Ernst Zundels Is Now Free March 1st 2010

Post Freedom Fighters Penal Addresses, their stories and travails contact information. As long as our Feddies are acting like criminals and jailing good people, this board will EXIST
Site Admin
Posts: 7781


Post#31 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:40 pm




Cincinnati, Ohio (1/13/2006)--The civil liberties claims of Ernst
and Ingrid Rimland Zundel will be heard January 24, 2007 by a
three-judge panel in Cincinnati, it was announced today by Zundels'
lawyer, Bruce Leichty.

Ernst Zundel is the controversial German-born publisher whose views
on the "Holocaust" have put him at odds with mainstream historians
and prompted his detention and prosecution in Germany, where he
faces a prison term of up to five years for his speech.

The appeal to be heard in Cincinnati is not legally related to the
German trial but may still send an important signal about whether
Zundel should have ever been exposed to prosecution in Germany in
the first place, says Leichty.

The Zundels and Leichty contend that Zundel was effectively
kidnapped by U.S. federal agents in February 2003 and that his
deportation to Canada without a court hearing was illegal under U.S.
law, especially since he was awaiting processing for U.S. permanent
residence as the husband of a U.S. citizen, Ingrid Rimland.

Ingrid Rimland has compared the seizure of her husband to the
experience of seeing her father seized by Stalinist secret police
when she was a young girl growing up in the Mennonite community of
Halbstadt in the Ukraine. Rimland later wrote a fictionalized
account of her post-war sojourn as a refugee to a Mennonite colony
in Paraguay, The Wanderers, and spoke to a number of Mennonite
audiences about her experiences in the 1980's.

"Because of the lack of any genuine authority for Mr. Zundel's
arrest and removal, it is clear that he was targeted for his
unpopular beliefs and for daring to publicize them," says Leichty.

"Mr. Zundel can best be understood by Mennonites as a type of
heretic that the Western world bitterly fears and is not prepared to
allow. In our culture, theological heresy is no longer regarded as a
threat, but an increasingly vocal minority in the West wants to make
political heresy or `hate speech' a crime."

A number of European countries criminalize speech that departs from
certain officially-approved accounts of the "Holocaust" and World
War II. Besides Zundel, two other historians, Germar Rudolf and
David Irving, were held behind bars in Germany and Austria for
crimes consisting solely of speech. [Note: Irving has since been

Leichty notes that all of Zundel's conduct and speech was and is
considered legal in the United States, and that he was cleared of
suspicion of any criminal activity by the FBI in an investigation
concluded shortly before the illegal arrest in 2003, but that
powerful forces acting within the U.S. government or to influence
the government were obviously "hell-bent" on expelling Zundel from
the U.S.

Comparing Zundel's kidnapping to the "extraordinary renditions" by
the CIA of persons of mostly Arabic origin, Leichty said, "The Court
of Appeals in Cincinnati will be asked to ensure that a political
figure like Zundel cannot simply be taken from this country without
the constitutional protections that residents of the United States
have always enjoyed--including their day in court." Zundel filed a
petition for habeas corpus in Tennessee before he was removed, but
the federal judge in Knoxville handling that case denied his
petition without a hearing.

After another Cincinnati panel told the Knoxville court in 2005
that the Knoxville court had to at least consider Zundel's petition,
a hearing was held in Knoxville in October 2005 at which Leichty and
Ingrid Zundel appeared, but the Knoxville court still ruled that it
had no "jurisdiction" over Zundel's habeas petition since Zundel had
waived his right to any such relief upon entering the United States
under a program known as the "visa waiver program."

Zundels have pointed out repeatedly in their legal papers that
Ernst Zundel's last entry into the U.S. was not in fact under the
visa waiver program--indeed that the authority of the Attorney
General to admit anyone into the U.S. under the visa waiver program
had lapsed as of the time of Zundel's last entry--but that even if
Zundel had entered as a "visa waiver" entrant, a federal court must
have jurisdiction under the United States Constitution to hear
habeas claims of someone in his position who is suddenly detained.

After he was deported to Canada in 2003, Zundel spent two years in
solitary confinement in Ontario while he was subjected to a trial to
determine whether he was a risk to the national security of Canada.
Zundel spent almost all of his adult years in Canada, where he
established a successful business as a graphic artist and became
interested in politics. His activism for German causes brought him
into conflict with prominent Jewish groups in Canada and he spent
years litigating with the Canadian government over his speech,
before moving to the U.S. in 2000 to marry and live with Ingrid
Rimland. His earlier trials in Canada were the first trials where
claims about the Holocaust were subject to testing and
cross-examination, and have in turn been the subject of a number of
books and videos.

His latest "national security" trial in Canada during the years
2003-05 allowed the government to introduce secret evidence against
him, and was presided over by a former counsel to the Canadian
national intelligence service. At the conclusion of that trial,
Zundel, a lifelong pacifist who has had numerous associations with
controversial dissidents, was labeled a racist and white supremacist
leader, and was declared a risk to Canada's national security. Ernst
and Ingrid Zundel have denied that they are racists or white
supremacists, although they acknowledge they are advocates of the
virtues of European culture.

Ingrid Zundel and Leichty plan to speak to supporters and persons
wishing more information about the case at a meeting to be held in
Cleveland on Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. at Ampol Hall, 4737 >Pearl Road, Cleveland, OH

At that time, a documentary about Zundel's activism will also be
shown. Admission is FREE. For more information contact:

Ingrid Rimland Zundel, (865) 774-7756 / (865) 774-7758 (fax)

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

An Open Letter to all Mennonite Newsgroups by INGRID RIMLAND

Post#32 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:48 pm

ZGram -

A Zundelsite reader dug up an Open Letter I had written some ten years ago and asked if he could resend it. Of course! I am not in the business of censorship, unlike some folks I know!

I thought that given the fact that I will be speaking at a meeting in Cleveland, Ohio on Monday, January 22, where the question of my Mennonite background and motivation as a cyber activist will come up, this might be the time to recycle this decade-old Open Letter. (For information on this meeting, please see our Press Release on the Zundelsite)



An Open Letter to all Mennonite Newsgroups

In his review of my trilogy, Lebensraum! depicting the Mennonite experience for the past 200 years, spanning seven generation and several continents, history professor John Juhnke of Bethel College in Newton, Kansas stated in a recent Mennonite Weekly Review:

"On my desk is Lebensraum! by Ingrid Rimland . . . one of the most audacious novels in all of Mennonite literature."

What followed that opening salvo was a steely, stellar book review that tells me, among other things, that Dr. Juhnke is politically correct. He hints that I have compromised my heritage as a Russian-born, German-descent Mennonite - not because I wrote another book that might upset some Mennonites, but because I am an Internet Revisionist aligned with a decided "villain" - a controversial German-Canadian human rights activist, publisher and TV producer, Ernst Zundel, who is defending certain concepts and beliefs most Mennonites would definitely not approve.

One of them is, divines the good professor, that I, like Mr. Zundel, am challenging the "Jewish Holocaust" for my own wicked ends by juxtaposing it to ethnic horrors of my own, drawn from my personal experience in World War II as a small child. I am, therefore, still harboring feelings for Hitler!

Having divined the "obvious", Professor Juhnke then concludes:

"One revisionist acclaims Rimland's Lebensraum! saga for endowing the revisionist movement with needed cultural and literary substance. Mennonites might wish that their own history had not been appropriated for a purpose so allied with racist hatred."

To make that giant mental leap is definitely politically correct!

That is exactly what Canadian Customs likewise concluded when it seized some $15,000 (Can) worth of Lebensraum! as being far too hazardous for grown-up Canadians to read. While doing so, and for good measure, they also confiscated "Furies" - the book I wrote about my handicapped child - a title which, in 15 years, has yet to elicit one single negative review!

(So far, they haven't yet snatched "The Wanderers", the award-winning novel I call my "baby epic" and the precursor to my trilogy, Lebensraum! No doubt that is bound to happen next in censor-happy Canada!)

In my affidavit submitted to Canada Customs in a legal challenge following that confiscation of my intellectual property, I wrote:

In my early ethnic novel, The Wanderers , I depicted the German Army of World War II in an unconventional, "politically incorrect" way - as liberators, not destroyers. Never ever did I experience any political repercussions for that novel! By contrast, thanks to an ever more censorious political atmosphere in Canada, as transparently reflected in the detention of my Lebensraum novels, which carry many of the themes I first broached in The Wanderers, certain historical fiction all of a sudden seems to upset certain lobbies. (...)

The German Mennonite wheat-growing community depicted in these novels - for centuries reflecting an uncompromising ethnic cohesion and a fundamentalist and pacifist approach to life and war - was founded in the Ukraine in 1789, and was substantially eradicated in the Communist ethnic cleansing purges of the 1930s and early 1940s. In my trilogy, I bring to life the tumultuous events and the vast changes which occurred in that era, as well as the attitudes of the Mennonites' "American cousins" who had left the Ukraine in 1874 and settled in the plains of Kansas, again as wheat farmers specializing in the hard winter wheat they brought as immigrants from Russia.

Civil wars, depressions, famine, anarchy, conflicts between religion and atheism, between capitalists and communists, between traditionalists and liberals, between nations and between peoples led to enormously bloody strife in Europe - an era hardly ever covered fairly and objectively in the Western world, simply because most ethnic-German intellectuals, at least in Russia and largely in Germany, did not survive those times. My own father, a high school principal in the Ukraine, was exiled to Siberia in 1941 - for no other reason than that he spoke German and was part of a savagely persecuted religious minority. I never saw my father again. Many members of my family and ethnic group perished for the same reasons in genocidal purges.

I have spent 17 years researching, writing, and eventually assisting in the publication of these novels that depict the suffering inflicted on a small ethnic minority due to political and religious persecution, making sure that my characters correctly reflected the spirit, attitudes and feelings of the times. As a first generation eye witness immigrant who lived in Mennonite communities on three continents and who witnessed German ethnic genocide first hand, I have a duty to write about what I saw, honestly and truthfully, and to use my talent to give voices to those Germans and German-descent peoples who were tortured, exiled and killed in large-scale, Soviet-style ethnic cleansing - brutalities of which the Western world knows very little.

In writing these three detained, "politically incorrect" books, I did not intend to promote hatred against any identifiable group. I tried to eliminate hatred against Germans who have been falsely broad-brushed in unfair and simplistic ways by Hollywood and self-serving political activists with a transparent, vested interest in one-sided, simplistic stereotyping of Germans. In fact, I went out of my way to describe good Germans and bad Germans, good Russians and bad Russians, good Jews and bad Jews. I expressed a literary opinion based on my upbringing as a surviving member of a savagely persecuted and decimated German-descent Mennonite minority, my ancestors, and on the effects of religious and cultural values clashing with craven politics not of my ancestors' making and often far beyond their understanding.

Any complex, intelligent novel will depict complex characters. The basic historical truth of my novels is that this small German-descent Mennonite community - uncompromisingly ethnically cohesive, inoffensive, apolitical and pacifist - was caught up and destroyed by the Communist regime intent on ruthless eradication of cultural differences and ethnic values that were not state-approved and, hence, deemed "politically incorrect" and thus criminalized. This is one of the most important themes which runs throughout my three detained novels - the brutal social intolerance and legal and judicial punishment inflicted by politically empowered censors on victims holding "politically incorrect" views.

Ernst Zundel is on trial in Canada for politically incorrect views, some of them posted on the Zundelsite, a website I maintain in California. The body judging him, misnomered "Human Rights Tribunal", has in a recent ruling declared that ". . . truth is no defense!"

Does that not make you think? Is that still "democratic" Canada?

In one of my novels, a Mennonite farmer pleads with his tormentor, a Soviet Kommissar: "But I am innocent! You cannot prove my guilt!"

To which the Kommissar replies:

"But you don't understand! You have that wrong and backwards! I do not *have* to prove your guilt to you. *You* have to prove your innocence to *me.*"

That's what is happening in Canada. That's why my trilogy is banned.

I say that *in a civilized nation, historical truth must be a defense.* I say that a *country that makes the telling the truth an offense is no longer a sovereign country.*

A novel is a stylistically artistic rendition of true-to-life experiences where motives propelling its characters run deep. My individual characters in my ethnic novels experience a complex range of emotions - some of them entirely appropriate and legitimate, given the circumstances of the times in which they lived and died - but now in our "politically correct" times harshly persecuted even in Western democracies in systematic psychological warfare tactics and media-fed vilification campaigns.

Shout "Racist!" - and people turn pale. Shriek "Nazi!" -and people will scurry. Has it not made us cowards - whether the labels were valid or not?

I tried to create characters who come across as living, struggling, bleeding human beings - not one-dimensional, grotesque, simplistic cardboard automatons straight out of Hollywood.

Professor Juhnke, teaching Mennonite history in a Mennonite college, has this to say in his review:

"The Germans, Rimland says, suffered a worse and less deserved Holocaust than the Jews did . . . Even if her historical argument were accurate, no amount of vivid storytelling could make up for such spiteful didacticism."

Those are strong words. I would like to reply if I may:

My people's broken bones lie in Siberia. It shocks me that I heard him say these words.

I am a novelist and artist. I sit at my computer and try to paint pictures with words. An artist seeks to present a refined and distilled essence of something that moves heart and soul. A novelist does more - he or she tries to distill the essence of moral conflicts that wrench and tear and often even kill heart and soul unless they are resolved with deeper understanding.

Each word and each sentence follow careful reflection and thought. I have spent almost sixty years in thinking and reflecting about what happened to my people, the Russian-German Mennonites, in several world wars. Why did my cousins in America, actively or passively, fight Hitler by choosing as their ally the bloodiest murderer in human history, the monster Joseph Stalin, who almost succeeded in murdering me and all of my kin in devastating ethnic cleansings?

One of the many moral conflicts in my trilogy is that the Mennonite community in my fictitiously created town called "Mennotown" in Kansas was losing its essence and cohesion because it blithely allowed the undermining of its ethnic glue that held its forebears' towns and settlements together and let them prosper in the Lord for practically half a millennium on several continents.

Another moral conflict I have painted in my novels is that this hitherto rural and largely agricultural community did not, and does not to this day, allow the expression of loyal dissident thought - in my opinion, to its own detriment.

A third moral conflict I painted in Lebensraum! is that there is still a part to Mennonites' own history they would as soon not know. It makes them very squeamish to think that there were Russian-German Mennonites who did, indeed, greet Hitler as a savior - and quite legitimately so. Who wouldn't have, against their backdrop of bloody ethnic cleansings in the grip of the Stalinist henchmen that purged them of most of their men? Those who were safely tucked away in the wheat fields of Kansas did not know what was happening in Russia. Their sense of history, says one of my main characters, "Erika", was like an unkempt garden where weeds grew that do not belong. These people didn't - and still don't, as Dr. Juhnke book review makes very clear, for he is one of them - have the requisite facts and full picture to comprehend themselves in their dislike about their cousins' "Nazi past".

A fourth moral conflict I described in my three novels is the portrayal of a sectarian religion once so deeply rooted in an apartheid ethnicity that it was unassailable and practically indestructible even under brutal and repressive dictatorial regimes the likes of which few people can imagine. Why is it going belly-up in our seductively prosperous times where preachers are canvassing Third Worlds to find new converts because they are losing their children? In olden days, the Church was like a rock!

These are vast themes requiring rigorous, unblinkered thinking expressed by subtle nuances of words. One does not write that kind of a novel by changing nothing but the names. A novelist who knows what he or she is doing will craft a novel's characters from life's experiences but fit them into fiction because a novel is a literary vehicle permitting condensation. Vast, complicated themes treated with skill and sensitivity in a fictitious setting evoke emotions that help the storyline along. The reader, swept up in a current of feelings, thus makes himself part of the story by drawing on his memories - or finding echoes in his own identity! That is what Lebensraum! is really all about.


The Mennonite child, Mimi, who tells the Kansas preacher, Dewey, who comes to starving Russia in 1922 to bring American relief: ". . . these alms are not from love" knows that her destitute people, immersed in a desperate, politically incorrect faith forbidden at the point of gun in Soviet Russia, could well be shot by Communists for owning a family Bible. From her own frame of reference, the hungry child believes that she is fully justified in telling a small lie to Dewey, believing him to be a spy. But Dewey, dangling food in front of her, sees only a child in need of some moral "correcting" and wants her to apologize and say a prayer first - as it is done in Kansas. She knows she cannot do that. It is too dangerous. Self-righteously, he withholds food and sends the starving child to bed for punishment. His cruelty, born out of ignorance, wounds an impressionable child so deeply that after a gruesome youth in the grip of the Red Terror, this traumatized youngster becomes an ardent Führer follower. The Führer gave her faith and food - and Dewey withheld one, short-circuiting the other.

Thus grew out of a small but nonetheless important incident intense dislike between the preacher and the child and made them enemies for life. Thus are societal conflicts born - with roots deep in misunderstandings and incomplete knowledge of facts.


Professor Juhnke thinks my literary treatment of the tragedy of the respected community leader, Jan Neufeld- a man so driven to despair by domino-effects in the Depression years that in the end he snaps and causes murder and then suicide - is wickedly deceptive. Professor Juhnke writes disparagingly that ". . . Rimland invents a disaster for Mennotown" which he deems false because Kansas Mennonites, he says, were thriving during the Depression.

I have interviewed many Mennonite farmers in years of research for my books who would vehemently disagree with what Professor Juhnke understands was "Kansas history" when Franklin Roosevelt came to power - but that is not the point. The point is that this literary "liberty" describes the tragedy of one good man who sees himself forsaken in a society gone mad with liberalism expressed in the New Deal that hands some undeserving, unwashed transients willy-nilly all *his* land, *his* savings and the safety of *his* old age - for which *he* slaved and prayed. It is humiliation overload - too much for one good man. America turned left when Roosevelt came to power - and never again was America the same. Ask any Kansas farmer.


Professor Juhnke thinks that I, as a Revisionist, believe ". . . the Jewish Holocaust is of minor moral significance compared to the Holocaust which Joseph Stalin and his allies wreaked upon the blond, blue-eyed Aryans." He scolds that ". . . this is not grand tragedy but petty comparative victimhood."

To that I say that I feel shame to know that a professor of Mennonite history would say a thing like that.

Some people may prefer the artificial spin-doctored version out of Hollywood to knowing what really happened to their kin in Soviet Russia. But anyone who has survived the Soviet Holocaust, the way my Russian-German people did, would take objection to his statement that telling of that blood bath tragedy is ". . . petty comparative victimhood."


Another point - the literary voice of "Erika", the novel's narrator.

I am not "Erika". I was a mere eight years of age when Germany was bombed into the stone age by the Allies in 1945 and the Red Terror overran that country. My own experiences did not match "Erika's" on every single point. What "Erika" experienced in the last days of World War II was told to me in Argentina in 1953 - not by a girl but by a 22-year-old man who tearfully recalled how he was put behind an anti-aircraft gun at age 14 atop a dying city.


And, finally, to what Professor Junke thinks is my "ideological agenda": Maybe he can divine as well what is inside my head and heart, but I can safely say that I have no intention of resurrecting the Third Reich right on the Internet. I am fighting for freedom of speech and for unimpeded access to what *was* our history - not what self-serving lobbies would like to force-feed us.

We Germans have a right to our own history and to defend ourselves against false accusations. What I am doing in my work as a Revisionist is not from "racist hatred." It springs from love for what once was and is now almost gone - a time where it was safe and good and right to have blue eyes, blond hair and pride in one's own roots. It's barely safe today. It won't be safe tomorrow unless we look at *all of history* and try to understand.

Ingrid Rimland, Ed.D.

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:43

Post#33 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:56 pm

A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel

During the recent conference in Iran (Review of the Holocaust: Global
Vision) I was in prison in Mannheim, Germany interviewing Ernst
Zuendel. Labeled a "Holocaust denier," Ernst has been in jail for
almost four years without being charged with a violent crime or
without even being convicted of a non-violent one. He is 67 year old.

As a six-year old Ernst witnessed the Allied firebombing of Pforzheim
in which ten to twenty thousand German civilians were killed. As a
teenager he became a pacifist; at age 19 he moved to Canada to avoid
serving in the post-war German army. In Canada he worked as a
graphic artist and publisher specializing in 20th century German
history. Many of the books he republished questioned the Holocaust,
such as the underground booklet Did Six Million Really Die? by
Richard Harwood. Others he merely distributed, like The Rudolf
Report by Germar Rudolf, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of
Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack, and Jewish
Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question by David Duke. He
also sold books on UFOs and alternative medicines.

Ernst's interest in history and revisionism led him to dispute and
challenge specific "facts" about the Holocaust. He claimed

1. that Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic
cleansing, not extermination

2. that there were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third
Reich. (He did not deny

that there were gas chambers used for disinfection.)

3. there were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the alleged 55
million who died in WWII

Over the years such firmly held beliefs expressed in writing and
later on his wife's Internet site (
<> ) caused him to be charged with
incitement. He was tried twice in Canada. In the middle of the
second trial in 1988, Ernst sent the first forensic team to
Auschwitz. It was this "Leuchter Expedition" and the subsequent
Leuchter Report that he believed revolutionized Holocaust
revisionism, taking it beyond the "he said, she said..." testimonies
and into the realm of solid forensic science.

Such endeavors made him the target of those who protect the standard
Holocaust narrative. He survived three assassination attempts,
including by arson and pipe bomb, and although he lived in Canada for
42 years, he was never able to gain Canadian citizenship even though
immigration officials had described his application as "flawless."

While some consider his views to border on heresy, freedom of speech
in both the United States and Canada protected his right to publish
and distribute the truth as he sees it. But neither our Bill of
Rights nor the pleadings of his lawyers could prevent his being
rendered by the United States, forced back to Canada, and then on to
Germany where denying or revising certain aspects of the Holocaust is
a crime.

The Latest Incarceration

On February 5, 2003, Ernst was arrested at his home in the mountain
region of eastern Tennessee. He was seized on the pretext that he
had violated immigration regulations, or had missed an interview date
with US immigration authorities, even though he had entered the US
legally, was married to an American citizen, had been checked out by
the FBI, had been given a health check, a work permit, and a social
security number, had no criminal record, and was trying to secure
status as a permanent legal resident.

After being held for two weeks, he was deported to Canada. For the
next two years -- from mid-February 2003 to March 1, 2005 -- he was
held in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre, on
the charge that he was a threat to national security. Like others
who suffer rendition, there was no bail, no public trial, and no
appeal. His mail was censored and the lights in his cell were kept
on day and night.

On March 1, 2005 Ernst was put in handcuffs and leg irons on a
private jet and deported from Canada to Germany where he has been
held as an Untersuchungsgefangener or a prisoner under investigation.
As in Canada, bail was again denied. On June 29, 2005, the state's
prosecutor, Mr. Grossman, formally charged him with inciting "hatred"
by having written or distributed texts that "approve, deny or play
down" genocidal actions carried out by Germany's wartime regime, and
which "denigrate the memory of the [Jewish] dead." The trial began
on November 8, 2005, eight months after he arrived in Germany.

Ernst is confined to his cell 22 ¾ hours per day. He has no access
to phone or Internet and he may not communicate anything about the
trial. He is able to receive two 30-minute visits per month, but all
conversations must be in German or must be conducted through a
prison-approved translator.

Still Ernst remains upbeat and convinced that he has made a
contribution to the truth surrounding WWII and the Holocaust. He
does not deny that millions of people suffered at the hands of the
Nazis, including millions of Jews, who were worked to death and
suffered from disease (especially typhus) and who were often
deliberately murdered both inside and outside of concentration camps.
But he does not regard Jewish suffering as unique. He considers his
efforts to tell the truth about the Holocaust as ground breaking and
is satisfied to let others continue the research.

Ernst believes that Zionists treat the Holocaust as a sword and a
shield to deflect criticism of their racist quest to build a Jewish
state in Palestine, a state in which over half the people today are
not Jewish, "the state" being defined as all the land currently
controlled by Israel, including West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. He regards himself as a political prisoner of Zionists who
try to erase his contributions and punish him with defamation and

A Day in Court

An admirer once described Ernst Zuendel as "an outgoing, good-humored
man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and
practical ability. He maintains this infectious spirit even under
very trying conditions. He is an unusually alert and sensitive
individual with a keen understanding of human nature. He inspires
confidence, loyalty and affection." On December 7, 2006 I witnessed
his trial in Mannheim and found this description to be uncannily

On that particular day those in the courtroom included Ernst, three
judges, three jurors, a court reporter, three defense attorneys, four
armed guards, twenty-four spectators, and one prosecutor, Mr.
Grossman. Ernst wore an old blue suit with a red tie; he was
attentive; he often smiled approvingly when something was said with
which he agreed. The guards were friendly but disinterested. Facing
the court, all the participants sat on the left hand side, except the
state prosecutor who sat all by himself at a table on the right side.
The jurors and the court reporter sat in line with the judges on an
elevated platform along the front and the spectators sat in rows
along the back wall. No media were present.

The spectators were clearly there for Ernst. Most were German men in
their late 60s or 70s; there were also a couple of younger women.
Several men commented that they were proud of having been to every
court session with Ernst over the past 21 months. Although they had
not met him personally, they were following his trial closely and
were supportive of him. They were helpful to my American Jewish
colleague and me and guided us through the security outside the
courtroom and made sure we got front row seats so that we could fully
appreciate the courtroom experience. Many spoke English and had sons
and daughters in America. Most were retired but one younger man had
taken time off from work to witness this day of the trial.

Ernst and his attorneys have not been allowed to discuss or challenge
the veracity of the facts about the Holocaust, including facts that
Ernst disputes and about which he would like to submit scientific
evidence and expert-witness testimony. Offenkundigkeit, the German
version of judicial notice, precludes it. The court is only allowed
to consider if Ernst denied these particular facts and if so, when
and where and how. During our visit, one of Ernst's attorneys,
84-year old Dr. Herbert Schaller[1], read a lengthy and impassioned
statement saying that he believed in the same facts of the Holocaust
as does Ernst and by so stating this he too is guilty. He ended by
saying that in over 53 years of practicing law he had until now never
been guilty of the same crime as the man he was charged to defend.
The head judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, appeared tired, agitated, and
ready to explode.

Visiting Ernst in prison

It is not easy to visit Ernst Zuendel. He is allowed only two
30-minute visits per month, one hour if the visitor travels more than
100 km. Though I wrote and faxed the prison a dozen times beginning
in February 2006, the answer was always the same, no answer. But
through his wife, Ingrid, Ernst knew that a colleague and I wished to
visit him and he asked the judge to grant us permission to do so.
Finally on September 23rd Judge Meinerzhagen told Ernst to tell his
wife to tell me to fax him and formally request a visit. We were to
each include a copy of our résumés and a copy of our passports.

Another month passed before we received the visitation permission.
Once we had that document, stamped and signed by the judge, we were
able to make an appointment at the prison in Mannheim.

On arrival the guards filled out a long form on each of us. They
took our passports and had us put everything else in a locker. Then
we were searched, warned against speaking English, and told to cross
the courtyard to the visitation rooms. There we sat on one side of a
table with a plastic shield in the middle; they brought Ernst from
the other side and allowed him to sit across from us while a guard
sat at the end to monitor both parties. We asked if it was
permissible to shake hands and the guard smiled and said that would
be all right.

Ernst began by asking us to contact his wife and tell her that he
looked well and that he missed her. He had not been in contact with
her for several weeks and he was worried that she would be worried
about him. Then he asked if my colleague's family had discouraged
him from making this trip. My friend understood what Ernst was
asking, but he was unable to answer in German, so I had to tell Ernst
that indeed pressure had been put on us both not to have anything to
do with a Holocaust "denier."

We asked Ernst about life in prison and his relationship with guards
and other prisoners. He described a typical day and told us that he
had only limited contact with other prisoners, but that they were
friendly towards him. So too were the guards, especially because he
followed the rules and was a threat to no one. He often asked the
man monitoring our visit to corroborate what he was saying, almost as
if to include him in the conversation.

He talked about history and philosophy and about recent books he had
read. He praised the prison library, which he said was markedly
better than the one in the US jail in Tennessee, which had "only Tom
Clancy novels and one old book on the US Presidents." I had been
forced to leave my notes outside and though I had many questions, I
was not allowed to ask him anything about the trial, not even the
names of his attorneys.

The hour passed quickly and the guard soon told us we would have to
go. When we stood we looked questioningly at the guard and he nodded
to us. We shook hands with Ernst, slowly, he taking each of our
hands in both of his. They were big, soft, and warm; although Ernst
is only six years older than I, he reminded me of my father saying
goodbye when we last parted.

Holocaust Denial

Contrary to the warning given to people who currently tour Auschwitz,
"Holocaust denial" is not infectious. In many ways the term is used
as an epithet to discredit and demean those who question facts
surrounding the Holocaust. Nor is Holocaust denial anti-Semitic;
there are many Jews who question facts about the Holocaust and many
more who object to its being used to elevate Jewish suffering above
that of others.[2] Treating those who question the Holocaust as
heretics reveals the degree to which the Holocaust itself has become
a religion, a faith to be accepted and worshiped with spectacular
memorials, best-selling books, and mandatory curricula for school

Ernst believes that Jewish groups have wanted him jailed for
promoting views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to
its interests. He claims that the only sustained and
institutionalized efforts to imprison him have come from this lobby,
which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish
Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the
League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith (with the Anti-Defamation
League, its counterpart in the US). It is noteworthy that even the
ACLU refused to defend his right of free speech.[3]

Ernst Zuendel is neither a monster nor a heretic. He is a man with
strong convictions and the courage to express them. He views himself
not as a Holocaust "denier," but rather as a Holocaust revisionist.
For that he has been rendered by the United States, which otherwise
professes to protect the right of free speech and the writ of habeas
corpus, and by Canada, both countries in which he broke no law. To
force him back to his birth country to be tried for a "crime" which
he never committed in Germany is unjust. Those who would incarcerate
revisionists like Ernst Zuendel and hold them, without bail, for
years on end to drain them of their resources and to silence them as
"Prisoners of Zion" could well be labeled as "justice deniers."

Daniel McGowan

Professor Emeritus

Hobart and William Smith Colleges <>

December 28, 2006


[1] Upon his release from prison in Austria on December 21, 2006, the
English historian David Irving said, "I have the fine oratory of my
84-year-old defense lawyer Dr. Herbert Schaller to thank for the
unexpected victory in the appeal court. I spent over 400 days in
solitary confinement in Austria's oldest prison, sentenced in
February to three years' jail for an opinion I expressed in two talks
seventeen years ago."

[2] Of the 63 participants at the recent conference in Tehran, six
were Orthodox rabbis.

[3] Perhaps Benjamin Ginsburg is correct when he infers that the ACLU
is an organization, which promotes Jewish interests. "In the realm
of lobbying and litigation, Jews ... play leadership roles in such
important public interest groups as the American Civil Liberties
Union and Common Cause.... Their role in American economic, social,
and political institutions has enabled Jews to wield considerable
influence in the nation's public life." ("The Fatal Embrace: Jews
and the State," p. 1)

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

They met in Teheran By Israel Shamir

Post#34 » Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:57 pm

This essay was written and sent out a couple of weeks ago, but as
many of my readers know, I once again battled censorship and could
not send out missives. In the meantime, David Irving is now free -
perhaps as a result of the Iranian Conference - but there are still
three high profile revisionists/activists in prison, and pressure
needs to be applied on Germany's vassals to the Holocaust Lobby.

Read and distribute widely, please. Remember Germar Rudolf, Horst
Mahler, and Ernst Zundel!


They met in Teheran

By Israel Shamir

The Teheran Holocaust Conference caused quite a storm in the world
media. One might ask: what's so special about that? There are so many
holocaust events and holocaust museums and holocaust festivals,
sometimes attracting presidents and prime ministers galore, so why
did the Teheran (or Tehran) conference draw so much attention and
criticism; why were the White House, Frau Merkel, the Vatican and the
EC willing to take some valuable time to condemn this small gathering
in far-away Iranian capital?

The difference is that all other gatherings were amen-sayers
accepting the official version provided by Jewish organisations as
the Holy Writ given to Moses on Mt Sinai. The official version of the
Holocaust goes even farther than Writ: you may deny Immaculate
Conception and Resurrection of Christ, you may besmirch Muhammad, but
if you have any doubt that six million of Jews were executed by
Germans in gas chambers within the framework of a total annihilation
project you may find yourself in a jail in Germany, Austria, France,
Switzerland and other 'free' countries. The Teheran Conference is the
first one ever to deal critically with the sad events of the World
War Two.

One does not have to be a fan of Hitler to approve of the conference.
What is a souse for a goose is souse for a gander. The Jews do not
hesitate to deny their atrocities. The Guardian reported that they
targeted "the respected French TV correspondent, Charles Enderlin,
whose Palestinian cameraman filmed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura being
shot and killed, as his father tried to shield him at the start of
the second intifada. Enderlin accused Israeli troops of shooting and
killing the boy. French supporters of Israel went online to claim the
report was a distortion based on faked footage. His network, France
2, responded with legal action and, last month, in the first of four
individual cases, a French court found the organiser of a self-styled
media watchdog website guilty of libel.

"Another online target has been the TV footage of bloodshed on a Gaza
beach earlier this year. A Palestinian girl was seen screaming as she
saw the bodies of dead family members killed by what Palestinians
allege was Israeli shellfire. When [Stewart Purvis, the
editor-in-chief of ITN] mentioned the impact of these pictures at
last week's conference, members of the audience shouted "staged". One
person came up to him afterwards to suggest that the family had
somehow died somewhere else and that their bodies had been moved to
the beach to be filmed. Where, for instance, was all the blood? He
pointed out that he had seen everything that the cameraman had shot
and that some pictures were too gruesome to be shown."

More importantly, every freedom-of-speech loving liberal should
regret that even important historians are not free to express their
views on the Holocaust issue. David Irving is in jail, and this week
Germar Rudolf was taken to a German court chained hand and foot after
he was deported from the US for publishing his book doubting the
official Holocaust dogma. Such a taboo clamours to be broken. I wrote
of it at length in 2001, as the first conference scheduled to take
place in Beirut was cancelled by the Lebanese yielding to severe
pressure of the US. Then as now, the revisionists had much hope that
their case would finally be heard.

It did not happen. If the conference organisers believed they could
break the taboo and reach millions, they were mistaken. Though the
world media has churned out thousands of news items connected to the
Conference, they were practically identical, containing local
official condemnation and the predictable Jewish reaction.
Practically none of the reports and talks given in Tehran ever made
it to the mass media. The conference participants were smeared as
'racist antisemites' though there were quite a few Jews, venerable
Rabbis in their black hats and long coats, revolted by the Zionist
privatisation of the World War tragedy.

If anything, the conference proved that the holocaust dogma is a
basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass
media described by Noam Chomsky as "the manufacture of consent Stalin
could only dream of Š whose discipline, and uniformity, are really
impressive". This media syndicate is the enemy of free people
everywhere, and it carries on a relentless war against Iran and other
independently-minded nations.

Just one case: a Jewish-owned Canadian paper, The National Post
claimed that "in a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear
a Star of David insignia, Iran's parliament has reportedly passed a
law requiring Jews to wear colour-coded badges". This was a sheer
lie: Iran is home to 30,000 Jews who are doing fine, and do not plan
to emigrate to Israel. They receive preferential treatment, and
nobody forces them to wear a badge or anything else. The Post
withdrew the canard a few days later, and apologised, but this news
item was repeated ad nauseam in thousands of papers and blogs, while
the apology remained on its sixth page.

Our friend and my countryman Gabriel Ash wrote in the Dissident Voice:

"The Holocaust is the most effective weapon in the hands of those
bent on manufacturing a "clash of civilizations." The "lesson" of the
holocaust is good enough to justify the NATO bombing of civilian
targets in Yugoslavia, the genocidal U.S. occupation of Iraq,
Israel's massive bombing of Beirut, a future nuclear war against
Iran, etc. The Hollowcaust is the ideology par excellence of Global
Apartheid. The Hollowcaust acts like a quirky and capricious
divinity, rejecting one comparison here, accepting an equally valid
or invalid one there. It is a partisan divinity, a god that always
blesses 'us' and curses 'them,' even as it simultaneously demands to
be worshipped by all humanity and in the name of all humanity."

So far so good. Ash understands that "under such circumstances, the
denial of the holocaust is rooted in the desire to pin down the
Hollowcaust". But then he opens the second front against the

"The most charitable thing that can be said about the organizers of
this pathetic holocaust conference is that they are fools. The
message of Hollowcaust hawkers is only amplified by such idiocies as
the Iranian conference."

And here we part ways. Iranians had a good reason for organising the
conference. The Holocaust is indeed well integrated in the prevalent
discourse as a justification of [rich and powerful] minority rights
over [oppressed] majority needs. But its success and its integration
show that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated
in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine by
Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this captivity of
free discourse.

These men can wield their lethal machine with the ease of a Jedi
wielding his sword. They compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and forbid
comparison of Israel to the Nazis, they besmirch Vladimir Putin as a
KGB assassin and do not even report that Israeli courts of law
consider assassinations legitimate, they made a spot on Monica
Lewinsky's dress more important than the rivers of blood poured by
George Bush, they turned respectable American scholars Mearsheimer
and Walt into skinheads, and now they ferociously attack James Baker
for his disengagement plan. They can bloody well do anything. They
are almost omnipotent.

Our friend James Petras recently published an impressive book on
Israel's Power in the US. But Israel's power is just a mere
reflection of real Jewish power in the West, which is based - not on
Israeli tanks, but on Jewish think-tanks; not on Israeli nukes, but
on Jewish news. Unless the Jewish hold on discourse is broken, the
West will keep sending its sons to follow the Pied Piper of Hamelin
to the streets of Baghdad and to the hills of Lebanon.

Iranians came to conclusion that there is no chance to come to
agreement with this world-wide Jewish media syndicate. There is no
way to get to peace terms. One has to fight back, attacking the
deepest sacral dogmas of their control. If this dogma were to
collapse, the Jewish hold on discourse would be broken and the Jewish
state would disappear just as the USSR did, said President

This comparison calls for exegesis: the USSR was 'one state', a state
where various peoples lived together as equals; the Jewish state is
essentially 'two states', a rich state of Jews controlling the poor
state of natives. Its dissolution will create 'one state' in
Palestine; it will reverse the trend started with the Soviet Union's
dissolution. Then Iran, and all of the East, will be able to dwell
safely without fear of American and Israeli nukes.

This is the reason why Iran hosted the conference. Nobody - and I do
mean nobody, including British, French, American, German, Russian
leaders - really cares about the victims of a war long past, Jewish
or otherwise; they pay tribute to the Holocaust as nations pay
tribute to their vanquisher. Iran has refused to pay this tribute;
when will the rest of you follow their courageous example?

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Latest on this travesty 4-13-7

Post#35 » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:38 pm


Cincinnati, Ohio--Two of three judges who denied his federal court
appeal should voluntarily disqualify themselves because of improper
associations with his federal government adversary, maverick
publisher Ernst Zundel says in a petition filed April 12 with the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati seeking a rehearing on his United
States habeas corpus case. The court denied his bid for a habeas
corpus fact-finding hearing in February 2007.

Zundel, a German national married to a United States citizen but
currently jailed in Germany, is asking for either a rehearing by a
new three-judge panel because of bias, or a rehearing en banc by a
larger group of judges because of the critical constitutional issues
his case raises, says his California attorney, Bruce Leichty.

In his request for rehearing Zundel asserts that the three-judge
panel which denied his appeal failed to address his argument that his
habeas rights had been unconstitutionally suspended, and failed to
address the implications of "converting" his appeal into a petition
for review under the REAL ID Act of 2006.

Under the REAL ID Act, immigrants hit with a deportation order are
allowed only "one bite at the apple" consisting of a request to a
federal appeals court for review of legal issues, notes Leichty. "The
impatience of Congress with seemingly interminable federal court
review of deportation orders was understandable at the time the REAL
ID Act was passed in 2006," notes Leichty, "but the REAL ID Act also
assumed that immigrants hit with deportation orders already had had
administrative hearings and due process in front of an immigration
judge. That never happened in Ernst Zundel's case."

Leichty says among its errors, the Cincinnati appeals court assigned
an illegal immigrant status to Zundel that he did not have,
overlooked the expiration in May 2000 of a congressional program
which prevented German visitors from asserting their rights, and also
failed to address the fact that Zundel in October 2000 had been given
work authorization and the right to travel and return to the United
States, after his wife, Ingrid Rimland Zundel, petitioned for his
permanent residence as her spouse. The court further ignored the fact
that INS had a policy of not deporting immigrants awaiting permanent
residence through a U.S. citizen spouse petition, according to

The Zundels were living in Tennessee and awaiting an immigration
interview in 2003 when federal agents arrested him without a warrant,
just a few months after the FBI had found that Zundel's conduct was
protected under U.S. law and that he would likely obtain permanent
residence. Upon his arrest Ernst Zundel promptly filed a petition for
habeas corpus, but a federal judge in Knoxville twice disavowed any
jurisdiction, and Zundel was whisked across the Canadian border while
his appeal was still pending; the appeals court has now refused to
require a hearing despite precedents requiring such hearings for
deported immigrants when they are barred from reentering the United
States, says Leichty.

Zundel discovered after his arrest that two letters sent by his
Tennessee attorney to INS about rescheduling his permanent residence
interview were missing from the INS file. The arresting authorities
used the pretext of a "missed hearing" when they arrested Zundel,
says Leichty.

"Here is a man who never had his day in any sort of court before
being carted out of this country to face indefinite imprisonment in
Canada and Germany under laws that Americans have historically
rejected," says Leichty.

Zundel spent two years in solitary confinement in Canada while the
Canadian Interior Ministry attempted to prove, through use of secret
evidence, that he was a national security risk to that country, and
he was then convicted in Germany in February 2007 of a speech crime
after Canada deported him. He is currently sentenced to serve a
five-year prison term in Germany, but plans to appeal that sentence.

Leichty states that because of the label of "Holocaust denier"
attached to Zundel and the stigma associated with it, it has been
difficult or impossible for Zundel to get a fair trial in any of the
countries where he has been imprisoned. In Germany Zundel was not
allowed to present evidence to rebut the government's contention
regarding "the Holocaust," although the exact meaning of that term
and the limits of acceptable discourse regarding the events of World
War II remained ambiguous, says Leichty.

The judge presiding at Zundel's "security certificate" trial in
Canada was a former advisor to the Canadian national intelligence
service, which provided the secret evidence used to convict Zundel
there--although the Canadian Supreme Court has since found that the
use of secret evidence in such proceedings is unconstitutional.

The judge presiding at Zundel's trial in Knoxville found that he had
written "anti-semitic" materials, a finding repeated by the
Cincinnati appeals court in the first sentence of its February 2007
opinion, despite the fact that Zundel has always disclaimed
anti-semitic views and despite the fact that Zundel's political
opinions should have been irrelevant for the purposes of immigration
issues, says Leichty.

"And now Zundel has been victimized yet again by federal appeals
court judges who should have disqualified themselves from hearing his
case because of partisanship," claims Leichty. One of the judges,
Clinton appointee Martha Daughtrey, has a daughter working as an
Assistant United States Attorney in Tennessee under Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales, the respondent named in Zundel's case and also the
officer heading the department litigating Zundel's habeas corpus

The presiding judge in Zundel's U.S. appeal, a 2003 Bush appointee
named Deborah Cook, was forced to issue a public apology in January
2007 for having tried to make a prohibited campaign contribution to
the then-senior Republican Senator from Ohio, Michael DeWine, who was
engaged in 2006 in a fierce reelection battle with his Democratic
challenger. Investigative journalists at first
uncovered the prohibited contribution and said that Cook initially
tried to blame it on her lawyer husband before finally conceding that
she didn't know such contributions were prohibited, because she
missed "judge's school." President George Bush twice flew to
Cincinnati to appear at fund-raisers for DeWine, one of which was
held at the home of the brother of another Ohio federal judge.

Documentation of all those facts has been presented to the Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati as part of Zundel's petition for rehearing,
says Leichty, who notes that he didn't discover the judges'
associations until after both judges showed their predisposition at
oral argument in January 2007.

"Clearly when Judge Cook made that campaign contribution to a Bush
crony she showed a total lack of understanding of the fact that she
was obliged to leave partisan politics behind her when she was
appointed to the federal bench," adds Leichty. "How then can a
controversial political dissident deported by the Bush administration
have any confidence in that judge?"

Leichty notes that in early April he visited with Zundel at the
prison in Mannheim, Germany where he is confined. Despite appeals to
international law, German judicial authorities refused to allow the
two to talk confidentially, placing an "interpreter" in the room
despite the fact that English has always been the language that
Leichty and Zundel communicate in.

"Ernst's spirit is unbroken and he believes he will be vindicated by
history in all three of the countries where he has been persecuted,"
says Leichty. "My immediate hope is that he will also be vindicated
by the judicial system in at least the one country which still claims
to protect free speech and habeas corpus and due process."


Posts: 1087

Post#36 » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:33 pm

The feudal system is seriously fucked up. The assholes in state legislatures and in Congress pass thousands of bullshit laws they hold us to, many victimless crime against the state, yet we can't hold them to the simple rules set down for them. It's time to water that tree.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest