From email@example.com Mon Jun 24 12:08:15 PDT 1996 Article: 44695 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!news.infi.net!nwgw.infi.net!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Coren defends free speech Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:41:46 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 82 Message-ID: <01bb5e17.597ddc60$49ded3c6@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on4-09.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 19 2:45:23 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 The following is Michael Coren's June 19th column in the Toronto Sun. "The Zundel Affair: Much ado about nobody" Let me begin with a question. What constitutes a national security threat to this country? Well, international espionage would be one, foreign invasion another. Certainly the internal peace and order of the nation is challenged by union thugs who try to bring down elected governments [a reference to a recent disturbance outside the Ontario legislature] and by drug dealers and murderers who now seem to be invading our inner cities. But the country will, I am sure, win the day. Unless, apparently, one man is allowed to remain in Canada. The man of whom I speak became a permanent resident in 1958. He applied for citizenship in 1968 and 1993 but was rejected because he was thought by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to be a threat to our national security. Believe it or not, this ostensibly terrifying individual is he of the soft brain under a hard hat, the porky Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel. It sounds ridiculous, but it's true. The intelligence service believes Zundel to be so dangerous there may be moves afoot to deport him back to Germany. He is now arguing his defence in front of the Federal Court. Zundel has never been convicted of a crime, although he has, of course, smashed his way through the moral law for years. His ideas are rotten and repugnant, his friends are nasty and dumb. He denies the Holocaust and is an important player in the revisionist movement. So what! There are Marxists with links to international communism and dangerous perverts with links to international pedophilia in this country, a few of them with a certain degree of power. Some are citizens, some are not. Yet nobody is trying to deport them and nobody has described them as threats to our stability as a country. Ernst Zundel is only a threat to Canada's national security in the minds of two extreme groups--his most zealous enemies, and his most zealous friends. The intelligence service claims Zundel may have links to fascist groups in the U.S. and Europe and that those groups may have employed violence in the past. But there are Canadians who have links with armed fighters in Sri Lanka, Croatia, Serbia, Afghanistan and the rest. These groups are far more effective and far better armed. No, what this seems to come down to is a hatred and a fear of Zundel's ideas. The former is justified, the latter is not. We must not, dare not, fear a lie. Not only is the whole attack on Zundel an embarrassment to our dignity, it is also a colossal waste of time and money. If we want to deport national enemies, let us invest cash and hours into catching and deporting drug dealers and murderers, such as the one who killed a young policeman [in Toronto last year], and tried to kill another, and was supposed to have been deported to Jamaica long before. He managed to evade authorities with some ease--or perhaps they managed to evade him. Hysteria will, of course, be heard, will be used and will be exploited. We will hear phrases such as "They laughed at Hitler" and "They didn't take the Nazis seriously" all chanted as reasons for deporting Zundel from Canada. But the point is, this is Canada and not 1930s Germany. And Ernst Zundel is not Adolf Hitler. If our state is so fragile and if the minds and hearts of our citizens so addled and dark the buffoon Zundel is a national threat, then it will take more than one deportation to save us. If we are stronger and more sane than some would have us believe, Zundel is no more of a danger than the man who says he is a poached egg. We should treat Mr Zundel and Mr Yolk in the same way, with a contemptuous detachment. Let me conclude by making what really should be an unnecessary statement. I am the son of a father whose Polish-Jewish family was devastated in and by the Holocaust. I have more reason than most to disagree with Ernst Zundel but I also have reason to speak up for a better grasp of political reality. In the words of my 6-year old daughter, "Get real." From email@example.com Mon Jun 24 12:09:28 PDT 1996 Article: 45440 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: British Columbia Thought Police Handed Clubs Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 00:36:54 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 29 Message-ID: <01bb60c7.d40cfd00$55cfd3c6@default> References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on1-21.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 23 12:53:41 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > email@example.com (Orest Slepokura) wrote in article .. . > This bizarre tale starts back in June 1993, when the provincial government > made seemingly minor amendments to the Human Rights Act, changes that > alarmed newspapers because it looked like the government was trying to > sneak in press controls through the Human Rights Council's back door. > > "No, no," said the government, from Premier Mike Harcourt on down, "you've > got it all wrong." > > But two years later it appeared we didn't. > > In June 1995, the government passed Bill 32, another Human Rights > amendment, which gave Draconian powers to a beefed-up Human Rights > Commission and established the tribunal to wield them. > > "Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear" (http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/govrules.html). That vile troll Giwer must be pretty smart. From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Jun 24 12:09:29 PDT 1996 Article: 45532 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!inter2.interstice.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.asu.edu!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 09:29:14 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 105 Message-ID: <01bb604f.f3c557a0$8ecfd3c6@default> References: <01bb5b46.1b1945a0$aeded3c6@default> <01bb5ce7.f33a36e0$88ded3c6@default> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <01bb5fc3.d199ce40$8dded3c6@default> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on2-14.