruling in his favour overturning a similar conviction in 1992, granting status should have been almost a forgone conclusion there. I'd never even heard of Zundel before reading about his conviction and the more I research the more I see human rights dissapearing. People like this can be defeated by using the truth against them, trampling on their rights makes us no better than them. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV which is the whole point of my arguement. Why knowing this, are so many so passionate about opposing changes to bios that support NPOV? Wayne 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"I have no more idea what was in the report than has Zundel, his lawyers or even the judge."
The judge saw the classified materials. That he said there was nothing in the unclassified materials doesn't mean there wasn't anything in the classified materials, otherwise he wouldn't have upheld the certificate. As for your claim that Zundel didn't apply for US refugee status because he hoped to do so in Canada that is as nonsensical as your earlier fatuous claims about German refugees in Canada. Zundel was in the US for three years and had no intention of returning to Canada (as he stated many times). In fact he forfeited his landed immigrant status in Canada both by his statements that he will never return to Canada and by his 3 year absence. So why didn't he apply for refugee status while in the US since he hoped to remain there permanently? Why didn't he get his immigration papers in order? Why didn't he seek out US citizenship? The man is a complete incompetent yet and all he does when he complains about his incompetence tripping him up is whine. Dimitroff 16:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)