|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The secret-trial legislation after
911
was aimend against Holocaust-Exposers
He has never been charged with a violent crime and does not
urge others to commit violence."
Yet, he suffers solitary
confinement in a "democratic"
country for having exposed holocaust-lies!
|
"The willingness of Canadian authorities to twist the narrow purpose of the security-trial legislation to go after Ernst Zundel is a blot on Canadian justice." |
||
|
The Globe and Mail (Toronto) - Saturday, October 23, 2004 |
||
THE ZUNDEL CASE Editorial It is unlikely that many Canadians spend their time thinking about Ernst Zundel Given the Holocaust denier’s abhorrent views, they might not be overly concerned to hear he has been sitting in jail for 18 months, fighting deportation to Germany on claims that he poses a danger to Canadian citizens. But in a country that believes in civil liberties, the use of a national security certificate to keep Mr. Zundel in solitary confinement in a Toronto detention centre should raise serious concerns. He’s a weak reed to defend, but it is the treatment of the weakest reeds that tests our true commitment to constitutional rights. This is an extraordinary use -- more to the point, abuse -- of the secret-trial legislation that emerged after the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, to increase national security against terrorist acts. Most of the evidence against Mr. Zundel has been heard in private, compromising his right to a defence; his lawyers attack it as a mass of hearsay. The government need show only that it acted "reasonably" in stripping him of his rights, a preposterously low legal hurdle. What little has emerged suggests the Crown is arguing not that he has incited violence, but that his material might be read by people who might incite violence -- guilt by association. Mr. Zundel was quick to challenge the constitutionality of the security certificate, but the Ontario courts ruled that he should argue his case in Federal Court, where his deportation challenge is being heard. The Supreme Courts of Canada this week declined to hear his appeal. On procedural grounds, the decision may have been appropriate. But the willingness of Canadian authorities to twist the narrow purpose of the security-trial legislation to go after Ernst Zundel is a blot on Canadian justice. Yes, even if it helps the country get rid of a nasty character. |
||
|
Now, lodged in an isolation cell at the Metro West
Detention Centre, he rarely sees anyone. He takes medication for a heart
condition, bad circulation and serious dental problems, and is allowed
just 10 minutes of exercise a day. His tiny cell has a cot, toilet and
sink, but no toothbrush or towels. If he wants to write, he must perch
on a stack of transcripts and use his sink as a desk. |
||
|
Globe and Mail, Toronto, March 6, 2004 |