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jun 22 10:35:35 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 >> firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken McVay OBC) wrote in article > ><email@example.com>... > > At the time of Mr. Zundel's arrest, the "publishing false > news" statute was legal - stupid, but legal. Therefore, his > arrest was justified. > > It was legal at the time of his arrest, thus it was legally > justified _at_the_time_ - ergo, it was not persecution. The > law of the day said that it was illegal to knowingly publish > lies, Zundel knowingly published lies. That seems to confuse > you. > I hate to labour the point too much further, especially since it strikes me as fairly obvious, but the confusion is all on your side. Such laws are, in my view, wrong and pernicious regardless of any court decision, but the Supreme Court did in fact strike down the law as unconstitutional and as a violation of rights guaranteed by the charter. That means that the archaic false news law, selectively dredged out of the law books and directed at one unpopular man, should never have been a law in the first place. It was not, to state what ought to be obvious but apparently isn't, legal at the time of Zundel's arrest, or at any other time for that matter, and it was therefore unconstitutional and legally unjustified for the Crown to charge Zundel or anyone else with spreading false news. The Court may have hated Zundel as passionately as you do, but it concluded both that he was convicted under an illegal law (there is such a thing, by the way) and that his charter rights were violated. The false news law was also unjustified according to the admirable principles of Ken McVay--which, believe it or not, I consider more important--namely, that the state should not decide "what's correct and what's not." That's your stated conviction, not Ernst Zundel's, not even the Supreme Court's, but yours. Your "ergo" thus introduces a non sequitur according to your own beliefs, as well as the legal principles that guided the Supreme Court of Canada. > Bernie Farber will have to speak for himself - forgive me, but > the Zundelistas on the net have not established a record as > paragons of honest virtue. > I can only assume that this rather elliptical remark is meant to imply that I, as a Zundelista, might be lying. I had assumed Farber's plans were common knowledge. I hope I misunderstood the sentence, but if I didn't, I quote from a letter he wrote to the Toronto "Sun": "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic hate speech subject to the laws of our land" (quoted in Peter Worthington's column of 9 Feb 1995). He enlarged on this conclusion on the CBC Newsworld programme "Face Off" a couple of months later (16 May to be exact), leading your supporter K.K. Campbell, his opponent for the evening, to rightly conclude that "Farber and his ilk are the moral descendents of book burners" ("Eye," 25 May 1995). > ... so much for "feigned opposition." > > Your continuing attempts to demonstrate that I do not > believe my public statements is deliberately misleading, and > patently false. "Feigned opposition" was a very poor choice of words, for which I apologize. The point, inadequately expressed, was that you misunderstand the implications of what you profess. You cannot support free speech, on the internet and elsewhere, and still support hate laws that criminalize speech, ban books and shut down phone lines, and that, furthermore, permit the investigation of university professors (Rushton), journalists (Collins), and even apolitical theatrical producers (Drabinsky). If you have, as you say, "mixed feelings about the hate-speech laws," perhaps Nizkor should revise its position (as it appears, for example, on your Zundel and censorship page) and declare that you believe in free speech, except for a special category of speech whose contours we shall leave it to the discretion of the state to determine. Or perhaps you could say that you have no objection in principle to such restrictions, but that you have concluded that they are likely for technological reasons to prove ineffectual, at least on the internet. That would be a less ringing profession of principles than you might wish, but it would at least have the virtue of being consistent with your hesitation on the issue. > I have made that point in workshops with Canadian government > officials in Foreign Affairs, Justice, Heritage, the RCMP, > CSIS, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. What have > _you_ done, other than bellow on the net about poor Mr. > Zundel? > Bellow? That does hurt. I thought I was the sweet voice of reason. > [David Irving] is not fit to enter this country, and his deportation was > completely justified. My reference to Irving, incidentally, was to the banning of a book defending him, not to his being barred from Canada. It's fairly clear by now that Nizkor will defend any legal device exploited to target those it dislikes, whether it be Zundel's false news charge, his impending deportation, or the barring of a world-famous historian from the country. I naively assumed that you would at least share my shock at the mere thought that a book could be prohibited entry into this country. Guess I was wrong. My understanding of the Irving case is based largely on the account in Frank Miele's article in the "Skeptic," vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 65-66. It was a pretty appalling sequence of events, which no-one should bother defending. From firstname.lastname@example.org Mon Jun 24 12:09:29 PDT 1996 Article: 45727 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.uu.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Revisionism as a framework Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 02:04:33 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 18 Message-ID: <01bb60d3.4d37f760$55cfd3c6@default> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4qhb2n$bn1@Vir.com> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on1-21.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 23 2:15:48 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken McVay OBC) wrote in article <email@example.com>... > In article <4qhb2n$bn1@Vir.com>, > Jean-Francois Beaulieu wrote: > > > Revisionnist conceed that there was at least a million of Jews > > who perished during WWll, accounting for the poor hygienic > > David Irving "concedes" that at least 4 million died. Do try > and get your stories straight. > If David Irving--that vile pseudo-historian, currently banned from Canada--"concedes" at least four million victims, and Gerald Reitlinger, the author of "The Final Solution," says 4.6 million, is Reitlinger a vile pseudo-historian? From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed Jun 26 16:43:38 PDT 1996 Article: 46121 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 960624: When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing"-it's the money! Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:30:40 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 84 Message-ID: <01bb632a.29918700$50cfd3c6@default> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <01bb623a.d7d36040$95cfd3c6@default> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on1-16.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 26 1:42:43 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > firstname.lastname@example.org (Bernie Farber) wrote in article <email@example.com>... > 1. I have NEVER campaigned to shut down the net. No-one has ever suggested that you aim to demolish, say, alt.golfing. You aim instead to punish anyone who, from this country at least, says anything on the internet (or elsewhere) that falls under our authoritarian anti-hate laws. Since, as you routinely trumpet, "holocaust denial is anti-Semitic hate speech subject to the laws of our land" (quoted in Peter Worthington's Toronto "Sun" column of 9 Feb 1995), it follows as night does day that you plan to shut down this particular news group, along with all groups and all websites subsumed by that ever-expanding category "hate." Any "holocaust denier" (or "hate monger" or "net-nazi") with the temerity to post a message to this group will, if Bernie Farber has his way, be in violation of the law and thus liable to fine or imprisonment. This will become a forum wherein quite literally historical truth is determined by government fiat. Rumblings from the Wiesenthal Centre suggest a similar scheme is afoot south of the border, though I suspect with much less chance of success. > > Please document where I or CJC has at any time publicly called for such action. >Canadian law applies to the net-users in Canada as it applies to every other Canadian resident. As such, >where evidence allows, violations of law be it libel, hate promotion etc should be prosecuted. > As far as I'm concerned, you were in fact kind enough to provide the documentation in your own post, but here's some more: "There's a myth and a fallacy out there that for some reason . . . the internet is sacrosanct, that somehow Canadian [hate] law doesn't apply to Canadians using the internet. In fact, that's dead wrong. As a matter of fact, at the CJC [Canadian Jewish Congress] plenary . . . it was made very clear by a lawyer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission that section 13, which deals with telephonic hate, [also] deals with the internet. If there are hate messages put on the internet, and they can determine who it is or what site it comes from within Canada, they will apply the law" (Bernie Farber on CBC Newsworld's "Face Off," 16 May 1995). > > For the record it is CJC's position that service providers should operate within a voluntary > set of guidelines. They need not take as clients hate-mongers, child ponographers etc. > Such is the beauty of capitalism. Here's how this delightful plan would work: "I'm looking at some kind of international agreement . . . where some of the larger service providers . . . have some sort of self-regulation [in place], so that if a Ernst Zundel, for example, wants to get on, people know who he is, what he's about--then they yank him" (ibid). Comment would be superfluous. And a special favourite of mine, a touching testament to Bernie Farber's faith in the powers of human ingenuity: "We have a major problem in terms of technology. There's no question about that. The law is probably years behind the technology. However, we shouldn't say it can't ever be done . . . There's certainly the possibility that we can find a way to regulate" (ibid). Translation: I think I can convince (Justice Minister) Alan Rock to penalize speech I don't like, either through existing law or new law coined for the occasion, and we'll work out the technical details later. And if I can't convince him, I'll badger the ISPs until they comply. > We all may vigorously debate such laws, but we do not have the right to knowingly violalte these laws. > Such action as the above poster well knows constitutes anarchy. Exactly what net-nazis dream of. Of course the exact opposite is the case. The term "nazi" has, through its frequent misuse, almost entirely lost any meaningful content; but if there is an authentic "nazi" position here you are occupying it, and the "anarchists" who reject regulation of speech are the "anti-nazis." But you pose a false dichotomy. The dispute is really between those who believe in democracy, and hence believe that consumers of ideas will ultimately make the right choices, and those who mistrust the public and seek to regulate what they read and speak and thus ultimately think. On this issue we should not be having a "vigorous debate," but a bantering about of free-speech truisms. Here's my contribution: neither you, nor Alan Rock, nor Max Yalden has any right to tell me what ideas I can put into my own mind, and I resent your attempt to do so. From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Jun 28 10:39:47 PDT 1996 Article: 46483 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sover.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Now you know why Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 01:30:00 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 32 Message-ID: <01bb619b.41a9e8e0$51ded3c6@default> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on4-17.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jun 24 2:07:12 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Schultz) wrote in article <email@example.com>... > Prince Myshkin (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > : email@example.com (Richard Schultz) wrote: > > : >Prince Myshkin (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > > [> Why don't you go back and reread the story? According to Vidal, the > recognition of Israel was "rushed through so fast" *after* Truman had > begun to campaign for President, at a time when he had been "abandoned by > everybody." If the recognition of Israel in May was a quid pro quo for a > campaign contribution, why was the contribution not made until September? > Do you have any evidence that the Truman campaign was short of funds in > September 1948? Do you have any evidence that Truman had begun to > campaign for reelection in May 1948? (The newspapers at the time make > no mention of such a campaign that I can see.) > Richard Schultz is right. Gore Vidal has the sequence of events reversed. The contributions American Jews (specifically, Abe Feinburg) raised for Truman's campaign were a reward for his early recognition of the state of Israel; they were not an illicit bribe or shady quid pro quo. He didn't recognize Israel because of Jewish contributions, but received the contributions afterward because he had recognized and supported Israel. For an accurate account see Seymore Hersh, _The Sampson Option_ (New York: Random House, 1991), 93-95. From email@example.com Fri Jun 28 13:24:02 PDT 1996 Article: 46508 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!nntp.neu.edu!news.eecs.umich.edu!news.sojourn.com!news.gmi.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Irving's 'Goebbels' book now available Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 13:40:28 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 40 Message-ID: <01bb6135.06658ca0$82cfd3c6@default> References: <31C9EF37.6F9D@kaiwan.com> <4qf25q$cng@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <01bb6046.b0ac9c20$8ecfd3c6@default> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on2-02.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 23 1:55:22 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > firstname.lastname@example.org (Hilary Ostrov) wrote in article <email@example.com>... > In <01bb6046.b0ac9c20$8ecfd3c6@default>, "Duncan Coons" > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Mr. Coons, I think both you and Mr. Hitchens have missed the key point > of St. Martin's decision. Specifically, as Mr. Graves noted, "the > book did not meet their standards" and St. Martin's exercised their > right not to publish. > > Would you deny a publisher the right to have "standards", Mr. Coons? > Is it your contention that _all_ publishers are obliged to publish > that which is submitted to them, Mr. Coons? Or that such standards > constitute "censorship"? Perhaps if you were to remove your "free > speech absolutist spectacles", Mr. Coons, you would recognize that > this issue - as well as others on which you have commented - is not > quite as black or white as you would like to believe. > > Perhaps St. Martin's had initially judged the content of this book by > its "cover", but then on further reading found, as Robert Fulford did, > that [Irving distorts evidence]. > Sorry, but I'm afraid the delayed-quality-control argument won't wash: "I have now read the exchange of correspondence between Irving and St. Martin's. For a long time, everything was hunky-dory. The manuscript was read seven times in 15 months . . . The Military Book Club chose it as a main selection. Sales representatives made enthusiastic noises. And then, after a few hysterical and old-maidish articles in the press ("Eeek--a Nazi"), Irving is told that his contract is void. He is told this not by the publishers but by members of the press telephoning him for his reaction" (Christopher Hitchens in the June "Vanity Fair"). I think, Miss Ostrov, you really should consider the kind of irritation this kind of incident provokes. From email@example.com Sat Jun 29 07:30:31 PDT 1996 Article: 46672 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!van.istar!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 960624: When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing"-it's the money! Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:41:13 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 96 Message-ID: <01bb6472.54a88440$89b75ccf@default> References: <01bb623a.d7d36040$95cfd3c6@default> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <01bb632a.29918700$50cfd3c6@default> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on8-09.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 27 4:51:52 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 >> >> firstname.lastname@example.org (Bernie Farber) wrote in article > ><email@example.com>... > > > Bernie Farber responds: > What simplistic crap! This is your evidence; claims BY YOU, that "..as nignt follows > day..." please I gave you more credit than you obviously deserve. Yes, I am, like > most Canadians a law abiding citizen. You may not like this "authoritarian" law, but > it is still the law! Because I and most other law abiding citizens prefer the rule of > law to anarchy, does not mean we want to shut down this NG. Try and be > a little more analytical. You know what they say about people who assume... > Your sense of being analytical must differ from mine. I'll elaborate slightly, though the point should have been clear enough. If holocaust denial/revisionism is a species of hate speech, as you frequently claim it is, and if hate speech is illegal and subject to penalty, which is (unfortunately) the case in this country, then it follows "as night does day" that you hope, through our hate laws, to penalize any revisionist/holocaust denier who participates in this newsgroup, along with a host of other groups and websites. Your inability to follow a very elementary argument suggests an unwillingness even to listen to others, which must fit a would-be censor's psychological profile, should such a thing exist. Will defining revisionism as hate speech shut alt.revisionism down? Obviously not for, say, Americans or Argentineans, though local Bernie Farbers may have their own agendas in those countries. It will, however, plainly shut it down in any meaningful sense for Canadians, since revisionist arguments, or holocaust denial lies, will have been criminalized. We will, perhaps, still be able to read alt.revisionism and the like--absent any "voluntary" measures on the part of the ISPs, such being the beauty of capitalism--but as global democratic media, in which anyone is free to express his opinions (or lies) on the topic of his choice, Usenet and WWW will have ceased to exist in this country. I doubt, should this occur, that learning and debate would immediately suffer a grievous loss, since I don't, for what little it's worth, number Ernst Zundel or Arthur Butz among the great minds of our age; but my personal liberty and yours will have been severely circumscribed in the process. Historical truth, if you have your way, will become subject to government decree. That's not some polemical exaggeration, but a simple statement of fact. We will have conceded to the State the right to define the truths of history, as well as the right to protect the sensitivities of those who feel themselves injured by unpleasant speech. Feel free to defend that concession, but don't pretend that it is not an inevitable consequence (as night follows day) of first, enforcing hate laws that regulate speech and second, broadening the category of hate to include, inter alia, opinions/lies about history. A minor point: you should look up the "rule of law" somewhere. It has a more specific sense than what you apparently imagine. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't mean that citizens are compelled to obey unjust laws. >Your ridiculous attempts to "translate" my comments is > a clear example of lacking any proof. Therefore in order to create "proof" you > put words into my mouth, shame on you. You object to my translation. Feel free to provide another, though your remarks were hardly cryptic. For the record, do you and the CJC agitate federal and provincial politicians to apply hate law to holocaust denial? If you do, as is plainly the case, then your outrage at the very obvious consequences of such an application of law is mystifying. And do you still fondly contemplate the moment when, through "some kind of international agreement," service providers will "yank" an Ernst Zundel? If you do, ditto. > > I repeat, please provide DOCUMENTATION to support your allegation that CJC or I > want to shut down the net. Your documentation to date suggesting that we want net-users > to obey the law is no proof at all. Speculation and accusations based on such speculation > is not acceptable proof. Failing this I believe you owe me an apology. > You weren't paying attention. My mock outrage was over "Bernie Farber participating in a democratic forum that he campaigns to shut down," the particular forum in question being the newsgroup to which you had just posted your message, a group that, if you are successful, will cease to have any meaningful existence for everyone in this country. Keep in mind that it is precisely holocaust revisionism that you seek to criminalize, and it shouldn't really be necessary to point out the name of this group. I did not accuse you of trying to shut down the entire Internet, nor would I imagine that you have either the power or even the inclination to do so. Yet for those who understand the Internet (or newspapers or books for that matter) as a democratic medium, in the sense specified above, you are in fact agitating to shut it down in Canada. And by the way, if you re-read my original comment, you may even notice a compliment buried therein. From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Jun 29 15:46:24 PDT 1996 Article: 46821 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.cloud9.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: 960624: When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing"-it's the money! Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 20:52:38 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 17 Message-ID: <01bb623a.d7d36040$95cfd3c6@default> References: <1996006249812.AAB1987@infinity.c2.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on2-21.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jun 24 9:09:33 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > email@example.com (Bernie Farber) wrote in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>... > email@example.com (E. Zundel Repost) wrote: > > Bernie Farber responds: > > Who could blame you for not betting more than a dime. > Please tell me this isn't true. Bernie Farber participating in a democratic forum that he campaigns to shut down. Exercising his right to ridicule those whom he despises. Actually conversing with a purveyor of illegal hate speech. There must be some law being broken here somewhere. I'm shocked and dismayed. Where's Attorney General Harnick when we need him? From compuserve.com!104670.3420 Mon Jul 15 02:40:12 1996 Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail184.108.40.206 #8) id m0ufk8R-000D8sC; Mon, 15 Jul 96 02:40 PDT Received: from dub-img-3.compuserve.com by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 15 JUL 96 02:40:04 PDT Received: by dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA07771; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:34:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:34:51 -0400 From: "Roy D. Coons" <email@example.com> Subject: coons.0696 To: "Kenneth McVay OBC" Message-ID: <199607150534_MC1-66E-95AD@compuserve.com> Status: RO Path: tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Ernst Zundel's crocodile tears Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 16:06:30 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 132 Message-ID: <01bb5fc3.d199ce40$8dded3c6@default> References: <01bb5b46.1b1945a0$aeded3c6@default> <email@example.com> <01bb5ce7.f33a36e0$88ded3c6@default> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on5-13.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Jun 21 5:52:29 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > email@example.com (Ken McVay OBC) wrote in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>... > > In the first case - the "publishing false news" case, > [Zundel] was clearly guilty - two juries said so. That the law was > later thrown out does not change the jury findings. In short, > he was not "persecuted," he really _did_ publish lies, and > under existing law of the day, his arrest was justified. That > the law was arcane, and ineffectual, I readily agree. I quote a leading Canadian civil libertarian on the subject: "Free speech is free speech. It may be distasteful, but where do you draw the line?" "I did at [the] time approve Canadian actions against Zundel [and] against Keegstra. It was sort of a gut reaction because they offended me so deeply. I said, 'good, shut them up, put them in jail, do whatever it takes. No free speech.' Four years on the internet has changed my thinking on that issue totally." "Once you let the government start deciding what's correct and what's not correct, they may decide it's your turn next month and tell you that what you're saying is unacceptable." (Ken McVay saying all the right things on the National News.) Please explain the difference between your benighted wish, prior to the enlightenment that your internet experience allegedly brought about, that Zundel be put in jail for publishing a book and your current position that the attempt to put him in jail for publishing a book was "justified." And if it wasn't legally justified--as the Supreme Court thankfully concluded--then don't you think that the decade or so of court battles, along with the expense, the frequent physical assaults outside the courtroom, and some actual prison time, might just possibly constitute persecution? I'll play mind reader again. You can't bring yourself to say that a man whom you so despise could ever be persecuted. Only nice people are persecuted, bad people get what they deserve. > Yes - as Jamie McCarthy pointed out, he was found guilty of > lying, and of _knowingly_ lying. The law under which two > juries found him thus was later thrown out by the Supreme > Court of Canada as being contrary to the Canadian Charter of > Rights and Freedoms. In short, a proven liar received justice, > and walked. He is still a proven liar, and still peddles the > same lie for money. Actually, in the second case the judge took judicial notice that "mass murder and extermination of the Jews of Europe by the Nazi regime during the Second World War is so notorious as not to be the subject of dispute among reasonable persons." The corollary is obvious: Zundel was already guilty of spreading false news before the false news trial even began. This judicial notice, as well as the notion of a false news trial itself, violates the principle you alluded to on the CBC, so you can only cite the court's decision as evidence that Zundel is a judicially certified liar if you accept that a court can determine what's historically correct and what's not. Have you now changed your position, or did you never understand its implications in the first place? > He was quite serious [about banning "Schindler's List"], > as his flyer plainly demonstrates. He is a hypocrite of the first order. (That is > not the only time Mr. Zundel called for censorship - he has no > problem demanding that movies or television shows be banned > when he finds them distasteful.) Fine. Let's stipulate that Zundel is a contemptible hypocrite, he peddles lies for money, he sells heroin to pre-schoolers, he irritates Bernie Farber. But how much greater than nil was the likelihood that Ernst Zundel, perhaps the most despised man still outside of a jail cell in Canada, would convince the Ontario government to declare "Schindler's List" hate speech? And how much more likely is it that Zundel's enemies, should he stave off the current attempt to deport (=imprison) him, will have his opinions (or "lies" if you prefer) declared hate? Mr Farber has made it abundantly clear that the majesty of our hate laws has been scandalously slighted by the Ontario Attorney General's neglect. I fear whichever of the two is more likely to succeed in criminalizing speech he doesn't like, and I regard a man who has not the remotest possibility of succeeding as at best a minor irritant. That's why this "Schindler's List" nonissue is pure obfuscation on your part, Zundel's hypocrisy notwithstanding. > All nations have curbs on unrestricted speech, Canada among > them. Are you suggesting they should not? > Of course. Once upon a time I imagined you did too. Cf. the comments of the civil libertarian quoted above. Do you now defend our hate laws? If you do, then you might as well drop your feigned opposition to censorship. > I find it ludicrous that his supporters make the claim that he will be > deported for his "views" regarding the Holocaust, when there > is absolutely no evidence whatsover to support that claim. Your assertion that the current CIRC circus is not plainly, obviously, self-evidently, etc a piece of legal chicanery designed to succeed where the false news travesty failed, is surely either disingenuous or self-delusional. And by the way I am not one of Zundel's supporters. Your inability to distinguish defending speech from defending someone's right to speak is telling. > Les Griswold denies the Holocaust and calls it the > "hollow-cause." He hasn't been arrested, and neither has any > other Canadian. Unless of course Mr Griswold were to publish a book or start up a phone line. People have been put in jail for both. Do you think in that case he might just find the full weight of our enlightened hate laws falling down upon him? With all due respect to both your internet activities and my interest in them, this little forum in which we are all presently conversing is not yet considered serious enough for the censorship, coercion and punishment that hate speech and holocaust denial legally merit, though Max Yalden, gauleiter of our human rights, has kindly offered to repair that deficiency. At that point, which is fast approaching, you might as well trash your computer, unless you really do enjoy debates without opponents. The Zundel persecution/prosecution/deportation/firebombing is only the most prominent instance of the gathering cloud of authoritarian thought control in this country and elsewhere. David Irving, whose deportation you support, cannot enter Canada, nor can a book defending him ("The Case for David Irving"). We are to be so infantalized that not only can we not hear Irving speak, we can't even read a book defending his right to speak. Lest the gravity of this be too depressing, Garth Drabinsky, joining the company of Professor Phillipe Rushton and Ernst Zundel, was comically investigated by the police last year on suspicion of promoting hatred. Yes, that Garth Drabinsky, whose acclaimed production of "Showboat" angered some local malcontents. But I suppose none of this bothers you, since hate laws apparently don't register in your mind as infringements of civil liberties. From compuserve.com!104670.3420 Mon Jul 15 02:39:26 1996 Return-Path: <email@example.com> Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail220.127.116.11 #8) id m0ufk7g-000D8uC; Mon, 15 Jul 96 02:39 PDT Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 15 JUL 96 02:39:12 PDT Received: by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA04407; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:33:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:33:34 -0400 From: "Roy D. Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: coons.0696 To: "Kenneth McVay OBC" Message-ID: <199607150533_MC1-66E-95AC@compuserve.com> Status: RO Path: tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: To Bucky McVay, Censors' Best Friend Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:18:46 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 118 Message-ID: <01bb5ce7.f33a36e0$88ded3c6@default> References: <01bb5b46.1b1945a0$aeded3c6@default> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on5-08.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Jun 18 2:33:28 AM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 > email@example.com (Hilary Ostrov) wrote in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>... > In <01bb5b46.1b1945a0$aeded3c6@default>, "Duncan Coons" > <email@example.com>: > >> ... his claim that he is being "persecuted" does not > make it true. Ernst Zundel (I'll bow to the prevailing spelling) has been tried twice, and convicted on both occasions, under an arcane law practically conjured out of the law books for the purpose; he has been imprisoned in Germany and the German government, true to its anti-liberal past, has repeatedly agitated for an involuntary return visit, five years being his expected sentence; his home, uninsured owing to earlier anti-revisionist violence, has been destroyed by firebomb and the police evidently have no plans to apprehend the arsonist; there have been several other attempts on his life, including a vicious mail bomb, and local anti-racist activists have recently circulated leaflets with instructions for making Molotov cocktails and directions to his address; for over a decade the local Toronto papers have regaled us with various legal manoeuvres, too numerous to recall let alone cite, directed against him by crusading lawyers and zealous Jewish organizations. Are these mere "claims" of persecution? For the sake of argument I concede everything you say about him, but he is clearly not lying or posturing when he says he is a victim of persecution, both the polite judicial variety and not-so-polite acts of criminal violence. I ask you to be objective here. And I would ask for some soul-searching honesty, too. Were you not just a little bit pleased when his house went up in flames? And if you were, perhaps you might concede that emotion is clouding devotion to abstract principle. > > Ernst Zundel, who called for the movie _Schindler's List_ to be > banned, is a human rights activist? I've seen Ken McVay make this same obfuscation. I have no idea whether Zundel was serious when he suggested the film should be banned as anti-German hate, and it hardly matters. On the best construction Zundel was childishly, without the tiniest possibility of success, trying to use against his enemies a weapon hitherto wielded against himself. Which raises the question whether the weapon should be available to anyone. On the worst he is a sinister charlatan, as you suggest, claiming a right he proposes to deny others. But are you saying that only those who understand free speech is an inalienable right and extend it to their enemies will be accorded its exercise? That would, I'm afraid, exclude everyone at Nizkor, as well as Bernie Farber and his misguided gang of censors. > > To characterize his vitriolic publications and posturing as "dissent" > is a travesty which debases the coinage of civilized discourse. A nice sounding sentence. But with all due respect, do you really have the vaguest notion what the word "dissent" actually means? At the risk of playing mind reader, I think I can reconstruct your reasoning. Dissenters, you suppose, are men like Solzhenitsyn and Timmerman who oppose regimes whose principles you and I do not share; that is, we will admire dissent in other countries that govern themselves by standards we reject, so that the dissenter actually confirms by his dissent our own views and our own standards, but in our country dissent will be denied to those whose opinions we dislike. Only popular dissenters will be allowed to dissent in Canada. All in the name of tolerance, as you candidly admit. Or to be more precise: as a nation we will collectively, as Nizkor does individually, convince ourselves of such truly comical nonsense as "free speech has never been seriously curtailed" in Canada, and we will loudly proclaim our devotion to this right, even enshrining it in our pitiful constitution; but in this one very very special case, and perhaps a few others, we will quietly make an exception, expecting that no-one will draw attention to the deceit. That, I'm sorry to tell you, is not tolerance for dissent, nor is it support for free speech, which cannot exist globally if it is excluded specifically. It's a truism but nevertheless true: speech is either free or it is restricted. There is no other alternative. And a dissenter whom everyone admires is a contradiction in terms, and should any such strange beast miraculously arise, he would hardly be in need of any defenders, or even any rights for that matter. > > I would venture to guess that by far the majority of informed Canadians > would shed no tears if [Zundel were deported and jailed for his opinions]. > I'll go you one better and include uninformed Canadians as well. Which is of course precisely the point. Does Zundel have the right to express unpopular opinions in Canada. The preponderance of public opinion against a set of beliefs is completely irrelevant to its right to be expressed. And, of course, if the deportation trick, like its false news predecessor, doesn't work--well, there's always a crowd-pleasing hate crimes charge waiting in the wings. > It really is not a question of Canada's "hate laws" or of "censorship" > or of "persecution". And if Mr. Zundel were a less unsavoury and > dishonest person, he would acknowledge this - instead of avoiding > debate and engaging in shameless promotion of myths and lies about > himself and others. > I am again really struck by the oddity of Nizkor's demand that Zundel debate, given the legal consequences of anything he might say in his defence. A few letters to the editor from McVay & Company deploring the current round of legal chicanery might demonstrate your sincerity. Perhaps Zundel avoids debate for exactly the reasons you suggest: he's a coward, he knows he's lying, etc. That he avoids debate is immaterial. The crucial point to be acknowledged is that any debate on his part, as I mentioned above, is illegal in Canada, and it is for the expression of the same views which you now angrily urge him to ventilate that he risks deportation and imprisonment. It is the illegality of unpopular speech that concerns me, as it should concern Nizkor, not Zundel's cowardice, bravery, whatever. I won't bother with the CIRC issues you touch on. I'm sure everyone understands what's really happening and knows it has nothing to do with Canadian security. Nevertheless, thank you for the restrained response. I suppose you've heard the relevant Chomsky line, but I'll conclude with it anyway: "it is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers." From compuserve.com!104670.3420 Mon Jul 15 02:39:26 1996 Return-Path: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Received: by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Smail18.104.22.168 #8) id m0ufk7g-000D8tC; Mon, 15 Jul 96 02:39 PDT Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com () by nizkor.almanac.bc.ca ; 15 JUL 96 02:39:12 PDT Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA25163; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:32:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:32:30 -0400 From: "Roy D. Coons" <email@example.com> Subject: coons.0696 To: "Kenneth McVay OBC" Message-ID: <199607150532_MC1-66E-95A9@compuserve.com> Status: RO Path: tor-nn1.netcom.ca!news From: "Duncan Coons" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: To Bucky McVay, Censors' Best Friend Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 00:38:54 -0500 Organization: ----- Lines: 76 Message-ID: <01bb5b46.1b1945a0$aeded3c6@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: trt-on5-46.netcom.ca X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 16 12:41:41 PM EDT 1996 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1085 Mr McVay, you cannot simultaneously be in favour of free speech and support the persecution of those who exercise it. Consider the context in which you operate. In a Canadian context, with our pitifully anaemic civil liberties tradition, to accuse Ernst Zuendel of spreading "hatred" is not simply to characterize his message, as anyone is free to do, but to declare it both illegal and punishable. In all your award-winning cyberwarrior activities you seem entirely oblivious to that plain, unmistakable truth. In Canada, accusing someone of spreading "hate" is no different in kind from accusing him of theft or child molestation, which is to say that charges of the sort you make daily are implicit calls for the imposition of the relevant penalty. This, keep in mind, is the country where, in eager anticipation of the Ayatollah's fatwa, the "Satanic Verses" was impounded at the border; where the historian David Irving was, disgracefully, led off in handcuffs and deported, an action you evidently approve of; where dozens of books are rountinely denied entry into the country as hate literature and shipments of gay bookstores maliciously targeted for postal inspection as sexually deviant; where a Moncton teacher can be fired for writing a book and a Toronto publisher jailed and shamelessly hounded for publishing one. If any of this bothers you, I would suggest that your joy at Zuendel's impending deportation, as (let us all smile) a threat to national security, is appalling: "Have a nice trip back to Berlin, bucky. We won't miss you--not even a little bit. Have a bloody delightful trip." Translation is hardly necessary. "Back to Berlin" means, of course, imprisonment for thought crimes in a country with even less respect for free speech than our own. So much for Ken McVay, civil libertarian. I won't ask for the $100 you're offering to anyone providing proof you support censorship, but logically, taking account of the plain meaning of this savage, unprincipled remark, you now owe it. If applauding deportation for the expression of unpopular opinions doesn't constitute advocacy of censorship, it would be a challenge to imagine anything that does. Consider further: you repeatedly invite Zuendel to debate on Usenet, and vilify him for failing to do so, but any defence of his views would of course be a hate crime. And it is precisely for such crimes that he is currently at risk of losing his legal status in Canada and, with your fond farewell ringing in his ears, ending up in a German jail. As your fan Bernie Farber is fond of pointing out, exoneration from a false news charge doesn't preclude a hate-crime charge, and it apparently doesn't preclude deportation either. Do you not see the glaring inconsistency here? The real issue now is freedom of speech, and the real enemy is not Ernst Zuendel, but the apparatus of persecution/prosecution that has been directed against him for well over a decade, an apparatus in which you are a tacit participant. For the sake of form, I will state the requisite disavowal of any taint of heresy. I believe there were gassings at Auschwitz, I believe millions of Jews were brutally murdered, I am not an admirer of Adolf Hitler. I do not believe, however, that anyone should be bombed and persecuted for believing otherwise, nor do I accept (as you do) the existence of any officially sanctioned Truth the rejection of which constitutes a crime worthy of jail, deportation, loss of employment, or even a judicial slap on the wrist. No-one can assassinate memory, and crimes in the past should not be used to sanction violations of principle in the present. It is, moreover, well past the time when revisionism or--if you insist on theological language--"holocaust denial" should be the relevant issue for Canadians who still value freedom. Zuendel's right to speak, regardless of the substance of his speech, should have been vigorously defended way back in 1985 with his first conviction under the embarrassing and fascistic "false news" law. In any event, after years of additional persecution, legal and otherwise, and after numerous mail bombings and the terrorist attack on his home, which Metro's Finest clearly have no intention of solving, witty and/or vulgar insults of the sort Ken McVay & Company specialize in, though doubtless emotionally satisfying, are no longer intellectually legitimate. Get rid of the hate laws and the persecution and then we can all vilify and insult one another to our hearts' content; but until that blessed time arrives Ernst Zuendel is, like it or not, exactly what he says he is: both a human rights activist and a test case for Canada's tolerance for dissent.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor