Holocaust Denier Ernst Zundel Arrives in Germany, Taken Into Custody

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB38EKUS5E.html

TORONTO (AP) - A white supremacist was deported from Canada on Tuesday and immediately taken into custody by authorities in his native Germany, where he faces charges of denying the Holocaust and inciting hatred via the Internet, immigration officials said.

Ernst Zundel, 65, author of "The Hitler We Loved and Why," was turned over to German authorities, said Helen Leslie, a spokeswoman for Canadian Border Services Agency in Ottawa. "We are committed to removing people who are found to be a security threat as soon as practical," she said.

German authorities had said he would be arrested for decades of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany.

Zundel was arrested by German police at Frankfurt airport and taken to the southwestern city of Mannheim, where he was to spend his first night back in his homeland in police custody, local police spokesman Elmar Ludwig told The Associated Press. His arraignment was set for Wednesday.

more

[sea dee]

1. hope the Nation of Islam is in German prisons

"The Hitler We Loved and Why,"

:crazy:

[Lithos]

2. Most excellent!

This one is dangerous with his loony ravings.

L-

[The Straight Story]

4. Dangerous how?

I don't like the guy myself, I have read some of his stuff a long time ago, but I am not sure how one would see him as dangerous.

I am open to the idea though, so please explain it more. What does it mean to hold a 'dangerous' view, and where do we draw the line with regards to the government and their role in stopping people from promoting a belief they hold (and perhaps note the term belief, as I think that is all he has....)?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Dangerous assertions

His lies are based in misconceptions, fraud, outright lies, and ties to extremist groups. Basically, he 'pours gasoline' on a burning fire. This is why he is very dangerous. This is an interesting read: Ernst Zundel. It is a tad long, but you can skip some parts.

He is what I call a "border-liner." We walks along a very fine line, but it is when his toe cross the line that people jumped at the opportunity to prosecute him.

He is scum.

[tinnypriv]

21. Who decides "loony"?

The State?

[Lithos]

22. Tis my opinion

However, you are free to argue otherwise if you wish.

L-

[tinnypriv]

23. No, I agree, he is loony

And an anti-semitic scumbag.

But our agreement in that doesn't mean the guy gets locked up. That only happens if we also agree that the State should have the power to determine historical truth and punish deviation from that "truth".

Apparently you believe that should be so (note: that is the precise issue here), but I don't. As you say, you're free to argue otherwise, but I'd be interested in seeing an argument that isn't a radical violation of free speech principles. I don't see any here.

[leftynyc]

43. Actually it does mean he gets locked up

Denying the holocaust in Germany is against the law.

[Lithos]

46. I think it's a bit more than that

He has actively associated himself with groups which have conducted hate crimes of a more violent nature and served as their ideological figurehead.

This goes well beyond the idea of some intellectual discussion of Holocaust Denial and any free speech association and distribution, but rather someone who uses such speech to incite action of a hateful and violent sort. That I feel is well within the purview of the State to step into. There is such a thing as a Right of Free Speech, but along with any right comes responsibility which his actions have shown his disregard for.

L-

[The Straight Story]

3. This could get interesting......(is he really a 'security threat'?)

How have his personal views harmed anyone? I am not totally up to speed on this guy (though I have seen his stuff elsewhere from time to time and not wholly ignorant of him) but should holding a view not popular (or, not mainstream some might say) land you in jail or trouble??

So he is wacko by the standards of the mainstream press, I am sure many here could fall into that category (ok, if not many - then some). In this sense, even though we disagree on different things, how far removed are those who hold conspiracy theories about 9/11 and this guy?

This thread could get interesting :).....

[NNN0LHI]

7. "This thread could get interesting :)....."

I ain't touching this one without sleeping on it first.

Don

[The_Nick]

5. Pretty scary.

I don't deny the holocaust. However, I also don't support arresting people for expressing their views on the internet. It's a turning point, because if denying the holocaust can be championed as a hate crime, so could denying the Bush mandate at some point. Very slippery slope.

Now, if the guy was saying "kill this and that person" I would take offense, but historical analysis, however unpopular or wrong it may be, is not a crime.

[NJmaverick]

38. It does sound like something out of 1984

Thought police with the power of arrest.

[leftynyc]

44. You're using US Law as a barometer

As stated above, denying the holocaust in Germany is against the law.

[The_Nick]

50. ...

However, it sets an international tone, and not just about the holocaust. Imagine if it was US law to not question 9/11, or Pearl Harbor. That would fly in the face of the first amendment, and I would be against it. It doesn't matter that it was in SOCIALIST Germany, it's still wrong.

PS: What year was holocaust denial deemed a "crime" and why?

[MrSlayer]

6. I'm glad we have the First Amendment.

While this guy is obviously a whackadoo I don't see where he's actually committed a crime. It seems silly to lock people up for simply thinking a certain way.

[CHIMO]

10. Question

Why was he kicked out of the US?

[MrSlayer]

11. A good question.

I don't know.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. All I have found is the following:

In February 2001, Zundel left Canada for the United States. He lived in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, until visa violations prompted the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport him back to Canada in February 2003. I don't know what those violations were.

[CHIMO]

15. What I Found

Is not very specific but is the following.

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel wants back into Canada
Last Updated Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:26:33 EST
CBC News
THOROLD, ONT. - The notorious Holocaust denier, Ernst Zundel, has applied for refugee status in Canada.

Zundel left Canada in 2001 after the Canadian Human Rights Commission tribunal forced him to shut down a Web site that vilified Jewish people.

"He had renounced his permanent residency status. He had thumbed his nose at a Canadian human rights tribunal. He had hoped never to see this country again. He is in a parcel of trouble as a result of that," said Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Now his U.S. visa has expired, so his life in Tennessee, where friends say he wrote a newsletter and oversaw a Web site, has come to an end.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/02/20/ernstzundel030220.html

Ernst Zundel - Profile

February 2003:
U.S. immigration officials hand Zundel over to Canadian authorities because he violated the terms of his stay in the United States. In turn, Citizenship and Immigration Canada files a national security certificate requesting Zundel to be removed from Canada. "They decided that they cut their losses and they are going to ship me off to the fatherland as soon as possible," Zundel said. He is wanted in Germany on hate crime charges.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/zundel/

It appears that the new laws, equivalent to the Patriot Act, were utilized to have him deported.

However, as a refuge claimant, I don't see how that claim could be justified.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Good info!

Thanks for that information! I couldn't really find why he was expelled. My guess is we have reached our quota of racists fucks and we don't need any more! :)

[solinvictus]

8. This is fucked up..

Thoughtcrime, pure and simple.

[saigon68]

16. The people who approve of this prosecution here

Better be careful what else they say.

It will come back to haunt them when the first amendment is gutted by the New Neocon Judiciary.

[despairing optimist]

9. This guy has a future in hunting down WMD in rogue states

[Spazito]

14. He was never a citizen of Canada, he was a landed

immigrant, he fled to the US asking for refuge status, was denied and deported back to Canada and was subsequently deported back to his home country and arrested because he had broken Germany's hate laws. It is as simple as that.

[Kellanved]

18. Again: I am shocked by some poster's argumentation

There is a large supply of possible Champions for Freedom of Speech - I'd not touch this one with a stick.

Here we have a Nazi fraudster, accused of sedition and possibly incitement to murder. Also he is believed to have connections to the radical Islamic scene.

He has been playing hide-and-seek with Canadian authorities for two decades now. And got rich while in the meantime, by selling his garbage to customers all over the world.
Finally, after two decades he got sent back.

He is - in short - a Nazi Asshole. And yes: probably the evidence won't be sufficient for a prison term.



Freedom of Speech has limits, that's the case in the US, in Canada and in Germany.
The question I have to ask: is the freedom of speech of resident aliens in the US strongly enough protected to hinder deportation for two decades? I don't think so.

[Dogmudgeon]

20. "Freedom of Speech has limits ... "

Five of the most chilling words that can be spoken in the USA.

In fact, Bush said exactly the same words, several times.

American freedom won't be killed by an overnight lockdown on the part of the Bush Administration -- it will die from a million small cuts, all of which are numbed with cries of "Nazi!", "Pedophile!", "Terrorist!" or Conspiracy Theory!"

Zundel is a penny-ante schmuck in the game of modern fascism.

--p!

[Kellanved]

26. AFAIR he said "ought"

And the simple truth is : there are limits, there always have been limits and there will always be limits.
Maybe it would be more acceptable for you to say "there are things not covered by freedom of speech"?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. It all boils down to what implementation of Freedom of Speech you prefer

My, I like the American one best.

The deportation itself seems to have been perfectly reasonable.

[solinvictus]

48. Sure freedom of speech has limits..

I guess you're in favor of the Chimpster's "Free Speech Zones", then? Hell, why not include political dissent as some vague form of "hate speech", whatever the fuck that means.

[sweetheart]

19. disturbing, even though this guy is a lowlife

I imagine 20 years from now, being deported from the UK back to my
"homeland" (USA) away from my home in scotland for writing against the
drugs war, or against war in general.

The precedent of sending poeple across borders to be charged with
crimes that are not crimes in the state where they are living is
a bad one.

We should then start deporting fundamentalist christians to saudi arabia
to be executed, because its illegal there... this slippery slope is
no victory for decency... it is a gross violation of sovereignty and
individual rights, no matter that the person is a poor representation
of a human being.

[Vladimir]

24. Good

As the old Yugoslav chant went: "Death to fascism! Freedom to the people!" I have no qualms with restricting freedom of speech for Nazi assholes who try to incite hatred...

PS One might note that people like David Irving, who deny the Holocaust but do not actively incite hatred, do not get arrested (Irving lost a libel trial, but that's a different matter). Freedom of speech ends when you make threats, in the US as elsewhere...

[tinnypriv]

29. So

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be arrested for "inciting hatred" the next time he steps foot in the U.S. because he said "may god avenge his death" at the euglogy of a Jewish far-right pro-ethnic cleanser?

Or maybe Bibi Netenyahu, who called Israeli Arabs a "demographic threat"?

Or maybe we can arrest the Prime Minister of Italy, who denied Italy's part in the Holocaust the next time he's in New York?

Or maybe bust into Congress, and arrest a guy who calls for dropping nuclear weapons on Syria?

Any qualms?

[Vladimir]

31. We both know that heads of state are protected by

immunity in most countries, and whether or not that should be the case is a debate for another day. The pertinent question is this: are you ok with someone turning up on a street corner and telling every white person he meets that they should kill all the jews they can? Because that, by all accounts, is what this guy was advocating, and doing it in a book or on a webpage does not greant him immunity from persecution.

[tinnypriv]

33. Sure

I'm perfectly okay with that, as long as the guy isn't blocking a pavement, or maybe shouting in a residential area.

If he's giving out his Nazi stuff like that, no problem for me, just as I have no problem with Ze'ev Boim (not a head of state) saying that Arabs have "genetic defects" in public in Israel.

I also have no problem with Israeli settlers selling monopoly games where the "bonus cards" are replaced with things like "Your settlement employs Arabs workers, lose 50 shekels" (with an accompanying "dirty Arab" picture).

If we're going to start arresting people for "inciting hatred", we'd better start building more jails - they're going to get real full, real quick.

[Vladimir]

34. Fair enough

most of Europe does arrest people for inciting hatered, and the line is treaded carefully - as I said above, David Irving is not in jail, and he denies the Holocaust regularly. The line is generally drawn at the point where someone is found to have close ties with a group that carries out actual physical attacks on a regular basis. You can't blame an author for his readership, but you can blame a ringleader for the ring.

[tinnypriv]

36. That's true about Europe

For example, in my country (UK), the head of the BNP (Nick Griffin) was recently arrested by the police for "inciting racial hatred", which is a law on the statute here. That's one of the reasons I praise America for being more civilised...

As for "close ties", that's different. If somebody is providing direction and/or material support to those who carry out crimes (and verbal or written support is not "material support") - say, physical attacks, they should be arrested and put in jail.

That's not the issue under discussion here, because if there was any evidence of that, this guy would be arrested under those other laws. He's not - he's arrested for deviating from the State's Version Of History, which is outrageous.

[Vladimir]

37. I live in the UK too

and the arrest of Griffin is one of the better moments of the last year IMO. The BNP is actively involved, and has been throughout its history, in carrying out and facilitating attacks. I will not shed tears over them.

This guy did have links, at least according to the judge at his trial:

The Ministers have provided considerable evidence, that cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security, that Mr. Zundel has extensive contacts within the violent racist and extremist movement. Mr. Zundel stated in his testimony that he knew the following people slightly, or had professional contacts with them, or had interviewed them as a reporter. Information showed, rather, that he had dealt with them a great deal more, in some cases had funded their activities, and generally had maintained much closer ties than what he had admitted to in his examination or cross-examination. These contacts include Tom Metzger, Richard Butler, Dennis Mahon and William Pierce in the United States, Christian Worch, Ewald Althans, Gottfied Kuessel and Oliver Bode in Germany, Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium, Terry Long, Christopher Newhook, Tony McAleer, Bernard Klatt, Wolfgang Droege and Marc Lemire in Canada, Nick Griffin in Great Britain and members of South Africa's Afrikaner Resistance Movement.

see more at:

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/zundel.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=zundel

Now I appreciate that there is a problem with 'secret evidence' and I would be a lot happier if this evidence was out in the open for everyone to judge. It is a problem, but does not make me any more sympathetic to this asshole.

[tinnypriv]

40. Like I said

That just means that they have no evidence whatsoever. If there was any evidence of involvement in crimes, he'd be tried under those laws, not the "inciting hatred" ones.

The best they can muster is "extensive contacts", which could mean anything, and probably means nothing. As you say, even they are not disclosed (with the usual excuse that the State resorts to when it is in a bind).

Anyway, I'm not "sympathetic" to this asshole, and he is an asshole. I'm against the violation of his rights.

As for Giffin, we can agree to disagee, since that is not the topic under discussion. Needless to say, I agree with your characterisation of the BNP, who are a bunch of fascist scumbags. I've demonstrated against them in my home town, actually (also protested when a member nearly became Mayor).

That's all irrelevant though, because I am in favor of their rights regardless of their views, because I believe in the rights themselves - namely, that people have a right not to be jailed for violating the State's Version Of History.

[Vladimir]

41. They claim he funded some of these people

Look, I am as frustrated as you are about these 'secret' persecutions. I am active in campaining against them here in the UK, and they do violate about every principle that a state shouold be upholding. Yes, in principle, he should have been tried in the open or not at all, you are right. But he's a Nazi, and when it comes to Nazis, my principle is encompassed in the quote a few posts back...

[tinnypriv]

25. So, presumably,

The next time the Prime Minister of Italy sets foot in Germany, he'll be arrested for Holocaust Denial, since he doesn't think that Mussolini ever killed anybody (when he helped kill plenty of Jews and others).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. Actually that's not denying the Holocaust

That's just saying dictator X wasn't involved in the Holocaust.

Not that I'd mind seeing Berlusconi in the slammer, mind you. :evilgrin:

[tinnypriv]

30. Actually

He said Mussolini never "killed anyone", and he didn't call him a "dictator" either.

If I was to say to you that Aushwitz didn't exist, would you conclude that I wasn't denying the Holocaust, just the Aushwitz part? If so, fair enough, but that's exactly what Berlusconi did, which is at least Holocaust Denial in the sense of David Irving (who also acknowledges large numbers of Jews etc were killed).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. Berlusconi is SERIOUSLY off his rocker

and these allegations are wrong and evil -- but I'm still not sure that can be construed as Holocaust denial. The subtraction of Mussolini's role barely diminishes the scale of the Holocaust. You can't say the same about Auschwitz.

More: I believe Berlusconi is well aware of this and refrains from crossing the line (while going as near it as possible).

Bottom line: he IS a Nazi, but knows exactly HOW much Nazi he can talk without getting busted by the courts.

[Kixel]

35. How can you deny the holocaust?

I am curious how those who deny that it happened explain the photos and video of those who suffered in concentration camps? That and the simple fact that millions of people disappeared…what could they possibly say to make it believable?

I am guessing logic has very little to do with the theories, but it seems so inconceivable that anyone could actually think that it didn’t happen.

That being said, the laws in Germany are very harsh against anti-Semitism. They have a different history, I don’t think we can really judge if it’s right or wrong. If the guy were saying the same things in the US, he’d be protected by the first amendment.

[Hobarticus]

45. Excellent book, called "Denying the Holocaust"...

Very eye-opening, and very chilling.

Simply put, these kooks have an explanation for everything. Facts and figures mean nothing to them.

One denier was arrested for trying to steal an oven door from Auschwitz, so that he could test it for human remains.

BTW, welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[Kixel]

47. Thanks!

I have been lurking forever!

It’s amazing that anyone actually believes these nutcases. What a sad world…I guess that’s what happens when education is a bottom priority.

[Corgigal]

39. They probably don't fear this loony author

they might be fearful, with cause, that he might give followers a justification to do stupid harmful acts. Like whoever probably killed the Federal Judge's family.

I say let him out and follow his ass.

[sybylla]

42. I'm sure this will spur a LTTE from the local holocaust denier

railing about the injustice.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I could disagree. As a supporter of the right to free speech, I can't help but believe that the laws in several European countries that control speech relating to the holocaust and Hitler have crossed a line.

[phrenzy]

49. Man Arrested For Saying U.S. "Deserved" 9/11 Attacks?

How many other things can go down this line of reasoning?

If the man provably incited violence and attacks on other people - then charge him with THAT. Otherwise, it's thought-crime.

Also, can somebody be arrested in the U.S. for, say, smoking hash in Amsterdam?

Maybe we should put laws on the books to arrest people for saying that "slavery never happened" in the U.S.?

This is ridiculous. If you need to have the state muzzle people who say stupid things than your society is in bigger trouble than can be solved.

[NNN0LHI]

51. More like man arrested for saying he doesn't believe 9/11 attacks happened

Wouldn't it?

Don

[Jack_DeLeon]

53. Wasnt there a French author that claimed something similar....

that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon.

I dont see anyone locking him up yet. :eyes:

IMO putting someone in prison simply because they they say, think, or believe differently than you want them to is repulsive.

Prisons should be for real criminals not thought criminals.

[Chomskyite]

52. Very glad we dont have thoughtcrime laws here

I know that my own thinking is pretty damn dangerous (at least I hope it is) for the Bush administration. I would have been locked up January 20th, 2001 had there been laws here against expressing thoughts that are dangerous to the Bush junta or associating myself with groups that do the same.

[Moderator]

54. kick to combine

[emad]

55. Neo-Nazi guru faces racism trial

Times
From Roger Boyes in Berlin

GERMANY pressed charges of inciting racial hatred against an influential Canadian-based neo-Nazi guru yesterday in a case that will test the limits of state action towards internet sites preaching far-Right and anti-Semitic messages.

Herr Zündel, 65, was arrested at Frankfurt airport on Tuesday night after being deported from Canada following almost four decades of legal action to curb his neo-Nazi activities.

Germany issued a warrant for his arrest in February 2003 on charges of stirring up racial hatred and openly denying the Holocaust. If found guilty he could face up to five years in jail. He is being held in Mannheim prison.

Herr Zündel emigrated to Canada in 1958 to dodge German army service. He made his living as a photographer but soon established himself as a prolific publisher of far-Right tracts. His books included The Hitler We Loved and Why, and he published a series of books questioning the Holocaust.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1508559,00.html